28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to identify a federal law or constitutional right at issue to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

(PS) Crenshaw v. The Arbors at Antelope · filed 2022-05-03

Though plaintiff claims there is federal question jurisdiction, he does not identify any specific federal law or constitutional provision that was violated. He must identify a federal law or constitutional right that is at issue to establish federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a pleaded federal claim for federal-question jurisdiction; citing federal statutes without asserting a claim under them does not suffice.

Chauhan v. Google Inc. · filed 2022-05-04

A claim “arises under” federal law if, based on the well-pleaded complaint rule, the plaintiff alleges a federal claim for relief. ... In this case, Mr. Chauhan’s complaints are not premised upon any particular federal claim for relief.

Section 1331 requires facts showing that federal law governs the dispute; invoking federal regulations without identifying a disputed provision is insufficient.

Climate Change Truth, Inc. v. Bailey · filed 2022-05-05

Plaintiff does not allege any specific 501(c)(3) regulation that Plaintiff alleges is disputed or needs to be construed to resolve the issues in this case. Thus, Plaintiff alleges insufficient facts to show that federal law governs this dispute.

Section 1331 requires facts showing that federal law governs the dispute; citing federal regulations without identifying an issue they govern is insufficient.

Climate Change Truth, Inc. v. Shipley · filed 2022-05-06

Plaintiff does not allege any specific 501(c)(3) regulation that Plaintiff alleges is disputed or needs to be construed to resolve the issues in this case. Thus, Plaintiff alleges insufficient facts to show that federal law governs this dispute.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, including the Constitution and treaties; admiralty is not their only jurisdiction.

ROSE-EL v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2022-05-09

And, like admiralty jurisdiction, this general federal-question jurisdiction is implemented by statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”); Masterfile Corp. v. Bigsy Music, Inc., No. CV 11-337, 2012 WL 13015119, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 23, 2012).

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when even a liberal reading of the pleading reveals no federal or constitutional question.

Briscoe v. Pennymac Services, LLC · filed 2022-05-10

And from even the most liberal construction, there is no federal or constitutional question to divine from Plaintiff’s paper.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over § 1983 claims; whether a defendant acted under color of state law is a question about the claim’s merits.

Terrell v. Harris County · filed 2022-05-11

The court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear claims arising under federal law—in this case, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Whether Deputy Cannon was acting under “color of state law” turns on whether Terrell has properly pleaded one of the elements of a § 1983 claim, not on whether the court has jurisdiction to decide that question in the first instance.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims rooted in federal regulations.

Gray v. Fidelity Investment · filed 2022-05-11

Furthermore, as Fidelity correctly notes, there is also jurisdiction over Gray’s complaint in the second case because plaintiff raises claims rooted in federal regulations. Dkt. 1, ¶ 7 (explaining that defendant claims violations of Securities and Exchange Commission regulations, federal statutes, and other federal regulations). In short, there is also federal question jurisdiction over at least some of the claims in the second case.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over civil cases arising under federal law; claims that do not arise under federal law provide no federal-question jurisdiction.

Winters v. Texas SFI Partnership Ltd. · filed 2022-05-12

First, a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over civil cases “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... None of Plaintiffs claims arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer action whose complaint raises only a state law claim.

IRP Griffin Apartments, LLC v. Yapi · filed 2022-05-12

Here, the court’s review of the Notice of Removal and attached Complaint makes clear that it does not have federal question jurisdiction over the instant action under section 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under the Constitution or federal laws.

Marsh v. Bank of Sierra, Inc. · filed 2022-05-13

Accordingly, jurisdiction is proper pursuant to Sections 1331 and 1343 because Plaintiff has asserted claims arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the cited federal provisions are irrelevant to the claims and provide no cause of action.

Jacobs v. Geisinger Wyoming Medical Cent · filed 2022-05-18

Alternatively, Jacobs claims that the District Court erred by failing to consider that her complaint invoked federal-question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. As the District Court correctly held, the two definitional sections of the U.S. Code to which Jacobs cited in her complaint are irrelevant to her claims and do not provide her with a cause of action.

Section 1331 does not establish federal-question jurisdiction merely because a pleading cites it; the claim must arise under federal law.

Melody J. Liddell v. Claiming any Legal or Equitable Rig · filed 2022-05-18

Petitioner’s citation to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 alone does not convert her claim into a federal cause of action.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction for claims arising under federal law, but not for claims based solely on state defamation law.

Rhodes v. Buccieri · filed 2022-05-19

Section 1331 does not apply in this case because, as stated above, Plaintiff's defamation claims are predicated on Kentucky defamation law, not the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1331 requires facts showing that federal law governs the dispute; invoking federal regulations without identifying a disputed regulation is insufficient.

White v. Shipley · filed 2022-05-19

Plaintiff does not allege any specific 501(c)(3) regulation that Plaintiff alleges is disputed or needs to be construed to resolve the issues in this case. Thus, Plaintiff alleges insufficient facts to show that federal law governs this dispute.

Section 1331 supplied federal-question jurisdiction for a federal claim, which the court held was lost when the operative complaint eliminated that claim.

K. B. v. Arcadia Unified School District · filed 2022-05-23

Arcadia Unified removed this action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in view of the second amended complaint’s newly added federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which invested this court with federal question jurisdiction.8 The operative Third Amended Complaint, however, eliminates that claim.9 ... Because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action, the Court GRANTS K.B.’s Motion to remand.

Section 1331 requires pleaded facts supporting a federal question for federal-question jurisdiction.

Williams v. American Commercial Lines · filed 2022-05-24

We interpret the Complaint liberally, but we agree with the district court that Plaintiff has not satisfied federal jurisdiction: he has pled no facts supporting either a federal question or complete diversity of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), 1333 (diversity jurisdiction).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when the complaint pleads a violation of a substantive right under federal law or the Constitution.

Martin v. Martin · filed 2022-05-24

Both 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the Declaratory Judgment Act serve as a basis for jurisdiction only when the complaint pleads a violation of a substantive right under a distinct federal statute or the United States Constitution; they do not confer jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when a complaint, even liberally construed, raises no federal or constitutional question.

Briscoe v. Pennymac Services, LLC · filed 2022-05-31

And from even the most liberal construction, there is no federal or constitutional question to divine from Plaintiff’s paper.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts subject matter jurisdiction when a complaint contains federal causes of action.

Pittman v. Grand Canyon University · filed 2022-06-02

The Court has already found that because the Complaint contains federal causes of action, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no violation of federal law or possible federal cause of action.

Lewis v. Carroll · filed 2022-06-03

He does not allege any violation of federal law that might support the exercise of jurisdiction under § 1331, and the court is unable to discern any possible federal cause of action based on the allegations in the complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction merely because a party intends to seek reopening of a separate, closed federal case.

McGraw v. Knight · filed 2022-06-03

The court finds that Nunnelee cannot establish that this court has federal question jurisdiction over this case just because he intends to move to re- open a closed case over which he claims the court has federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the complaint sets forth no basis for a federal question.

Jumping Jack Retain II, Inc. v. 7 Eleven, Inc. · filed 2022-06-06

First, the Complaint does not set forth any basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint gives no indication that its claims arise under federal law.

Nidy v. U.S. Bancorp · filed 2022-06-14

The complaint in Nidy does not comply with Rule 8. It does not identify any specific basis for federal jurisdiction, and there is nothing in it to suggest this case “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. To the contrary, it appears all Nidy’s claims arise under state law.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, but it does not establish personal jurisdiction over defendants.

Bryfogle v. Livingston · filed 2022-06-22

Plaintiff is correct that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 grants district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal laws, like § 2520 of the Wiretap Act. § 1331 (authorizing federal question jurisdiction). However, Plaintiff conflates subject matter jurisdiction with personal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to show that the asserted federal claims support federal-question jurisdiction; alleging that multiple federal statutes are involved is insufficient.

Drevaleva v. Alameda Health System · filed 2022-07-07

Drevaleva invoked this Court’s original jurisdiction based on a federal question allegedly because “multiple [f]ederal statutes are involved” (Docket No. 1 at ¶ 2), but she has not shown that this court can exercise federal-question jurisdiction over the federal claims against AHS.

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

Pellecier v. Marti · filed 2022-07-11

This occurs when a plaintiff alleges a claim that arises “under the Constitution, law, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, however, plaintiff’s amended complaint does not refer to, let alone show any colorable basis for a claim under, any provision of federal law.

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

Welch v. Mercy Health · filed 2022-07-11

Furthermore, 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 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law product liability claims when the plaintiff alleges no federal claim or facts supporting one.

Vaughan v. Ontel Product Corp · filed 2022-07-14

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s claims, best construed as product liability claims, arise under state law. Plaintiff does not otherwise assert a federal claim nor allege facts that would support such a claim.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a liberally construed complaint alleging a potential due process claim, even if that claim fails on the merits.

Whitehurst v. Robb · filed 2022-07-14

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 federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to determine whether Plaintiff states a plausible claim for relief.

Section 1331 requires a claim created by federal law or one that necessarily involves a substantial question of federal law; describing state tort claims as federal does not establish jurisdiction.

Aye v. Paada · filed 2022-07-18

In short, nothing on the face of the amended complaint or show cause response establishes that plaintiff’s claims against defendants were created by federal law, or involves a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 requires allegations supporting a claim arising under federal law for federal-question jurisdiction.

Wooten v. Ascend/Alkem Laboratories · filed 2022-07-20

The plaintiff’s sparse allegations do not support a claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded claim based on a federal cause of action or dependent on a substantial question of federal law.

SAGER v. DAVISON DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT, INC. · filed 2022-07-20

Plaintiff's application fails to identify a well-pleaded basis for federal question jurisdiction. Neither § 1331 nor § 1337 provide an independent basis for federal question jurisdiction. Sections 1331 and 1337 merely authorize the exercise of federal jurisdiction where a basis for it has been presented. Plaintiff has not presented a cause of action pursuant to a federal statute nor has he presented a dispute that is dependent upon the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded complaint to present a federal cause of action or a substantial federal question necessary to relief.

Brown v. Laurila · filed 2022-07-25

Thus, subject matter jurisdiction in this case is not based upon a federal question, and the Court lacks jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a claim arising under federal law; merely invoking federal-question jurisdiction is insufficient.

Hatwood v. Sanchez · filed 2022-07-27

Plaintiff purports to bring this action under the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. There are no facts in the complaint, however, indicating that her claims present a federal question. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, a private individual, violated her privacy and stole from her. These allegations do not suggest that Plaintiff can state a federal claim. The allegations appear to give rise to claims arising solely under state law.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint states no cognizable federal claim and its remaining claims arise under state law.

McArthur v. Nino's Market · filed 2022-07-28

Because McArthur’s federal claims fail scrutiny, and his other causes of action arise under state law, McArthur’s complaint does not provide a basis to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires the plaintiff’s complaint to establish a basis for federal-question jurisdiction; state-law claims do not provide one.

McArthur v. Nur Market · filed 2022-07-28

Because McArthur’s federal claims fail scrutiny, and his other causes of action arise under state law, McArthur’s complaint does not provide a basis to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law tort claims when federal labor law and ERISA do not preempt them.

KN ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, INC. v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS · filed 2022-07-28

Neither federal labor law nor ERISA preempt any of Plaintiffs’ claims arising under New Jersey tort law, and as such, Defendants have failed to meet their burden to establish a basis for this Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no violation of federal law and discloses no possible federal cause of action.

Lewis v. Abraha · filed 2022-07-29

He does not allege any violation of federal law that might support the exercise of jurisdiction under § 1331, and the court is unable to discern any possible federal cause of action based on the allegations in the complaint.

Section 1331 requires allegations showing that a claim arises under federal law; invoking federal jurisdiction alone is insufficient.

Gayden v. Sackler Family · filed 2022-08-01

Here, Plaintiff does not indicate that his claims arise under federal law, and it is not apparent from the allegations of the complaint that it can be liberally construed as asserting a federal claim. The Court thus cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction of the complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal cause of action or a claim that necessarily depends on resolving a substantial question of federal law.

King v. Rushford · filed 2022-08-11

The Court finds that, as in their FAC, Plaintiffs have failed to establish that any of their claims in their SAC assert a federal cause of action or require the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 requires factual allegations supporting a federal question; merely citing federal statutes is insufficient.

HIS Word is Truth Trust v. Paschal · filed 2022-08-11

Mere citations to federal statutes however are insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a defamation claim when the complaint states no federal claim.

Culver v. Milwaukee Catholic Archdiocese · filed 2022-08-15

The amended complaint does not state any federal claims, so this court does not have “federal question” subject-matter jurisdiction over the defamation claim against Husch Blackwell.

Section 1331 requires a federal cause of action or a state-law claim that necessarily depends on a substantial federal question.

Parraz v. The Board of Regents of the University of New Mexico · filed 2022-08-19

The Notice of Removal at bar is similar to the pleadings in Sac & Fox Nation and Martinez in that it fails to show any federal cause of action or that federal law is a necessary element of the state-law causes of action.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal cause of action or a substantial question of federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Bey v. Sirius-El · filed 2022-08-19

Plaintiff’s Complaint thus wholly lacks any cause of action created by federal law, and therefore must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the claims rely exclusively on state law and raise no federal question.

CARIDE v. ALTMAN · filed 2022-08-25

Second, Plaintiffs maintain that their Complaint does not raise a federal question, since their claims rely exclusively on New Jersey law. I agree.

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

McCarthy v. The Lowell Sun · filed 2022-09-06

Because McCarthy has failed to state a claim arising under federal law, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint raises a claim under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Hunter v. Lehigh Valley Mount Pocono Hospital · filed 2022-09-12

The Court has federal question jurisdiction over “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, as noted supra, Plaintiffs did not plead any facts from which it can reasonably be inferred that they are raising a claim under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. (Doc. 1, at 1-3). Therefore, the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ original complaint.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law; a removal notice that invokes no federal question supplies no basis for that jurisdiction.

Kansas, State of v. Gilbert · filed 2022-09-14

Federal district courts have “federal question jurisdiction” over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Petitioner’s notice of removal does not appear to invoke either basis for original jurisdiction in this court, nor has the court located any support for allowing the removal of a closed action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the proposed pretrial order presents no federal question to be tried.

Bey v. Gabay · filed 2022-09-14

The Proposed Pretrial Order does not present a federal question to be tried.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over state law tort and contract claims that present no federal question.

McKie v. the Estate of Doris Dickinson · filed 2022-09-15

However, McKie’s brief does not identify any basis for federal question jurisdiction, and none is apparent—McKie’s causes of action are state law tort and contract claims.

Section 1331 supplies original jurisdiction over federal claims but does not provide jurisdiction over a proposed complaint containing only a state-law claim.

Harwick v. Cedar Fair, L.P. · filed 2022-09-22

There are no remaining federal claims, which previously provided original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Because there is no remaining basis for federal court jurisdiction over her premises liability claim, this court would not have jurisdiction of Harwick’s Proposed Second Amended Complaint.

A complaint that identifies no federal law supporting its claims does not establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

McCoy v. Calloway · filed 2022-09-28

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not identify any federal laws that could serve as the basis for federal question jurisdiction in this action.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises an issue of federal law.

Gilbert v. Kansas Department of Children and Families · filed 2022-09-29

Federal district courts have “federal question jurisdiction” over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “[A] cause of action arises under federal law only when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law.” Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor,481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987). ... Petitioner’s notice of removal does not appear to invoke either basis for original jurisdiction in this court, nor has the court located any support for allowing the removal of a closed action.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when the operative complaint pleads a claim arising under federal law, including a RESPA claim.

Hacker v. Truist Bank · filed 2022-09-30

Hacker’s claim for violations of RESPA, 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f), arises under federal law and, accordingly, gives rise to federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires enough information in the complaint to determine whether the suit alleges a violation of federal law or the Constitution.

Evans v. Internal Revenue Service · filed 2022-09-30

The plaintiff has not given the court enough information to determine whether his lawsuit is between citizens of different states involving more than $75,000 or whether his lawsuit involves an alleged violation of federal law or the Constitution. The court has no basis for exercising its limited jurisdiction and cannot determine what claim the plaintiff seeks to bring.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint neither states a cause of action created by federal law nor makes relief depend on a substantial question of federal law.

Jacobs v. Ashley Regional Medical Center · filed 2022-10-04

Ms. Jacobs cannot establish jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because she has not established that federal law creates a cause of action or that her right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a cause of action is based on federal law or the well-pleaded complaint necessarily depends on a substantial federal-law question.

Jean-Baptiste v. Montway LLC · filed 2022-10-19

Federal question jurisdiction exists where a plaintiff’s cause of action is based on a violation of federal law or where “the well-pleaded complaint necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Bracey v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Bridgeport, 368 F.3d 108, 113 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint’s allegations disclose no federal claim.

WARREN v. LIN · filed 2022-10-19

The factual allegations against Lin and the Sheriff’s Office are unclear and I cannot discern what these Defendants are alleged to have done that would give Warren a federal claim against either of them.

Section 1331 requires a claim under federal law for federal-question jurisdiction.

Wagner v. Lowe's Home Improvement · filed 2022-10-21

In addition, the Complaint does not raise any claims under federal law to confer this Court with subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal claim presented on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.

Finn v. State of New York · filed 2022-10-21

Under the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” ... Upon review, plaintiff has not alleged a colorable claim under either provision of federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that cites the Constitution and § 1983 but alleges no facts showing that the defendant acted under color of law.

THOMAS v. THOMAS · filed 2022-11-01

While Mr. Thomas cites the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as bases for jurisdiction, dkt. 4 at 2, he does not allege facts that support an inference that his brother was acting under color of federal or state law during the events alleged. Therefore, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the amended complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff identifies no federal law or constitutional provision the defendant allegedly violated.

Kalkhoff v. Equal Rights Division · filed 2022-11-04

First, the plaintiff has not identified a basis for the exercise of federal question jurisdiction. He has not identified a federal law or provision of the Constitution that he believes the Equal Rights Division has violated.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff brings a federal cause of action or the right to relief necessarily depends on resolving a substantial federal question.

7 West 21 LI LLC v. Mosseri · filed 2022-11-04

The Court must therefore remand for lack of jurisdiction unless either the Petition is brought under a cause of action created by federal law or a substantial question of federal law must necessarily be resolved to decide whether Petitioner is entitled to the relief sought in the Petition.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the proposed federal claims supply no basis for it.

Weaver v. Stobbs, II · filed 2022-11-07

Thus, Weaver cannot allege any § 1983 claim over which the Court has federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires an issue of federal law governing the dispute; an unjust termination allegation with no apparent federal law basis does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Bingham v. White Oak Commercial Group · filed 2022-11-08

The second general category of subject matter jurisdiction is based on the existence of an issue of federal law that governs the dispute. See 28 U.S.C. §1331. ... Because the pleading contains no basis for believing that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over Bingham’s claim, the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief could be granted, and is subject to dismissal under §1915(e)(2)(B).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no violation of federal law.

Tocarchick v. Fouts · filed 2022-11-10

Plaintiff has failed to allege a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. To the extent she raises any cognizable claim for relief, she does not allege a violation of federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no federal cause of action.

Kelly v. Phifer · filed 2022-11-17

Nor does Kelly’s Complaint seem to raise any federal question.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims involving federal law or the Constitution; citing federal criminal statutes that provide no private right to sue does not establish that jurisdiction.

Rogers v. Relitz · filed 2022-11-18

They also have the authority to consider and decide cases that involve violations of federal laws or the federal constitution—this is called “federal question” jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §1331. ... Although the complaint cites several federal statutes (18 U.S.C. §§245, 1363, 1369, 1505, 1859, 2071), they are criminal statutes that do not provide the plaintiff with a private right to sue. ... The court ORDERS that the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based solely on a federal preemption defense to state-law claims.

Friends of Del Mar Bluffs v. North County Transit District · filed 2022-11-18

Once again, there is a distinction between ruling that preemption is a valid defense in a particular case and ruling that there a sufficient basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... A preemption defense is thus insufficient, without more, to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires the underlying action to include a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

The North Carolina State Bar v. Crump · filed 2022-11-23

Crump fails to demonstrate, however, how the cmerying action in the DHC includes a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 jurisdiction requires a plausible federal claim; checking a federal-question box without identifying a basis for jurisdiction is insufficient.

Campbell v. Webb · filed 2022-12-02

Although Campbell checked a box on his form Complaint indicating that this matter involves a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 [see Record No. 1 at 3], he has not identified the basis for such jurisdiction, and this Court cannot fairly perceive any plausible federal claim in this case.

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

Hunter v. Title Max · filed 2022-12-02

As such, 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 permits jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action or the claim necessarily depends on a substantial question of federal law.

Kavanna v. Lawro · filed 2022-12-02

To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s claims must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A case arises under federal law if the complaint “establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Kain, 485 F.3d 730, 734-35 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 690 (2006)). Plaintiff does not contend that his claims arise under the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, and there is no apparent basis for the exercise of federal question jurisdiction of this matter.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim when resolving it necessarily requires deciding a substantial federal question.

The People of the State of New York v. Arm or Ally, LLC · filed 2022-12-08

The Court, however, will begin with their first ground — that, to prevail on the Fourth Cause of Action, the State must prove that the products at issue are “firearms” or “component parts” thereof within the meaning of federal law, see ECF No. 52 (“Defs.’ Opp’n”), at 6-8 — and, because it concludes that that ground is sufficient to establish jurisdiction, stop there.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that raises only state-law issues concerning a state-court writ.

Watkins v. Haywood County General Sessions Court · filed 2022-12-12

Instead, she seems to seek an appeal of a writ entered by a state court, raising only issues of state law. (See ECF No. 1.) The Court therefore does not have “federal question” jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when a complaint fails to state any federal question.

Nakdimen v. Ronald · filed 2022-12-13

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. ... And plaintiff abjectly fails to state any federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the complaint raises no claim under the United States Constitution or federal statutes.

Newman v. The Christina School District · filed 2022-12-14

In addition, 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. The Court does not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction when the complaint raises no federal constitutional or statutory claim.

Kilgoe v. Westlake Financial · filed 2022-12-14

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. The Court does not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a basis for federal-question jurisdiction; a party seeking removal must establish that basis.

VU URBAN RENEWAL A, LLC v. LEWIS · filed 2022-12-15

Defendant’s request for removal is sua sponte DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE due to its untimely submission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, failure to establish jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and inability to establish jurisdiction due to the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the allegations present no basis for a federal claim.

Frederick Smith, Jr. v. SpringHill Suites · filed 2022-12-16

It is apparent from Smith’s filings in both the District Court and on appeal that his allegations do not form any basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires an alleged violation of federal law to support federal-question jurisdiction.

JAMES CONSTANT V. SCHORR LAW · filed 2022-12-19

The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Constant’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Constant failed to allege any violation of federal law or diversity of citizenship.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction over a claim that a private entity violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Fuller v. Hibernia Oil · filed 2022-12-12

Thus, the district court lacked federal question jurisdiction. See § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over an employee’s OSHA retaliation claim when OSHA gives the employee no private right of action.

Doyle v. Indiana Packers · filed 2022-12-28

So OSHA does not provide Doyle with federal question jurisdiction to bring a retaliation claim.

Section 1331 confers federal subject matter jurisdiction when a plaintiff asserts a claim arising under federal law.

Hofbruhaus of America. LLC v. Oak Tree Management Services, Inc. · filed 2023-01-03

The assertion of a federal claim is sufficient to confer federal subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (conferring subject matter jurisdiction over questions of federal law).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims unless the claims necessarily raise a federal issue.

Beatty v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company · filed 2023-01-10

Having failed to identify a federal issue necessarily raised by Plaintiffs’ claims, Defendants have not met their burden of establishing that this Court has jurisdiction, and thus, remand is required.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over an action alleging a Fair Credit Reporting Act violation.

Neely v. Synchrony Bank · filed 2023-01-17

On September 28, 2022, the magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court deny Neeley’s motion to remand because it has federal question ... jurisdiction over this matter, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 [ECF No. 22 at 4-5]. ... Finding none, the Court: 1. ADOPTS the R&R [ECF No. 22]; ... 3. DENIES Neeley’s motion to remand [ECF No. 13]; and 4. DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts a federal claim or otherwise establishes that the action arises under federal law.

Smith v. Obama II · filed 2023-01-17

Jurisdiction may also be based on the existence of a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The Complaint does not assert a federal claim or properly allege the statutory or other basis for the exercise of jurisdiction required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and Local Rule 8-1.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege a claim under the Constitution or a federal law providing a right of action.

Hudson v. United States · filed 2023-01-19

Section 1331 requires that complaints allege valid claims under the United States Constitution or some federal law providing for a federal right of action.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a cause of action created by federal law or a right to relief that necessarily depends on a substantial federal question.

Scott v. Emanuel · filed 2023-01-24

Federal subject matter jurisdiction may be based on (1) federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The complaint must establish either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of substantial questions of federal law. ... Here, because the Court has dismissed his claim arising under 18 U.S.C. § 241 for failing to state a claim, Plaintiff does not assert a basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction; no federal question is alleged and no diversity of citizenship has been alleged or appears to exist.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint presents only state-law claims.

PORTVIEW PROPERTIES, LLC v. CORECIVIC, INC. · filed 2023-01-24

The remaining parties have not asserted diversity jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and the Complaint does not present a federal question, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over a state law contract claim that invokes no federal law or right.

Jacobson v. Pines · filed 2023-01-30

In the present case, Plaintiff’s claims do not arise under federal law. Her claims are based in contract, a matter of state law. She invokes no federal law or right. Accordingly, § 1331’s federal question jurisdiction does not apply.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over APA claims alleging MWPA violations; neither the APA nor the MWPA curtails that jurisdiction.

Shaw v. Esper · filed 2023-01-31

Here, federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and neither the APA, see Trudeau, 456 F.3d at 185, nor the MWPA curtails that grant of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide embedded federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because a defendant raises a PREP Act defense.

Hearden v. Windsor Redding Care Center LLC · filed 2023-01-31

In other words, the Ninth Circuit “said Saldana’s claims may in part arise from the use or non-use of covered countermeasures,” and thus any such distinction was not central to the Ninth Circuit’s overall conclusion that a PREP Act federal defense was not a sufficient basis to find embedded federal question jurisdiction. ... Because the Saldana decision is binding precedent and is dispositive of all three grounds asserted by Defendants for federal jurisdiction, as Defendants concede, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case.

Section 1331 requires allegations that establish a federal question for a district court to exercise jurisdiction.

Grier v. Realty Works · filed 2023-01-31

Here, the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint do not establish the requisite “federal question” for the Court to exercise jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over an action asserting a claim under the FMLA.

Alderman v. ADT, LLC · filed 2023-02-01

Count II clearly raises a federal question as it is titled “Violation of Family Medical Leave Act” and seeks relief for violations of FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. ... The court thus finds plaintiff’s complaint has raised a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties; a complaint must allege a basis for that jurisdiction.

Yang v. Fox · filed 2023-02-02

Federal jurisdiction can be found where the case arises under “the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), or where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 and is between citizens of different states, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(1)(a) (diversity of citizenship). Bovee v. Broom, 732 F.3d 743, 744 (7th Cir. 2013). Yang’s complaint fails to allege a basis of jurisdiction under these or any other federal statute.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over § 1983 claims alleging violations of federal constitutional rights.

Farson v. City of Lake Stevens · filed 2023-02-03

The County Defendants have met their burden here. As they point out, Mr. Farson has asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his federal constitutional rights—claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges only state-law tort claims and presents no question arising under federal law.

Cothran v. Davis · filed 2023-02-13

And, Cothran has presented no federal question that arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Instead, he alleges state law tort claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims against a private person merely because the dispute concerns Social Security benefits or administrative relief may be available.

Moore v. Moore · filed 2023-02-15

Although he, or his minor child, might have administrative recourse available within the Social Security Administration, see generally 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(j), 1383(a); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.2041(a), 416.641 (a), Plaintiff has no private right of action under the relevant federal laws, and the possibility of administrative recourse does not give this Court federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims against his ex-wife.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to establish a basis for federal-question jurisdiction.

DASPIN v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION · filed 2023-02-15

Plaintiff’s Complaint is sua sponte DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE due to its failure to establish jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and, further, its failure to present a cognizable claim pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2).

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over claims brought under federal statutes.

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP v. Bitgood · filed 2023-02-16

Plaintiff brings claims under specific federal statutes, however, and the Court is clearly vested with federal question jurisdiction to hear them. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state elder-abuse, negligence, and wrongful-death claims that raise no embedded federal question.

Moore v. Covenant Living West · filed 2023-02-21

Critically, however, it is well-established—and the parties were made aware—that Plaintiff’s state claims for elder abuse, negligence, and wrongful death do not raise an embedded question of federal law allowing for removal under Ninth Circuit precedent. ... Thus, subject matter jurisdiction is not invoked as the issues presented do not raise an embedded question of federal law.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action or the complaint on its face poses a federal question.

899 S. 19TH LLC v. KENNEDY · filed 2023-02-23

In contrast, federal question jurisdiction “arises when federal law creates the cause of action, or where the complaint, on its face, poses a federal question.”

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege a claim arising under the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty, or facts supporting federal-question jurisdiction.

Bey v. Do · filed 2023-02-23

Bey makes no reference to the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty of the United States in her complaint, nor does she allege facts which would allow the Court to infer federal question subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims completely preempted by LMRA § 301 because those claims arise under federal law.

Searcy v. Smith · filed 2023-02-24

Furthermore, because a preempted state law claim “is considered, from its inception, a federal claim, and therefore arises under federal law[,]” Caterpillar Inc., 482 U.S. at 393, the Court also concludes that it had federal question jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s breach of contract and tort claims.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a properly construed complaint alleges violations of federal law or rules.

Howes v. FINRA · filed 2023-02-24

Properly construed, Mr. Howes’ complaint alleges that FINRA violated federal laws and rules and applied rules in conflict with federal law, and he seeks equitable relief. As such, this court finds it has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 78aa.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s cause of action is created by federal law.

Scott v. Dean · filed 2023-02-27

Therefore, in order for the Court to exercise federal question jurisdiction, plaintiff’s cause of action must be created by federal law.

Section 1331 requires a substantial, actually disputed federal question on the face of the well-pleaded complaint whose resolution is necessary to the claim.

Askari v. Taj and Ark, LLC · filed 2023-02-27

The federal-question jurisdiction statute, however, requires that a substantial, actually disputed question of federal law be present on the face of the well-pleaded complaint, and that its resolution be necessary to the disposition of the claim over which jurisdiction is being asserted.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over § 1983 claims, but a complaint alleging only state-law claims does not establish federal-question jurisdiction merely by calling itself a § 1983 action.

Morgan v. Ada County Sheriff · filed 2023-02-28

Morgan is correct that federal courts have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to hear § 1983 claims. ... And Morgan does not actually assert any claims under § 1983 but instead expressly alleges only state common-law tort claims. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider these claims.

Section 1331 no longer supplied federal-question jurisdiction after dismissal of the federal claims on which that jurisdiction rested.

BOHNENKAMP v. WHISTERBARTH · filed 2023-03-07

Dismissal of the FTCA claims deprived the Court of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when a complaint’s allegations are construed as state law claims despite its assertion of federal constitutional violations.

Pariah v. Scott · filed 2023-03-13

Plaintiff asserts that the defendants have violated her federal constitutional rights. The defendants do not, however, appear to be government officials or other state actors. In addition, Plaintiff’s dispute with the defendants appears to arise out of an allegedly breached agreement to play Plaintiff’s song on a privately owned radio station and from a threat to Plaintiff’s life. The Court therefore construes the complaint as asserting claims under state law under the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, and not claims under federal law under the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only for claims arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Jacob v. Young · filed 2023-03-15

A review of plaintiff Michael Jacob’s complaint reveals no federal question against the defendants because the claims do not arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state labor claims when the LMRA does not preempt them.

Berreyes v. Southern California Gas Company · filed 2023-03-16

The Court thus does not have federal question subject matter jurisdiction over the overtime and meal and rest period claims in this case.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim asserted under federal law.

ReSea Project ApS v. Restoring Integrity to the Oceans, Inc. · filed 2023-03-17

As to the instant jurisdictional challenge, Plaintiff clearly asserts a claim under federal law thus invoking jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a substantial, nonfrivolous federal question that is a direct element of the plaintiff’s claim.

Tomey v. Tomey · filed 2023-03-20

For the Court to retain federal question jurisdiction, the federal question must be a direct element in the plaintiff’s claim, must be substantial, and not plainly frivolous.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a routine property-partition dispute with no evident federal issue.

Nardone v. Edee · filed 2023-03-22

Further, no basis for federal question jurisdiction is evident from the record; this matter appears to have always been, and remains, a garden- variety dispute over the requested partition or sale of real property of the kind routinely handled by the state courts of North Carolina.

Section 1331 provides original jurisdiction over federal constitutional claims against defendants in their individual capacities, even when they assert an immunity defense to official-capacity claims.

Cheripka v. Hess · filed 2023-03-23

That defense to one minor aspect of Cheripka’s claims does not cancel out this court’s clear, original jurisdiction over Cheripka’s constitutional claims against the defendants in their individual capacities.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when LMRA § 301 does not completely preempt it.

Reding v. John Fabick Tractor Company · filed 2023-03-28

Because § 301 does not completely preempt this question, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over Reding’s claim regarding his unused vacation days.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over ECOA claims because they arise under federal law.

DALAL v. COSTCO WHOLESALE · filed 2023-03-28

Dalal’s ECOA claims arise under federal law, and thus the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over them.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over state-law claims when the United States’ invocation of the state secrets privilege creates an embedded federal question that meets the jurisdictional test.

Grid Networks LLC v. Quantum Leap Research,LLC · filed 2023-03-31

This Court finds that an embedded federal question exists here in light of the United States’ formal invocation of the state secrets privilege.

A request for declaratory relief alone does not establish federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331; a separate basis for jurisdiction is required.

Brigade Holdings, Inc. v. United States Small Business Administratioin · filed 2023-03-31

As explained supra, because such claims cannot support jurisdiction, Plaintiffs must refer the Court to another cause of action to support their Section 1331 argument.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over claims arising under federal constitutional or statutory law.

Kim v. City of Sunnyside · filed 2023-04-03

Here, the Amended Complaint states claims for federal constitutional and statutory violations. ECF No. 6-4 at 9–10. Accordingly, this Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that presents no clear federal question.

Sporea v. Broward County Clerk of Court · filed 2023-04-03

There is no federal question that is clear from Count IV for which this Court would have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor are there any allegations that this Court would have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint invokes § 1983 and alleges action under color of state law, even if the federal claim is insufficiently pleaded.

ABREU v. SCI GREENE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION · filed 2023-04-04

Given the Complaint’s reference to § 1983 and allegations that “Defendants acted under color of state law,” see id. ¶ 14, although minimal, this Court finds it has federal question jurisdiction. However, for the reasons set forth above, the Complaint has failed to sufficiently plead a federal claim.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of federal lending statutes.

Gray v. CTP Funding · filed 2023-04-12

Alleged violations of federal lending statutes confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question; citing federal laws without showing their applicability to the claims does not establish jurisdiction.

Johnson v. District of Columbia Government · filed 2023-04-12

Furthermore, the complaint fails to state any federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff cites to the Interstate Compact Agreement and the FLPMA, but it is unclear what applicability, if any, these authorities have to plaintiff’s intended claims and the relief sought, or how they would provide him with a private right of action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when the alleged facts do not support a claim under the federal law invoked.

Kononen v. Banfield Pet Hospital · filed 2023-04-14

The Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction under federal question or diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a pleaded federal claim to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Parker v. Delaware Unclaimed Property · filed 2023-04-17

Plaintiff does not plead any federal claims, though federal claims related to, among others, return of property may be available.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to present a federal cause of action or a state-law claim implicating a substantial federal question.

Walls v. Genesis FS Card Services · filed 2023-04-17

In sum, because the Complaint does not present a federal cause of action or a state law claim implicating a substantial federal question, the Court lacks the requisite subject matter jurisdiction to proceed.

Section 1331 places the burden on the plaintiff to properly allege federal-question jurisdiction; failure to do so warrants dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

Ross v. Lehman · filed 2023-04-18

Plaintiff has failed to properly allege federal question jurisdiction, which he has the burden of doing. ... As a result, the Court finds that plaintiff’s action is subject to dismissal for lack of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the complaint states no claim arising under federal law.

Ritrovato v. Aloise · filed 2023-04-24

In the absence of a claim arising under federal law, the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts state-law claims without alleging a federal claim.

Weiss v. Trans Union LLC · filed 2023-04-25

Thus, viewing the Complaint and additional evidence submitted, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the present case before it.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint establishes a federal question.

Hendiazad v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC · filed 2023-04-27

We conclude that the district court did not err in denying the Hendiazads’ motion to remand to state court, as the complaint established federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim alleging violation of a county jail’s internal policies.

Fabian v. King County · filed 2023-04-28

As the parties here are not diverse and KCCF’s internal policies do not present a federal question, Mr. Fabian’s first claim lacks the necessary subject matter jurisdiction to be heard by this Court.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

J.G. v. San Diego Unified School District · filed 2023-04-28

As the Complaint presents claims arising out of federal law, the Court had, at the time of removal, federal question jurisdiction over the action.

Section 1331 requires a claim asserting a violation of federal law for federal-question jurisdiction.

Volking v. Airxcel, Inc. · filed 2023-04-28

But plaintiff doesn’t assert a violation of federal law, as required for the court to exercise jurisdiction under § 1331.

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

Cothran v. Arkansas State University Small Business & Technology Development Center · filed 2023-05-01

Cothran also fails to assert a federal question arising “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that alleges no violation of federal law and presents only a state-law breach of contract claim.

Burkhardt v. Warfield · filed 2023-05-03

Because Burkhardt’s complaint does not allege a violation of federal law, there is no federal question presented in Burkhardt’s complaint as is required for this Court to exercise jurisdiction under 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.

Grier v. Realty Works · filed 2023-05-04

Subject-matter jurisdiction may be proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 where a plaintiff asserts “[a] non-frivolous claim of a right or remedy under a federal statute,” commonly referred to as “federal question” jurisdiction. ... Here, the allegations of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint do not suggest the existence of a federal question, but a liberal construction of the Amended Complaint states a plausible basis for the Court’s exercise of its jurisdiction based on the parties’ diversity of citizenship.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction over a state-law claim that completely preempted federal law makes federal in character.

Steib v. Sony Pictures Television Inc. · filed 2023-05-05

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has original jurisdiction over civil claims “arising under” federal law. ... As the eighth cause of action is preempted, the Court possesses federal question jurisdiction and may consider Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Section 1331 does not provide subject matter jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no cause of action arising under federal law.

Fabrikant v. Karapetian · filed 2023-05-09

Fabrikant does not identify any cause of action arising under federal law, nor can the Court discern one under the facts alleged. Therefore, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction only when a case presents a federal question.

Tessanne v. Children's Hospital Medical Center of Akron · filed 2023-05-10

Without a federal question before it, this Court lacks the power to hear this case.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a plaintiff’s claim arises out of federal law.

Redkey v. First Western Trust Bank Incorporated · filed 2023-05-10

A court has federal question jurisdiction when the Plaintiffs claims arise out of federal law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates a claim pleaded by the plaintiff.

PRINCE v. PAJELA · filed 2023-05-16

Plaintiff’s First Amendment, federal Fair Housing Act, and § 1983 claims are all creations of federal law, and thus the Court has subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, including Lanham Act claims.

Bulls Construction Group LLC v. Bulls Construction Co LLC · filed 2023-05-16

Section 1331 vests federal district courts with original jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, such as Lanham Act claims.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a federal-law claim; merely invoking federal jurisdiction is insufficient.

Perez v. Empire City Casino · filed 2023-05-16

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

Section 1331 requires the complaint to establish a federal question for federal-question jurisdiction.

Princess Spencer v. Day Services · filed 2023-05-19

The district court properly dismissed appellant’s case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because the complaint established neither federal question nor diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.

Section 1331 gives a district court original jurisdiction over federal claims in the operative complaint at the time of removal.

McGarrity v. Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc. · filed 2023-05-23

At the time Plaintiff’s case was removed, this Court had original jurisdiction over the federal claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, see id. § 1367(a).

Section 1331 requires specific allegations based in a question of federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Rahman v. United States of America · filed 2023-05-23

In the absence of specific allegations based in a question of federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or in diversity of citizenship between the parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the action must be dismissed.