28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges no facts supporting a viable federal claim.

Floyd v. Francis-Williams, Esq. · filed 2021-11-10

Therefore, Plaintiff cannot maintain a § 1983 claim against Defendant and fails to establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint invokes no federal-law cause of action and reveals no other federal basis for jurisdiction.

Tandoh v. United States · filed 2021-11-10

Tandoh does not invoke or refer to any federal-law cause of action, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and because the United States is not the citizen of any state, its presence as a defendant to this lawsuit defeats any possibility of jurisdiction resulting from diversity of citizenship, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Bautista Cayman Asset Co. v. Asociación de Miembros de la Policía de Puerto Rico, – F.4th – , 2021 WL 5027511, at *3 (1st Cir. Oct. 29, 2021) (“As a general matter, the presence of the United States as a party destroys diversity jurisdiction, because the United States is not a citizen of any State under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.”).

Section 1331 no longer supplies federal-question jurisdiction when the sole federal claim has been dismissed.

Graves v. City of Palo Alto Police Department · filed 2021-11-12

Because the only claim supplying this Court with subject matter jurisdiction over the action was Graves’s § 1983 claim against the City, dismissal of the City divested the Court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an action that does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Scurlock v. Whole Foods Market · filed 2021-11-16

The instant action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, so federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint invokes federal rights but alleges no facts supporting an arguable federal claim.

Owen, Brenda v. Garland, Jeff · filed 2021-11-17

In her lawsuits, Owen invokes this court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, intending to proceed against all of the defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for violations for various constitutional amendments and federal statutes. However, absent from plaintiff’s complaint are any allegations that might provide defendants with notice of the nature of her claims against them, or any suggestion that her perceived claims have an arguable basis in law.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction that supports denying a motion to remand.

Cox v. Newrez LLC · filed 2021-11-17

The district court properly denied Cox’s motion to remand because the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the action was properly removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint raises no federal civil claim under the Constitution or federal statutes.

Hooli v. Kleim · filed 2021-11-17

I have reviewed the Complaint and it does not raise a federal civil claim for violations of the United States Constitution or federal statutes. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint invokes federal law but its apparent claims arise under state law.

Davilien v. Marseille · filed 2021-11-18

Although Davilien mentions federal-question jurisdiction in his complaint, referencing 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Compl. at 6) and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments (Compl. at 1), the Court can discern no actual federal question from any claim he might have against Marseille. Instead, it appears Davilien’s grievances against Marseille all arise under state law.

Section 1331 requires facts that plausibly support a federal claim; a general reference to the Constitution does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Katchmark v. New Life Christian Church · filed 2021-11-19

Although Ms. Katchmark generally references the Constitution and Bill of Rights in her Complaint, Compl. at 3, the facts alleged—even liberally construed—do not appear to invoke a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction for claims based on the Constitution or federal law; a complaint that leaves the court unable to tell whether it asserts such a claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Washington v. Family Dollar · filed 2021-11-22

The main avenues available to litigants seeking to get into federal court are what are known as “federal question jurisdiction” and “diversity jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28 U.S.C. §1332. The first, for claims based on the federal constitution or violations of federal law, might or might not be applicable here. I cannot tell whether Washington is alleging federal law claims, or instead only claims of battery, assault, or defamation (all of which are state law tort claims).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when plaintiffs assert no federal claim and no state-law claim sufficiently implicates federal law.

Integrated Communications & Technologies, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Financial Services Company · filed 2021-11-22

Plaintiffs do not advance a federal claim, have never sought to advance a federal claim, and have never contended that a state law claim implicates a question of federal law sufficiently to give rise to a federal question. Thus, the Court lacks so-called federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint raises no claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Graham v. Key Point Health Services, Inc. · filed 2021-11-22

The complaint raises no other claims arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. Thus, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for a complaint alleging an unspecified federal crime without showing a private right of action.

Yousif v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2021-11-22

Plaintiff fails to show that he has a private right of action to sue Defendants for any federal crime. ... As indicated in the Court’s show cause order, a liberal reading of Plaintiff’s Complaint does not reveal another basis for subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (“federal question” jurisdiction) or 1332 (“diversity jurisdiction”).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that, even liberally construed, asserts only a state-law title claim.

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. City of El Paso · filed 2021-11-23

Because even under a liberal construction of its complaint, the Pueblo asserted only a state law trespass-to-try-title action, the district court lacked federal jurisdiction over the case.

Section 1331 can support federal-question jurisdiction even when the federal claims may fail on their merits.

Colvin v. Tako LLC · filed 2021-11-23

While Tako argues that Colvin cannot prevail on his claims, that does not mean his claims do not arise under the laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal question jurisdiction might exist.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s complaint presents only a state-law claim.

3139 Mount Whitney Rd. Trust Dated 06/14/2021 v. Toner · filed 2021-11-22

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint does not present a federal question of law that would provide this Court with subject matter jurisdiction over the matter.

Section 1331 supplies no federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no federal law or statute and reveals no other basis for federal jurisdiction.

Munoz v. Peterson Recovery Group · filed 2021-11-29

Liberally construing the abbreviated facts in the Complaint, the undersigned cannot 9 independently discern of any basis to invoke jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a non-frivolous claim arising under federal law; patently meritless federal grounds do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Phillips v. Curtright · filed 2021-11-29

Having thoroughly reviewed and liberally construed the complaint and the attachments thereto, the Court concludes that plaintiff’s asserted bases of federal question jurisdiction are patently meritless, and the instant action does not arise under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. Therefore, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges discrimination and civil-rights violations without facts supporting a federal claim.

Vazquez v. Gomez · filed 2021-12-01

As for federal question jurisdiction, the undersigned determines Plaintiff presents insufficient facts to support this court’s federal jurisdiction over his claims. Although he presents numerous conclusory allegations of discrimination, he provides no facts in the pleadings to support his claim of actionable employment discrimination or other form of discrimination. He likewise provides no facts to support a violation of his federal civil rights. Therefore, he provides no cognizable basis for this court to assume federal subject matter jurisdiction over his claims.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction for claims arising under federal law; a complaint that fails to plausibly allege a federal constitutional violation does not present a federal question.

Queensbury v. Warden of BCDC · filed 2021-12-02

Because the Complaint fails to make plausible a valid Sixth Amendment violation, it likewise fails to state a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff raises no federal question.

Evans v. Bulbhead · filed 2021-12-02

Because Evans did not raise a federal question, Judge Walker properly examined whether Evans had established this Court’s jurisdiction under the diversity statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint identifies no constitutional or federal violation.

Vaughn v. Rhiener · filed 2021-12-03

Because the complaint fails to identify a constitutional or federal violation, there are no grounds for this court to exercise jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction when a federal right or immunity is an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.

Seelig v. Old Vegas Manor and Estates Homeowners Association · filed 2021-12-06

I have original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 where “a federal right or immunity is an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause of action.” Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations and internal quotations omitted). ... The Seeligs’ Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Fair Housing Act (FHA) claims fall within my original, federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties; a complaint asserting no federal claim or other federal basis does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Lewis v. Sussman Law Office · filed 2021-12-06

To provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s claims must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Plaintiff’s complaint does not set forth any federal claims or otherwise assert a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint states no claim under the cited federal laws and identifies no other federal-law basis.

Richards v. Docket Alarm · filed 2021-12-07

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to raise a “federal question” under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or establish diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, independently of diversity jurisdiction.

Catherine v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2021-12-09

Even if that were true, the district court also had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Catherine’s RESPA claims arose under federal law, and supplemental jurisdiction extended to the related state-law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the federal statutes invoked are inapplicable to the action.

Jacobs v. Geisinger Wyoming Medical Center · filed 2021-12-09

Moreover, Judge Saporito indicated the plaintiff apparently also attempts to assert subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331. In doing so, the plaintiff references 28 U.S.C. §4101, a statute concerning the recognition of foreign defamation judgments, and 41 U.S.C. §§7101, 7102, statutes that relate to disputes arising out of federal government contracts. Judge Saporito found neither statute applicable in the instant action and recommends dismissal on this basis as well. ... Upon review of the report and recommendation, the court finds no clear error of record. Moreover, the court agrees with the sound reasoning which led Judge Saporito to his conclusions. As such, the court will adopt the report and recommendation in its entirety.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when ERISA complete preemption does not apply and no other federal jurisdictional ground exists.

Rush University Medical Center, Inc. v. Mutual Medical Plans, Inc. · filed 2021-12-13

There is no diversity of citizenship here, so this Court’s jurisdiction, if any, must derive from a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Because complete preemption does not apply here, and because no alternative grounds for federal jurisdiction over Rush’s state-law claims exist, this case must be remanded to state court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint briefly refers to civil rights but asserts no claim arising under federal law.

(PC) Spearman v. Harris · filed 2021-12-15

Although Mr. Spearman refers briefly to “civil rights,” See Compl. at 2, ECF No. 1, he asserts no claims arising under federal law and does not allege he was deprived of constitutional rights, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A pleaded federal RICO claim supplies federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 regardless of whether diversity jurisdiction exists.

Barden v. Goodsell · filed 2021-12-15

As a threshold matter, the Court need not spill much ink on the Goodsell Defendants’ argument regarding the amount in controversy because, regardless of whether the Court has diversity jurisdiction, it has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 since Barden alleges a federal RICO claim against the Goodsell Defendants.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an action that does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Graville v. United States · filed 2021-12-15

The instant action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, so federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint about state family law proceedings makes only generic references to due process without asserting a federal cause of action.

Nandawula v. Child Protective Services (CPS) · filed 2021-12-16

In the context of the Complaint as a whole, which at no point references the United States Constitution or any federal statute, the Court finds that these generic references to due process do not constitute the assertion of a federal cause of action that would meet the requirements for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a complaint raises a federal defense against a city tax.

Cullman Electric Cooperative v. City of Cullman, Alabama · filed 2021-12-17

Cullman Electric’s complaint may raise a federal defense against the City’s tax, but that is not, alone, sufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint raises no federal civil claim under the Constitution or federal statutes.

Lewis v. Green · filed 2021-12-17

The Complaint will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | have thoroughly reviewed the Complaint and it does not raise a federal civil claim for violations of the United States Constitution or federal statutes. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to raise a claim under the United States Constitution or a federal statute for federal-question jurisdiction.

Lewis v. The News Journal Co · filed 2021-12-17

The Complaint will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | have thoroughly reviewed the Complaint and it does not raise a federal claim for violations of the United States Constitution or federal statutes. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to plausibly establish that the action arises under federal law for federal-question jurisdiction.

Gaur v. Millikan · filed 2021-12-17

Specifically, the Court retains jurisdiction over civil actions that arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ... Turning first to whether the Complaint makes plausible the existence of federal question jurisdiction, the Court finds that it does not.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a civil action only when it presents a federal question arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.

Hill v. Toma · filed 2021-12-17

Under these statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented (i.e., in a civil action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States) or when the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ... Plaintiff does not allege a violation of federal constitutional or statutory rights, nor are Defendants alleged to have been acting under color of state law.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over an FLSA claim even if the plaintiff fails to allege an element of that claim; the pleading defect is addressed under Rule 12(b)(6).

NARDELLI v. LAMPARSKI · filed 2021-12-17

The Court does not lack subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims because, as Defendants argue, they have failed to allege an element of an FLSA claim. Rather, such an argument implies that Plaintiffs have failed to state claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and the Court will address Defendants’ argument within that framework.

Section 1331 requires an embedded federal issue in a state-law claim to be important to the federal system as a whole; a fact-specific application of federal constitutional law does not satisfy that substantiality requirement.

GRIFFIN v. THE CITY OF NEWARK · filed 2021-12-20

The “fact-bound and situation specific” result does not involve the validity of a constitutional or statutory provision; it does not otherwise have the broader effects that are a necessary predicate to the substantiality requirement for embedded jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege a basis in federal law for federal question jurisdiction.

Sullivan v. Publix Super Markets Inc · filed 2021-12-20

This action does not arise under § 1983, as both the Magistrate Judge and Plaintiff acknowledge, and Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege any other basis of federal law to support a finding of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer embedded federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim whose resolution does not necessarily require interpreting federal law.

Wesley Housing Development Corporation of Northern Virginia v. SunAmerica Housing Fund 1171 · filed 2021-12-22

Accordingly, the complaint does not “necessarily” raise a question of federal law, and the case fails to satisfy the Grable test.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no federal question or federal-law basis for a claim.

GOMEZ v. WILSON · filed 2021-12-17

First, Plaintiff has failed to establish that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s case. In the Complaint, Plaintiff pled that “[f]ederal question jurisdiction is conferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.” [Docket No. 1, at ¶ 8.] As an initial matter, the Court agrees with Moving Defendants and finds that nowhere in the Complaint does Plaintiff “allege a federal question[] or reference any federal law as the basis for any aspect of her claim.” [Docket No. 3, at 4.] ... Nevertheless, diversity jurisdiction has not been pled, and Plaintiff has not met her burden to establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal claim; conclusory references to federal statutes and constitutional rights do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Chapman v. Maycock · filed 2021-12-23

Here, even given a liberal construction, and despite Plaintiff’s reference to many federal statutes and purported constitutional rights, his allegations do not support a colorable federal claim such that the Court’s federal question jurisdiction may be invoked.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; listing federal statutes does not establish jurisdiction when those statutes do not cover the claims alleged.

Munoz v. U-Haul International, Inc. · filed 2021-12-25

Federal district courts have “jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Mr. Muñoz’s third amended complaint lists several statutes under Title 49 of the United States Code as a basis for federal jurisdiction. But he does not state how Defendants violated these specific laws, or how these laws apply to these Defendants. At bottom, Mr. Muñoz is alleging a breach of contract claim and requesting he not be subject to the arbitration clause. Yet, none of the statutes listed cover those claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a private contract dispute when the complaint identifies no federal cause of action.

El v. Slaughter · filed 2021-12-27

Turning first to whether the complaint makes plausible the existence of federal question jurisdiction, the court finds that it does not. Plaintiff and Defendant are private citizens and the dispute appears to arise over a contract dispute between them. Plaintiff has not identified any federal cause of action, and the court can discern none from the documents presented.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based solely on state statutes.

Quiroz-Montano v. Arizona, State of · filed 2021-12-30

The Arizona statutes to which Plaintiff refers—A.R.S. §§ 13-1302 and 8-7001—are not federal statutes and therefore do not confer federal question jurisdiction on their own.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only state-law causes of action.

Anthony v. CardinaleWay, Acura · filed 2022-01-03

Subject matter jurisdiction arises from a federal question or diversity of the parties. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. ... Further, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant allege state-law causes of action only.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over pleaded § 1983 claims that arise under federal law.

Ruiz v. Sisolak · filed 2021-12-28

Because Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims arise under federal law, this Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts only state-law claims and identifies no federal statute, rule, or constitutional provision.

Wattleton-Jones v. Anderson · filed 2022-01-06

Additionally, Plaintiff has not affirmatively pled facts showing the Court has federal question jurisdiction, and the Court is unable to glean any basis for federal question jurisdiction from the Complaint filed in this case. Each of Plaintiff’s four causes of action—quantum meruit, civil conspiracy to commit fraud, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and promissory estoppel—sound in state law, and the Complaint is devoid of any reference to a federal statute, rule, or constitutional provision that could support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no federal statute or constitutional provision governing or affecting the claims.

Watson v. Roff · filed 2022-01-07

Plaintiffs point to no federal statutes or Constitutional provisions that govern or even impact their claims. ... As a result, Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction merely because a complaint invokes it; the complaint must allege facts showing a claim arising under federal law.

Hursh v. Aponte · filed 2022-01-10

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a liberally construed filing alleges a claim under federal copyright law, even if it does not explicitly identify a federal statute or cause of action.

Richmond v. Original Juan and Spicin foods · filed 2022-01-11

But, affording Mr. Richmond’s filings a very liberal construction, the court finds that he has alleged federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Although it is still “far from clear[,]” Doc. 14 at 2, it appears that Mr. Richmond is asserting a claim under the federal copyright laws for copyright infringement.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a landlord-tenant dispute that presents no question of federal law or constitutional issue.

Family Properties, LLC v. Briggs-Hall · filed 2022-01-12

This case concerns a landlord-tenant dispute. It involves no question of federal law or constitutional issue to confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question; dissatisfaction with the outcome of a state worker’s compensation claim does not supply one.

Ruzsa v. Stanley Steemer Co. · filed 2022-01-18

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ... Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the outcome of his state worker’s compensation claim does not raise a federal question.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction only when the complaint includes a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Rotim v. Wadsworth · filed 2022-01-18

The FAC does not include any claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The underlying action is an unlawful detainer proceeding, arising under and governed by the laws of the State of California. (FAC.) Thus no federal question exists.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no federal statute, treaty, or constitutional provision at issue.

Rogers v. Mcpherson · filed 2022-01-18

Judge Acosta also found that this Court could not exercise federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because Plaintiff failed to identity any federal statute, federal ... treaty, or Constitutional provision at issue. ... Accordingly, this Court has reviewed the F&R and the supplemental material filed by Plaintiff, and adopts Judge Acosta’s F&R in full.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of and seeking relief under federal statutes.

Newbary v. Enterprise RAC Company of Montana/Wyoming, LLC · filed 2022-01-20

Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to provide federal district courts with “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... Plaintiffs’ FAC plainly asserted claims arising under federal law because Plaintiffs alleged violations of, and sought relief under, several federal statutes: the ADA, the ADEA, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a claim invokes federal law or presents a substantial question of federal law.

Elbey v. Rhodes · filed 2022-01-20

But Elbey has not invoked any federal law as the basis for his claims or otherwise shown that his claims involve a substantial question of federal law. Therefore, he has not shown that federal question jurisdiction exists either.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction when a plaintiff asserts a substantial claim under a federal statute.

Carter v. Capital One · filed 2022-01-21

Accordingly, Plaintiff has asserted a substantial federal claim, and the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint and proposed amendment raise only state-law claims and no federal question.

Jeffries v. Traverlers Property Casualty · filed 2022-01-25

Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint and Motion for Leave fail to raise a federal question sufficient to confer jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law condemnation claim when the asserted federal preemption does not apply.

Zayo Group, LLC v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company · filed 2022-01-25

Norfolk Southern has not meet its burden of establishing the state-law condemnation at issue is preempted by the ICCTA. We do not have federal question jurisdiction over this dispute.

Section 1331 does not support jurisdiction over a claim under a federal statute that does not authorize a private cause of action.

Stanko v. Oglala Sioux Tribe Public Safety Division · filed 2022-01-25

Bringing a claim under a federal statute which does not authorize a private cause of action will not support jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law malpractice claim that does not arise under federal law.

Adeniji v. New York City Department of Finance · filed 2022-01-27

There is no federal question jurisdiction,as Plaintiff’s claim does not arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the asserted federal issue arises only as a potential defense and is not necessarily raised by the claim.

Mikhelson v. Coldwater Care Center, LLC · filed 2022-01-28

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs claims do not present an embedded question under Grable. The federal issue raised relates to Defendant’s potential defense, not the claims alleged by Plaintiff. As such, the federal issue is not necessarily raised.

Section 1331 requires a direct, substantial, nonfrivolous federal question in the plaintiff’s claim; a complaint that states no federal claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

England v. McKeown Finger · filed 2022-01-31

For the court to retain federal question jurisdiction, the federal question must be a direct element in the plaintiff’s claim and must be substantial and not plainly frivolous. ... Mr. England’s complaint does not state a federal claim.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction only when a claim arises under the Constitution or federal law.

Brown v. Campbell · filed 2022-01-31

Because Plaintiff’s claims do not arise under the Constitution or any federal statute, federal question jurisdiction does not apply.

Section 1331 requires a federal question arising under federal law; allegations identifying no violated federal law or viable constitutional claim do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Deans v. Dewan · filed 2022-02-02

The subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is generally set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under these statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented (i.e., in a civil action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States) or when the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ... No federal labor laws are alleged to have been violated, and no constitutional claim can be maintained against a private party under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... The court finds upon initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint that it does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over any claims alleged.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the operative complaint alleges only a state-law Unruh Act claim.

Scherer v. 2306 W Oceanfront, LLC · filed 2022-02-03

The FAC does not include any claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The sole cause of action is a violation of the Unruh Act. (FAC.) Thus no federal question exists.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law or the Constitution, but does not cover claims based only on state law.

Cheek v. Hackfort · filed 2022-02-04

They may hear claims of violations of federal laws or the federal Constitution (28 U.S.C. §1331) or claims raised in lawsuits between parties who live in different states (28 U.S.C. §1332). ... But even though it is sixteen pages long, the complaint does not mention any federal laws. It mentions state laws of Wisconsin—Admin. Code §§ DHS 94.05(2)(b) and DHS 94.04(2)(c), id. at 7; Wis. Stats. §940.34, id. at 10. But this court does not have jurisdiction to decide state law violations unless those violations are being disputed by parties living in different states.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a federal law claim; merely invoking federal question jurisdiction does not establish it.

Askins v. Santos · filed 2022-02-07

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to identify a constitutional or federal statutory basis adequate to invoke federal-question jurisdiction.

Watson v. Roff · filed 2022-02-08

Just as with Plaintiffs’ first complaint, their amended complaint does not properly identify a constitutional or federal statutory basis adequate to invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer substantial federal question jurisdiction over state-law claims based on broad federal interests without a concrete federal law directly implicated; the absence of a federal remedy or preemption weighs against jurisdiction.

Boulder County Commissioners v. Suncor Energy · filed 2022-02-08

Absence of a congressionally crafted remedy, or of a single federal statute, regulation, or other law that speaks directly to the alleged important federal issues, reveals the absence of the “welcome mat” required for a federal court to confidently accept jurisdiction over these state-law tort claims.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a liberally construed complaint asserts a federal claim, including a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

(PS) Nelson Rogers v. Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. · filed 2022-02-09

The presence of, at a minimum the FDCPA claim, provides the court with jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint challenging a state-court custody decision without facts showing a violation of federal law.

Elkins v. Washington · filed 2022-02-09

The instant action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, so federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable.

A declaratory judgment complaint that invokes no federal law gives the court no basis to infer federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

DC Injury Solutions LLC v. Morris Bart LLC · filed 2022-02-11

And, Plaintiff has not invoked 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) or 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity of citizenship). Further, Plaintiff did not cite a statute in their complaint for the court to even infer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when a substantial federal issue is not necessarily raised by the claims.

O'Neal v. CF Watsonville West LLC · filed 2022-02-11

Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to Grable is inappropriate because a substantial federal issue is not “necessarily raised,” Gunn, 568 U.S. at 258, by Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim against the EEOC about how it processes charges when Title VII provides no cause of action for that claim.

Breedlove v. Heath · filed 2022-02-11

Therefore, plaintiffs’ claim against the EEOC does not raise a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law rent or eviction dispute when the complaint alleges no claim arising under federal law.

Welch v. Georgetown Village · filed 2022-02-11

Even with the Court’s liberal construction, Plaintiff alleges no claim arising under federal law for purposes of establishing federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Welch v. McLauren St. Lukes Hospital · filed 2022-02-11

And even liberally construed, Plaintiff’s Complaint on its face alleges no claim arising under federal law for purposes of establishing federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Welch v. Toledo · filed 2022-02-11

Even with the Court’s liberal construction, Plaintiff alleges no claim arising under federal law for purposes of establishing federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over apparent tort claims based only on a passing reference to a violation of constitutional rights.

Kandies v. Liberty Mutual Ins. · filed 2022-02-14

As to federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s claims appear to sound in tort and her passing reference to a violation of “constitutional rights” is insufficient to present the basis of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that neither are created by federal law nor require resolution of a substantial federal question.

State of New Mexico Department of Information Technology v. Western Agriculture, Resource and Business Advocates, LLP · filed 2022-02-15

The claims contained on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint are not created by federal law, nor do they require the resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Thus, Plaintiff’s claims cannot provide the Court with federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, given that they do not arise under the “Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction when the operative complaint pleads federal claims.

HARRIS v. CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION · filed 2022-02-16

Moreover, based on the operative Complaint, and Plaintiff’s assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, the Court does have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity), and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint raises no federal question of law.

Palmer v. Palmer · filed 2022-02-17

Accordingly, Ms. Palmer does not allege or raise any federal question of law over which this Court has jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 is not satisfied by a complaint’s mere passing reference to a constitutional right.

Johnson v. McMahon · filed 2022-02-17

However, this mere passing reference to a Constitutional right is insufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges no claim arising under federal law.

Johnson v. Utica National Insurance Group · filed 2022-02-17

The Complaint asserts no basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not allege any claim that would give rise to federal question jurisdiction.3 Accordingly, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over this action. See 28 U.S.C. §1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges medical malpractice and insurance fraud but no claim arising under federal law.

Johnson v. Hilton · filed 2022-02-17

Plaintiff mentions medical malpractice and insurance fraud in his Complaint; neither sounds in federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no federal question.

Adeyinka v. Johnson · filed 2022-02-18

Adeyinka makes no allegation regarding a federal question so diversity jurisdiction is his only option.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question for a district court to exercise jurisdiction.

Johnson v. Royal Inn & Suites · filed 2022-02-22

There is no federal question presented in his “complaint,” as is required for this Court to exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff asserts a nonfrivolous claim to a right or remedy under federal law.

Potter v. Lewis · filed 2022-02-22

Federal question jurisdiction is proper where a plaintiff asserts “[a] non-frivolous claim of a right or remedy under a federal statute.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a dental malpractice claim that presents no discernible federal question.

PUE v. TSAI · filed 2022-02-22

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 encompasses civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Plaintiff does not explain how his claim raises a federal question and, from this record, the Court is unable to discern how it might raise one.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over claims brought under either the FDCPA or the FCRA.

Marrero v. U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through · filed 2022-02-22

Most importantly, however, regardless of whether plaintiff is bringing an FDCPA or an FCRA claim, both types of claims “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges a Fourth Amendment violation without facts supporting that allegation.

Hamilton v. Las Vegas Metro Police Department · filed 2022-02-23

Plaintiff also has not established federal question jurisdiction. ... While Plaintiff alleges there has been a Fourth Amendment violation, he does not provide facts to support such allegation.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint states a federal-law cause of action or necessarily depends on resolving a substantial question of federal law.

HEDGEPETH v. NIMKISELA · filed 2022-02-24

A court has federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, if the complaint “establishes that federal law create[s] the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” ACR Energy Partners, LLC v. Polo N. Country Club, Inc., 143 F. Supp. 3d 198, 202 (D.N.J. 2015). ... Plaintiff does not assert any causes of action that are based on federal law in his Complaint, nor is the Court aware of any that may encompass Plaintiff’s claims. Therefore, federal question subject matter jurisdiction does not appear to exist.

Section 1331 requires a pleaded federal claim for federal-question jurisdiction.

Collins v. Walker · filed 2022-02-25

The Court lacks jurisdiction over this case. Diversity jurisdiction does not exist as all parties are Arkansans or incorporated therein. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. And, Collins has not pleaded a federal claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff asserts a non-frivolous claim to a right or remedy under a federal statute, the Constitution, or a United States treaty.

Elliott v. Omaha Nebraska Humane Society · filed 2022-02-25

Subject-matter jurisdiction is proper under section 1331 when a plaintiff asserts a “non-frivolous claim of a right or remedy under a federal statute,” the Constitution, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil cases arising under federal law; a complaint that alleges no federal source for its claim does not establish that jurisdiction.

DeLagarde v. Tours VI Ltd. · filed 2022-02-28

District courts have federal question jurisdiction over civil cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ... DeLagarde does not argue or allege that his claim arises under the Constitution, nor under any federal law or treatise. Consequently, DeLagarde has not shown that the Court has federal question jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the well-pleaded complaint; claims asserting only state-law malpractice, battery, identity theft, and fraud do not supply one.

Sinclair v. Sleep Science Pensacola Group · filed 2022-02-28

Sinclair has not identified any specific federal statutes, federal treaties, or provisions of the United States Constitution that are at issue in this case (Dkt. No. 2, at 3). Rather, Sinclair’s complaint appears to assert state-law claims for medical malpractice, battery, identity theft, and fraud (Id., at 3-4). These claims are not a proper basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when the only asserted federal claim cannot proceed.

Mann v. Power Home Solar, LLC · filed 2022-02-28

Therefore, because the only basis of this Court’s jurisdiction is alleged to be “federal question” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims in the absence of federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no federal claim and its alleged facts disclose none.

Beattie, Jerry v. Stanley Correctional Institution · filed 2022-03-01

The court plainly does not have jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as Beattie has identified no federal claims in his complaint, nor can this court discern one from the facts alleged.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint presents no federal question.

Love v. Carbanc Auto Sales & Service · filed 2022-03-02

Here, even a liberal reading of Plaintiff’s pleading fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of the parties, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or based on the presentation of a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the connection between federal regulation and the claims is too attenuated to create a right to relief.

Mizell v. The Citizens Bank · filed 2022-03-03

Even if he had, any connection between the FCC’s regulation of airwaves and the claims against Defendants is too attenuated to form the basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the claims have no federal-law basis or substantial federal-law question.

Everett v. Cannady · filed 2022-03-03

Everett has not referred to any other federal law as the basis for his claims or otherwise shown that his claims involve a substantial question of federal law. Therefore, he has not shown that federal question jurisdiction exists either.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law; invoking it alone does not supply an underlying federal claim.

Hall v. City of Willacoochee · filed 2022-03-07

First, invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1331 proves nothing—that statute just confirms that district courts have jurisdiction over cases arising under “the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” The existence of such a law is exactly what Plaintiff must show here.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims premised entirely on state law.

Bassford v. Bassford · filed 2022-03-07

The case does not arise under federal law as plaintiff’s claims are entirely premised on South Carolina law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint identifies no claim under federal law.

Serieux v. Velinor · filed 2022-03-09

There is no basis for federal jurisdiction apparent on the face of Serieux’s complaint; there are no identifiable claims under federal law, nor is there diversity of citizenship.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when no claim under federal law is identifiable on the face of the complaint.

Serieux v. Francis · filed 2022-03-09

There is no basis for federal jurisdiction apparent on the face of Serieux’s complaint; there are neither any identifiable claims under federal law, nor is there diversity of citizenship.

Section 1331 requires an identifiable claim under federal law for federal-question jurisdiction to appear on the face of a complaint.

Serieux v. Jones · filed 2022-03-09

There is no basis for federal jurisdiction apparent on the face of Serieux’s complaint; there are neither any identifiable claims under federal law, nor diversity of citizenship.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting only state-law claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress and defamation.

Lopez v. Department of Children and Families for Commonwealth of Massachusetts · filed 2022-03-09

Because claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress and defamation are purely state law claims that do not arise under the laws, Constitution, or treaties of the United States, Ms. Lopez’s complaint does not raise any federal question as a basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide original jurisdiction over claims against a utility district for a disputed water bill or a land bank for claiming title to property when those claims present no federal question.

Knight v. City of Omaha · filed 2022-03-09

These Defendants are improperly joined in this action because the claims do not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2), and it is apparent the court does not have original jurisdiction over either claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint invokes federal law but alleges no facts demonstrating a federal law claim.

Suozzo v. Beck Chevrolet Co., Inc. · filed 2022-03-10

Because the Amended Complaint is devoid of facts demonstrating a federal law claim, and mere invocation of federal jurisdiction is not enough to confer federal question jurisdiction on the Court, the Court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction of this action.

Section 1331 requires a complaint invoking federal-question jurisdiction to allege facts suggesting that the defendants violated federal law.

Vazquez v. Jawonio · filed 2022-03-11

Simply put, ifa plaintiff invokes a court’s federal question jurisdiction, the plaintiff must state facts suggesting that the named defendants violated a federal law.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction when a complaint asserts claims under federal securities laws.

N.J. Carpenters Health Fund v. NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. · filed 2022-03-14

The court had subject matter jurisdiction over the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the complaints asserted claims, on behalf of each individual member of the class, that the defendants violated federal securities laws, in particular the 1933 Act.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges a potential federal due process claim, even if the claim ultimately fails to state a plausible basis for relief.

Whitehurst v. Robb · filed 2022-03-15

Taking the allegations as true and construing them liberally in favor of the Plaintiff, the court finds Plaintiff alleges a potential due process claim and, thus, the court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to determine whether Plaintiff states a plausible claim for relief.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint does not state a claim arising under federal law.

Newton v. Compass Health Network · filed 2022-03-15

The instant action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, so federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable, and diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 does not exist here because plaintiff defendants are citizens of the same state.

Section 1331 requires a federal law or constitutional provision at issue for federal-question jurisdiction.

(PS) Snow v. Department of Justice · filed 2022-03-16

For federal question jurisdiction to exist, there needs to be a federal law, statute, or constructional provision at issue. There is no federal law or constitutional provision at issue here.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint, liberally construed, raises only state-law claims.

Tolliver v. Qlarant Quality Solutions, Inc. · filed 2022-03-16

As pled, it cannot be said that the Complaint raises a claim under the Equal Pay Act. It does not cite to any federal statute and all claims are raised under Delaware law. The Court must resolve any doubts in favor of remand and finds that Defendants have not met their burden of establishing this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction by reason of a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when the complaint presents a claim arising under federal law.

Lee v. Hagin · filed 2022-03-16

Plaintiffs allegations do not suggest that he intends to assert a claim arising under federal law against defendants, and the Court does not find that plaintiff has stated a federal claim against defendants. The Court find no basis to exercise jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1332, and this case should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the well-pleaded complaint, through a federal cause of action or a state cause of action that necessarily turns on a substantial federal question.

Delmonico v. Beacon Health Options Inc. · filed 2022-03-17

For a court to have federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 “two conditions must be satisfied. First, a question of federal law must appear on the face of plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint. Second, plaintiff’s cause of action must either be (1) created by federal law; or (2) if it is a state-created cause of action, its resolution must necessarily turn on a substantial question of federal law.” Nicodemus v. Union Pac. Corp., 318 F.3d 1231, 1235 (10th Cir. 2003) (quotation and citation omitted). ... Plaintiff’s second claim arises under state law, and the claim as alleged presents no federal question.

Section 1331 generally requires a cause of action created by federal law, and it does not provide jurisdiction to challenge a discretionary denial of derivative asylum where no independent right to challenge that denial exists.

Lin v. Heffron · filed 2022-03-17

Nor is there any other basis for federal question jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has recognized that in the “vast majority” of cases, federal question jurisdiction exists under section 1331 only if federal law creates the plaintiff’s cause of action. ... Plaintiffs have no independent right to challenge the denial of an asylee relative petition on the basis of a discretionary determination, and thus no basis to claim federal jurisdiction over these claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint raises no federal question.

Tusha v. Masciantonio · filed 2022-03-18

The Complaint does not raise a federal question and, therefore, the Court does not have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to allege facts showing that the cause of action involves an issue of federal law.

Lee v. Singh · filed 2022-03-18

In order to invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, plaintiff must allege facts showing the cause of action involves an issue of federal law.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over claims governed only by state law.

Downs, Patricia v. City of La Crosse · filed 2022-03-23

Because such a claim is not governed by federal law, this court lacks jurisdiction over Downs’ claim under § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when an amended complaint presents a federal question, including claims under the Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

(PC) Cabrera v. CA Correctional Health Care Services · filed 2022-03-24

Based on the foregoing, the court finds that Plaintiff has clearly presented a federal question in the First Amended Complaint and therefore, the federal court has jurisdiction and the action is removable.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no claim for relief under federal law against a defendant.

Hawk v. Burr · filed 2022-03-25

Hawk’s allegations do not state a claim for relief under federal law. Therefore, the complaint does not invoke this Court’s jurisdiction under § 1331 and must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides no independent basis for jurisdiction over state-law declaratory judgment claims when no federal claims survive.

Terra Firma, LLC v. Village Downriver Condominium Association, Inc. · filed 2022-03-28

Here, Terra Firma no longer has any surviving claims under federal law. ... Accordingly, the Court does not have an independent source of jurisdiction to hear the declaratory judgment claims.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under a federal statute even when they do not concern the Constitution or a federal agency.

Liu v. New York City Housing Authority · filed 2022-03-28

First, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the Court’s jurisdiction is not limited to hearing matters only concerning the Constitution or federal agencies. Indeed, under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over FLSA claims even when the employer disputes the $500,000 enterprise coverage threshold, which is an element of the claim rather than a jurisdictional requirement.

Meatheney v. Arts Performing Center LLC · filed 2022-03-29

But the $500,000 threshold is not a jurisdictional requirement; it is an element of the cause of action. The plaintiff has invoked the court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction when a complaint alleges claims arising under federal law, including Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA.

Kendricks v. Methodist Children's Home · filed 2022-03-29

The district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Kendricks alleged claims arising out of federal law, specifically Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12111.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law medical negligence claim.

GRAHAM v. COSTELLO · filed 2022-03-30

The Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 s not applicable, and Plaintiff has also failed to allege any facts to support a claim within the Court’s diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts only state-law causes of action.

Peterson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2022-03-31

Peterson incorrectly asserts that this Court has jurisdiction arising under 28 U.S.C. § 1331; as Wells Fargo observes, there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction because the Second Amended Complaint only asserts state law causes of action.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts subject matter jurisdiction over § 1983 claims because they arise under a federal cause of action.

Harmon v. Preferred Family Healthcare, Incorporated · filed 2022-03-31

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over Harmon’s § 1983 claims, which are brought under a federal cause of action.

Section 1331 requires a case to arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; loosely stated legal theories without an identified federal question do not suffice.

Norwood v. Federal Bureau of Investigation · filed 2022-04-01

Federal question jurisdiction exists if the case arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Outside of loosely stating legal theories like discrimination and false arrest, Norwood does not to point to a federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that alleges no violation of the United States Constitution or a federal statute.

Green v. PayPal Inc. · filed 2022-04-04

Rather, it was dismissed because Plaintiff's claim does not involve an alleged violation of the United States Constitution or a federal statute, for which the court could exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor does the amount of the claim exceed $75,000.00, which is the minimum amount required for the exercise of “diversity of citizenship” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 does not provide embedded federal question jurisdiction over state law claims that raise no federal issue on the face of the complaint.

Palfy v. Del Dios Care, LLC · filed 2022-04-05

Here, as in Saldana, Plaintiffs allege state law claims that do not raise questions of federal law on the face of the complaint. See FAC. Consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Saldana, the Court concludes it does not have subject matter jurisdiction based on embedded federal question grounds.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a claim under federal law; invoking federal question jurisdiction alone does not establish it.

Maoz v. Aple Shop · filed 2022-04-05

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund, 81 F.3d 1182, 1188-89 (2d Cir. 1996). Plaintiff invokes this Court’s federal question jurisdiction, but the facts alleged do not suggest that any federal law was violated. The Court therefore cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a § 1983 claim against a private entity when no state action or conspiracy with a state actor is alleged.

Perez v. Hilton Double Tree · filed 2022-04-12

Defendant is a private entity—not a state actor—and is not alleged to have conspired with anyone who was acting under color of state law to deprive Plaintiff of her federally protected rights. Thus, subject-matter jurisdiction does not exist under section 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no claim premised on federal law.

Holder v. Alliance for Health Inc. · filed 2022-04-12

First, as to federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s claims are not premised on the violation of any federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law vehicle lemon-law claim without facts supporting a federal or constitutional claim.

Bronson v. KBS Auto Sales/Yatma Sales · filed 2022-04-12

Contrary to Plaintiff’s belief, however, any vehicle “lemon law” falls under state law and is not enforceable under the 14th Amendment in federal court. ... Accordingly, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and/or the complaint fails to state a claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal criminal statutes create no private cause of action and the complaint identifies no sufficiently clear federal civil rights claim.

Thomas v. Ray/Roy Diaz Christina · filed 2022-04-13

Magistrate Judge Louis also finds that this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Thomas improperly cites as bases for this Court’s jurisdiction (1) federal criminal statutes—18 U.S.C. §§ 505, 1341—that do not give rise to a private cause of action, ... To the extent Thomas intended to initiate a new action in this Court, this Court agrees that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over her claims.4 The Court is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege facts showing that the cause of action involves an issue of federal law.

Davis v. Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas · filed 2022-04-19

In order to invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, plaintiffs must allege facts showing the cause of action involves an issue of federal law.

A complaint may fail to establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 when it does not identify any federal right allegedly violated.

Roundtree-McCrorey v. Amtrak · filed 2022-04-21

The complaint does not appear to present a substantial federal question: Roundtree-McCrorey brings claims for endangerment, harassment, and violation of rights, but does not identify any federal rights she thinks the defendants violated.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over neglect and abuse claims when the complaint alleges no violation of federal law.

Roundtree-McCrorey v. Children & Families · filed 2022-04-21

The complaint does not appear to present a federal question: Roundtree-McCrorey brings claims for ... neglect and abuse, but does not allege that the neglect or abuse violated any federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege a valid constitutional claim or a claim under federal law that provides a right of action to support federal-question jurisdiction.

Clark v. Childress · filed 2022-04-21

To support jurisdiction under § 1331, a complaint must allege valid claims under the United States Constitution or some federal law providing a federal right of action.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction for claims involving federal law or the Constitution; allegations implicating neither do not establish it.

Otis v. County/State the People · filed 2022-04-25

Federal question jurisdiction means that federal courts have the authority to consider and decide cases that involve violations of federal laws or the federal Constitution. 28 U.S.C. §1331. ... None of these allegations implicate any constitutional provisions or any established civil rights.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint raises only a state-law trespass claim.

Decker v. Punta Gorda Police Department · filed 2022-04-25

It seems Decker wants to bring a state law claim for trespass. In other words, there is no federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the allegations do not raise or suggest a federal question.

Willis-Powell v. Meadowood Behavioral Health · filed 2022-04-26

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction that only have the power to hear cases that arise under federal law or that meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction1 (see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332). ... And the allegations do not raise or suggest a federal question. Therefore, the Complaint will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts no federal claims.

Harris v. Harbor Point Behavioral Health · filed 2022-04-29

The Second Amended Complaint does not include any federal claims against Defendants that could serve as the basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Sampson v. Howard · filed 2022-04-29

And, Sampson has presented no federal question that arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.