28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a private civil action based solely on criminal statutes that provide no private right of action.

Williamson v. Bray · filed 2023-05-30

Neither of these, however, present a proper jurisdictional basis. The two statutes cited by plaintiff are both criminal statutes, neither of which by their terms or structure provides a private right of action.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction when federal law creates the claim or the right to relief necessarily depends on a substantial federal question.

Miles-Baker v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. · filed 2023-05-30

The Court does not have federal question jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The complaint does not set forth any federal claims or otherwise assert facts suggesting that “federal law creates the cause of action or that [Plaintiff’s] right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”

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

Boulanger v. Marriott International, Inc. · filed 2023-05-31

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 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state and local discrimination claims when ERISA does not completely preempt them.

Facey v. Intrinsic Technology Group, Inc. · filed 2023-06-02

However, the Court finds that: (1) this action plainly does not involve claims arising under federal law as the Complaint contains disability discrimination claims brought under state and local laws only; and (2) Defendants failed to establish that ERISA preempts those claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the asserted federal issue arises only as a preemption defense.

Malone v. Russell · filed 2023-06-06

For largely the same reasons, the Court holds that Plaintiffs’ claims also are not removable on the ground that the claims raise a significant federal issue. ... All of these arguments go back to whether Section 14501 expressly preempts Plaintiffs’ claims, which, as stated above, is a defense to Plaintiffs’ claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims that raise no federal question.

Graham v. Anderson · filed 2023-06-08

Likewise, federal question jurisdiction does not apply under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Thus, the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Graham’s claims.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction when a complaint alleges violations of federal statutes.

Smith v. City of Kansas City, Missouri Board of Police Commissioners · filed 2023-06-09

First, Plaintiff’s petition pleads a federal question since it alleges violations of multiple federal statutes.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over Title VII claims even when a religious defense may bar relief.

McMahon v. World Vision Inc · filed 2023-06-12

The court disagrees. “Federal question jurisdiction is statutorily established, giving district courts ‘original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.’” Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church, 375 F.3d 951, 955 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1331). ... Because Ms. McMahon brings federal claims under Title VII (Compl. ¶¶ 6.1-7.3), and because her state law claims are sufficiently related to her federal claims (see id.), the court has subject matter jurisdiction over Ms. McMahon’s claims. ... In sum, the religious nature of this dispute does not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege a violation of federal law for federal question jurisdiction.

Bowman v. Merkley · filed 2023-06-13

Because Bowman’s complaint does not allege a violation of federal law, there is no federal question presented in Bowman’s complaint as is required for this Court to exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to allege facts showing that the cause of action involves an issue of federal law to invoke federal-question jurisdiction.

White v. Barrington Golf Club · filed 2023-06-22

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

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint states no federal basis for its claims.

RIVERA v. GROSS · filed 2023-06-30

Rivera has not stated any basis in the complaint upon which the court may exercise federal question subject- matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is not shown when the complaint alleges no claim arising under the Constitution or federal law.

Rice v. Progressive · filed 2023-07-05

The Complaint does not show that the Court has federal question jurisdiction because there are no allegations that this case arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

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

Johnson v. Tesla, Inc. · filed 2023-07-06

The Court concludes it does not have jurisdiction over this case because the Complaint does not contain allegations to support federal question jurisdiction and Plaintiffs response to Judge Yarbrough’s Order to Show Cause does not address jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint identifies no constitutional provision, federal law, or treaty.

Cothran v. Arkansas Department of Human Services · filed 2023-07-10

There is no federal question because Cothran does not point to a constitutional provision, federal law, or treaty.

Section 1331 requires a pleaded federal question for district court jurisdiction.

Cleveland v. Shawnee County Courthouse · filed 2023-07-11

The subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts 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. ... The cryptically worded Complaint, ECF No. 1, neither presents a federal question nor demands any relief.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on an ordinary federal preemption defense to a state-law claim.

Gulley v. Hansen & Adkins Auto Transport, Inc. · filed 2023-07-12

Ordinary preemption, however, does not create federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no cause of action arising under federal law.

Krueger v. Peopleready · filed 2023-07-12

Because federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable, the court must determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no cause of action arising under federal law.

Krueger v. Nebraska · filed 2023-07-12

Because federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable, the court must determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a medical malpractice claim that implicates no federal law or right.

McKenzie v. Chung · filed 2023-07-20

Plaintiff appears to allege medical malpractice against Defendant, who is a private party. Although Plaintiff may have a cause of action for medical malpractice under New York State law, Plaintiff’s allegations do not implicate any federal law or right.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint fails to allege a plausible violation of federal law.

Owens, Rita v. Quality Inn · filed 2023-07-26

Therefore, the complaint does not allege a violation of federal law, and this court has no jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when only state-law claims remain.

Shuler v. Arnott · filed 2023-07-26

Jurisdiction of federal courts remains limited to matters that arise out of federal law or disputes between parties from different states or countries. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. The only remaining claims in this matter are the Missouri state law claims against Defendants David Shuler, Paul Shuler, Trent Cowherd, and Cowherd Construction Company, Inc. ... Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the remaining state law claims against Defendants David Shuler, Paul Shuler, Trent Cowherd, and Cowherd Construction Company, Inc.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when the complaint states no basis for it.

BENZ-PUENTE v. TRUIST FINANCIAL · filed 2023-07-26

Because Benz-Puente has not stated any basis in the complaint upon which the court may exercise federal question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the only basis for the court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over his claims is 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint’s allegations do not state a federal claim.

Forbes v. General Counsel · filed 2023-07-28

Additionally, Forbes’ allegations about the quality of his tablet do not state a federal claim.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges a claim created by federal law.

Su v. Kwiat · filed 2023-07-28

Upon careful review of the Complaint, Answer, and parties’ submissions in connection with the MTD, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and further has stated a single claim for relief pursuant to Section 11(c).

Section 1331 requires a cause of action under federal law to invoke federal-question jurisdiction.

McEuens v. Leis · filed 2023-07-31

The court cannot determine that any of the claims in the complaint state causes of action under federal law sufficient to invoke jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over claims arising only under state law when the complaint raises no federal statutory or constitutional claim.

Tsimahidis v. Barnum · filed 2023-08-01

Second, although the Complaint asserts jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, it does not raise any federal statutory or constitutional claim. Rather, it raises claims which arise, if at all, under Arizona law.

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

Monzon v. Tesar · filed 2023-08-02

However, as the Complaint does not invoke any federal laws, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction either.

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

Pair v. Board of Liquor License Commissioners for Baltimore City(BLLC) · filed 2023-08-03

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met her burden to establish subj ect-matter jurisdiction based on a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to identify a federal law under which she could potentially recover to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Crosby v. Beadz · filed 2023-08-07

This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and as such, can only hear cases and controversies that involve a federal question (28 U.S.C. § 1331) or satisfy federal diversity jurisdiction requirements (28 U.S.C. § 1332). Here, Crosby has failed to establish jurisdiction through federal question by failing to specify any federal law under which she could potentially recover.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction for a claim under a criminal statute that creates no private civil right of action.

EL BEY v. JACOBS · filed 2023-08-08

However, 18 U.S.C. § 242 is a criminal statute that does not have private, civil right of action. ... Thus, federal question jurisdiction does not appear to exist.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff raises only state law claims.

Dubose v. United Services Automobile Association · filed 2023-08-14

There is no basis for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as plaintiff raises only state law claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising solely under state law.

Perry Jr. v. Brown · filed 2023-08-16

Rather, all of Perry’s claims against Brown arise under state law, and the allegations of the Complaint do not establish the requisite “federal question” for the Court to exercise jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question; a complaint that fails to state a § 1983 claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Welch Racing v. Double 00 Shitshow · filed 2023-08-17

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. ... Consequently, there is no discernible “federal question” alleged in the Complaint as Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for private claims based on federal criminal statutes that provide no private cause of action.

Welch Racing v. McCandless · filed 2023-08-17

As the alleged claims arise under federal criminal statutes which do not support private causes of action, federal question jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when claims arise under the Constitution or federal law.

SEXTON v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2023-08-17

At the time Defendants removed the case, the Court maintained federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as several of Plaintiff's claims originate under the United States Constitution or federal laws.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction for claims arising under federal law; it supplies no independent basis for jurisdiction over state-law child support arrearages after the federal claims are dismissed.

Sifuentes v. Department of Child Support Services Kings County · filed 2023-08-22

Generally, federal jurisdiction may be invoked if a civil action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States (i.e., if there is a “federal question”), see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or if there is complete diversity between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Neither basis for jurisdiction is present here. The Court has dismissed any claims that purport to arise under federal law, and Plaintiff cannot establish diversity of citizenship because he is a resident of California and Defendant is a municipal agency based in California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Therefore, the Court finds it has no independent basis to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over any claims related to child support arrearages.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint discloses no basis for it.

COBB v. RICHARDSON · filed 2023-08-24

Based on the Court’s review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court cannot discern any basis for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or for jurisdiction under a specific statutory grant.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a USFSPA claim when that statute creates no federal cause of action and the claim requires no resolution of a substantial federal question.

Mitura v. The State of New York · filed 2023-08-24

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, an action may be filed in federal court if the action "aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." ... The USFSPA does not expressly create a federal cause of action. ... Further, Plaintiff's claims do not require the resolution of a substantial question of federal law. ... Thus, this Court does not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff's 10 U.S.C. § 1408 claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no viable claim arising under the Constitution or federal law.

Robinson v. Allstate · filed 2023-08-28

To start, federal question jurisdiction is lacking because Plaintiff does not allege a viable claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

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

Colon v. Lopez · filed 2023-08-28

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

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction merely because Fannie Mae is allegedly involved in a dispute.

Estate of Rudolph Jennings, Sr. v. Sun West Mortgage Company, Inc. · filed 2023-08-29

This Court agrees with Richards that the alleged involvement of Fannie Mae falls short of demonstrating the existence of a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint contains no claims arising under federal law.

Rothschild v. The Pacific Companies · filed 2023-09-01

Because there are no claims in the SAC that arise under federal law, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal question jurisdiction when a complaint facially alleges a violation of federal rights.

Huffman v. Lindgren · filed 2023-09-01

Because Huffman ... facially alleged a violation of his federal rights, the district court had federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when all proposed federal claims are futile.

Hayes v. Fay Servicing, LLC · filed 2023-09-05

And federal question jurisdiction does not lie here because all claims that Hayes attempts to assert that arise under federal law are futile. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 is satisfied when a complaint alleges violations of federal statutes and regulations through an APA cause of action.

United Aeronautical Corp. v. Usaf · filed 2023-09-07

By alleging violations of federal statutes and regulations pursuant to the APA’s cause of action, Aero’s complaint asserts a federal question and satisfies § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal-question basis for jurisdiction; a complaint that identifies none does not establish one.

Jones v. Sharecare · filed 2023-09-11

Similarly, in addition to lacking a federal question basis for jurisdictions, Mr. Jones’s suits against Rolling Loud and Sharecare provide no specific facts from which the Court could possibly determine whether complete diversity exists.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; a complaint that identifies no federal statute or constitutional provision does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Jones v. Central Intelligence Agency · filed 2023-09-11

For example, Mr. Jones fails to assert any federal statute or Constitutional provision under which his claims against the University of Washington,3 or the Seattle Times arise, which is the only potential source of jurisdiction, as those entities both are Washington based organizations prohibiting complete diversity.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to establish that its claims arise under federal law; insufficient allegations do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Jones v. The White House · filed 2023-09-11

None of Mr. Jones’s complaints provide sufficient information to meet his burden of overcoming the presumption that the Court lack’s subject matter jurisdiction. ... The Court therefore FINDS that Mr. Jones fails to plead sufficient facts to permit the Court to assert subject matter jurisdiction over any of his proposed complaints.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties; a complaint without a federal question does not establish that jurisdiction.

Jones v. Alway · filed 2023-09-11

Similarly, in addition to lacking a federal question basis for jurisdictions, Mr. Jones’s suits against Rolling Loud and Sharecare provide no specific facts from which the Court could possibly determine whether complete diversity exists.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction when a plaintiff adequately alleges a controversy arising under federal law.

Forloine v. Persily · filed 2023-09-12

The Court finds that this is sufficient to invoke its subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a petition to compel arbitration when the underlying controversy arises under state law.

Wallrich v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. · filed 2023-09-12

Here, the action is predicated under Illinois state law, i.e., the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/15(b). Therefore, Petitioners’ claim of subject matter jurisdiction by means of a federal question remains improper.

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

Lafayette v. Burlington School District · filed 2023-09-14

Because the Amended Complaint does not state a claim under federal law, the court does not have federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; passing references to federal statutes that provide no cause of action do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Hayman v. Bldg Metro Capital LLC · filed 2023-09-13

Passing references to federal statutes that obviously do not provide him a cause of action will not do.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a civil action arises under federal law; a pleading that identifies no federal statutory or constitutional violation does not establish that jurisdiction.

In Re: Review of Extradition Detention Order · filed 2023-09-15

Plaintiff’s Motion for Review of Extradition also does not identify the violation of a federal statute or constitutional right upon which federal court jurisdiction may be based.

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

Rivard v. Smallheer · filed 2023-09-19

Because Plaintiff's Amended Complaint does not state a claim under federal law, the court does not have federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim only when it presents a substantial federal question satisfying all four Gunn factors.

Pierce County v. Washington State Department of Social and Health Services · filed 2023-09-26

The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action because Plaintiffs’ state law claims do not pose a substantial federal question in satisfaction of all four Gunn factors.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts subject-matter jurisdiction when a complaint includes a claim under federal law.

McDonald v. Exeter Finance LLC · filed 2023-09-27

First, Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. 8) is denied. Defendant timely removed this case to federal court because Plaintiff’s complaint includes a claim under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). (Doc. 1.) The Court therefore has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367(a).

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

Kim v. Andy Lee Liquor, inc.et Al · filed 2023-09-29

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s FLSA claim under 28 U.S.C. §1331 because it “aris[es] under the . . . laws . . . of the United States.”

Section 1331 gives district courts original federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under the TCPA.

Katz v. CHW Group, Inc. · filed 2023-09-29

This Court unquestionably had original federal-question jurisdiction at the time of removal, given that the TCPA is a federal statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint fails to show a federal question.

Anglin v. Brown · filed 2023-10-04

Although Plaintiff indicates that this Court has both federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction, the Complaint does not indicate that the Court has either. On its face, the Complaint does not implicate the Court’s original jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; merely invoking federal jurisdiction without facts supporting a federal claim does not establish jurisdiction.

Ruiz v. New York City Police Department · filed 2023-10-10

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... Plaintiff does not invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, and he fails to allege any facts suggesting that he can assert a federal claim.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim to support federal-question jurisdiction.

TUNSTILL v. ONEIL · filed 2023-10-11

Although Ms. Tunstill points to dire circumstances and the Court is sympathetic to her situation, the Court is unable to identify a federal claim which would provide it with federal question jurisdiction and thus the power to consider Ms. Tunstill's case.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction when a plaintiff asserts a claim arising under federal law, including RESPA.

Hutten v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC · filed 2023-10-17

In sum, while diversity jurisdiction as asserted by defendants is lacking, the court has original jurisdiction on the basis of a federal question due to plaintiff’s assertion of a claim under RESPA.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the complaint raises no federal question and its only factually supported claim seeks alimony and child support.

Seay v. State of West Virginia · filed 2023-10-18

Because the only claim in the Complaint that is supported by any discernible fact allegations is a claim for the award of alimony and child support, and Plaintiff’s complaint does not raise any federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this case and must dismiss the Complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges private theft without implicating a federally protected right.

McDavid v. Folkerth · filed 2023-10-19

Despite being given an opportunity to amend his complaint to clarify his claims, McDavid has again sued two private individuals and doesn’t assert there was any state action involved in the theft allegedly committed by the defendants—or, in any event, that a federally protected right “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” was implicated at all. ... Thus, federal question jurisdiction doesn’t exist.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint, read as a whole, asserts state-law claims despite references to federal statutes.

Mateo v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. · filed 2023-10-26

Here, those labels do not compel a finding of federal question jurisdiction. When considering the third and fourth causes of action in the context of the other claims Mr. Mateo alleges in his complaint, a fair reading is that Mr. Mateo intended to rely on state law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a medical malpractice claim against private doctors and medical entities when the claim has no federal-law basis.

East v. McDermott · filed 2023-10-27

The Court can discern no federal law basis for a claim against these private entities and doctors that would invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Care v. D'Agostino · filed 2023-10-27

Because Plaintiff does not “establish[] either that federal law creates the cause of action or that [her] right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law,” the court does not have federal question jurisdiction of her claims.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; allegations that identify no federal basis and suggest no federal violation do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Brown v. Brinkerhoff · filed 2023-10-31

For this Court to have federal question jurisdiction over this action, Brown must allege a claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Brown has not identified any constitutional provision or federal statute as a basis for his claim. Furthermore, the facts presented do not suggest that any federal constitutional or statutory violation has occurred.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff identifies no federal law giving rise to the claim.

Jackson v. Allstate Insurance Company · filed 2023-11-01

Plaintiff points to no federal law that might give rise to federal question jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 permits federal jurisdiction when the face of the complaint alleges a violation of a federal statute.

J.M. v. Baltimore County Board of Education · filed 2023-11-01

Defendants contend that federal jurisdiction over this case is appropriate because the case presents a federal question. This Court agrees. ... The allegation that Defendants violated a federal statute (the IDEA) is clear from the face of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, including copyright claims.

Fabrikant v. Kalinin · filed 2023-11-02

Given that Plaintiff purports to bring a claim under the “US Copyright Act,” a law of the United States, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over colorable claims arising under federal law; a filing citing only state law does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Hussar v. Hussar · filed 2023-11-03

Hussar cites to no federal law in his filing, only state law provisions. Given that Hussar has failed to assert a civil rights violation under an applicable federal statute, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over his claims.

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

BORGHERO v. HARMON · filed 2023-11-03

To establish federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff must assert at least one claim that arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law; allegations that do not establish a federal question do not satisfy it.

Maxwell v. Foris Dax, Inc. · filed 2023-11-06

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ... Even construing those and other allegations liberally, Plaintiffs have not established the Court has jurisdiction under either a specific statutory grant, federal question jurisdiction, or diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when the pleaded conduct falls outside the federal statute invoked as the basis for jurisdiction.

Houle v. Wells Fargo, NA · filed 2023-11-08

Plaintiff alleges that fraud and forgery occurred in connection with the assignment of his mortgage, not immigration proceedings. Plaintiff therefore does not state allegations that provide a basis for federal jurisdiction under the statute invoked. Accordingly, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of federal law or the U.S. Constitution.

Grawien v. Jaeger · filed 2023-11-09

A federal court may decide a claim for violations of federal law or the federal Constitution. 28 U.S.C. §1331. ... The plaintiff has not alleged that Attorney Jaeger violated any federal law or any provision of the U.S. Constitution, and both the plaintiff and Attorney Jaeger are citizens of Wisconsin.

Section 1331 permits dismissal for lack of federal-question jurisdiction when the claim is patently without merit.

James of the Family McDonald v. State of Washington · filed 2023-11-14

“[J]urisdictional dismissals in cases premised on federal-question jurisdiction are exceptional” and are permitted only when the claim is “patently without merit.” Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 1987). ... Plaintiff’s complaint and subsequent request for mandatory injunction are patently without merit.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction for claims arising under federal law; allegations of state law violations alone do not establish it.

Richardson v. Mitchell · filed 2023-11-14

There is no allegation that provides this Court with subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over civil cases arising under federal law; claims that do not arise under federal law do not establish that jurisdiction.

Brady v. Progressive Insurance · filed 2023-11-17

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 Brady’s claims arise under federal law.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law.

David v. Tesla Inc. · filed 2023-11-20

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over cases—like this one—that arise under federal laws.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when a case presents no federal question.

Progressive Gulf Insurance Company v. Harris · filed 2023-11-20

Here, Progressive Gulf does not present a federal question, nor does it adequately assert diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject-matter jurisdiction over FLSA claims that arise under federal law.

Zabrodin v. Silk 222, Inc. · filed 2023-11-20

This action thus arises under the laws of the United States, which gives the Court subject-matter jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint pleads no cause of action based on federal law or the United States Constitution.

Wilson v. Pharmacuticals · filed 2023-11-20

Furthermore, plaintiff has not pleaded any cause of action based on a federal statute, treatise, or provision of the United States Constitution that would give rise to federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives a district court subject matter jurisdiction when a liberally construed filing asserts a Section 1983 claim that raises a federal question.

Anderson v. Long · filed 2023-11-22

Plaintiff’s filings therefore raise a federal question, which gives this Court subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A plaintiff must establish that § 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over the action against the defendant.

Carlborg v. Mount View Care Center · filed 2023-11-30

In any event, Plaintiff has not established that this court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action based on federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 with respect to Defendant, and even if she had, she has failed to state a claim against Defendant because her complaint contains no allegations against it.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question; vague allegations that identify no federal cause of action or federal right do not establish jurisdiction.

Qtaish v. Metro Lab · filed 2023-11-30

Plaintiff fails to raise a federal question.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint includes a § 1983 claim.

Truant v. Persuhn · filed 2023-12-12

This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based on federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim.11 ... As currently pled, this Court has jurisdiction over this matter. Therefore, remand is improper at this stage.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim for interference with a parent-child relationship by deceit, fraud, and misuse of the law when no federal cause of action exists.

Hurd v. Long · filed 2023-12-12

There is no federal cause of action for interference with a parent-child relationship by deceit, fraud, and misuse of the law, thus, there is no federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges federal claims but pleads no facts supporting them.

Thomas v. Affordable Loan Company · filed 2023-12-20

Plaintiff brings some allegations, e.g., claims of due process and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, over which a federal court may have subject matter jurisdiction. However, the facts in the Complaint do not support such claims.

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

Braxton v. Ellis · filed 2023-12-22

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.

Section 1331 requires facts supporting federal question jurisdiction; merely invoking it while alleging contract and negligence claims that suggest no federal cause of action is insufficient.

Scales v. Newtek One · filed 2024-01-02

Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that this Court can consider his claims under its federal question jurisdiction. He states that he is asserting claims of breach of contract and negligence, which are usually brought under state law, not federal law, and his allegations do not suggest any viable federal cause of action.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over a state residential landlord-tenant dispute merely because the plaintiff invokes federal law without facts supporting a federal claim.

Marcus v. Alem Enterprise, Inc. · filed 2024-01-02

Merely invoking federal jurisdiction, without pleading any facts demonstrating that the claim has a basis in federal law, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the federal laws cited in a complaint have no plausible connection to its factual allegations.

Nyla Dazhane Gilmore Estate v. Coleman · filed 2024-01-04

Here, likewise, Plaintiff’s allegations do not plausibly establish that the Court may properly exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over this action.

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

Becker v. Lambertson · filed 2024-01-05

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, diversity jurisdiction is clearly lacking and Becker’s allegations do not suggest the existence of a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a claim under the Constitution, a federal statute or other federal law for federal-question jurisdiction.

Fuller v. Patel · filed 2024-01-08

Federal question jurisdiction (the box the plaintiff marked on the complaint) requires the plaintiff to state a claim under the Constitution, federal statutes or federal law. 28 U.S.C. §1331. The plaintiff has not stated actionable claims under any federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; a state law contract claim alone does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Gradford v. Circuit Appeal · filed 2024-01-09

Although Plaintiff invokes federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff does not allege any violation arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Indeed, Plaintiff does not cite any particular federal statute or constitutional provision that would be applicable to the allegations in his complaint. Instead, Plaintiff’s complaint appears to assert a state law breach of contract claim involving an alleged settlement agreement, not a claim arising under federal law. Thus, Plaintiff's complaint does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when federal law completely preempts a state-law claim, but an ordinary preemption defense does not create that jurisdiction.

Vegas Fab & Finish v. AMG Freight LLC · filed 2024-01-16

Because preemption under the FAAAA is best classified here as ordinary preemption—an affirmative defense—rather than as so-called “complete” preemption which itself creates a federal question, this issue gets to the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. The Court thus finds that it does not have jurisdiction to rule on AMG’s FAAAA preemption defense and leaves the question to the state court on remand.

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

Bhat v. Tajiguli · filed 2024-01-18

The plaintiffs’ complaint for unlawful detainer arises solely under California law and does not state a cause of action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Federal question jurisdiction is not available.

Section 1331 requires a claim based on federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Paul v. Department of Labor · filed 2024-01-18

There are two types of federal subject-matter jurisdiction: federal question jurisdiction, which requires a claim based on a federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and diversity jurisdiction, which requires a lawsuit with a value of greater than $75,000 and in which no defendant lives in the same state as the plaintiff.

Section 1331 requires factual allegations supporting a federal claim; a conclusory assertion of discrimination does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

May v. Kiefer · filed 2024-01-19

Although Plaintiff makes a conclusory statement of discrimination based on her disability and mental issues, she has failed to allege any factual basis—such as the nature of her disability—that connects a protected class to any housing discrimination. As such, there are no factual allegations in the amended complaint that support a violation of federal law to give rise to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Mosher v. Koebel Reed · filed 2024-01-19

Mosher also has not alleged any claims arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States such that this Court would have federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires more than citing federal statutes and asserting that claims arise under federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

SWEIGERT v. GOODMAN · filed 2024-01-19

"Litigants who simply cite federal statutes and say that their claims arise under federal law do not conjure federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331."

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

Proctor v. Bank of America · filed 2024-01-26

In her amended complaint, Ms. Proctor still does not raise any federal claims that would confer subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear clearly in the complaint; allegations from which no federal question can be inferred do not establish jurisdiction.

Greene v. De Paul · filed 2024-01-29

Here, plaintiff not only fails to cite to any federal authority, but the court cannot so much as infer a federal question from the allegations presented against the named defendant.

Section 1331 requires a claim based on federal law or the Constitution to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Bobo v. State of Oregon · filed 2024-01-29

In addition, Plaintiff does not allege Defendants are employed by the federal government or are federal agencies; that Defendants violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights while acting under color of state law as required to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; or that Defendants violated Plaintiff's rights under a federal law or statute. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to establish this Court has federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of federal law.

Firsov v. City and County of Honolulu · filed 2024-02-05

Federal question jurisdiction exists because Plaintiff alleges violations of federal law, including the REAL ID Act of 2005 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction from a bare allegation of false arrest with no supporting facts.

Manning v. Attorney General · filed 2024-02-07

The Magistrate Judge further found that while Plaintiff had used the term “false arrest” in his original complaint, the complaint wholly lacked any factual basis for such a claim that would possibly provide jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 7) as the opinion of the District Court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the federal statute cited by the plaintiff is inapplicable to the claim.

Guichard v. McCormack Baron Management, Inc. · filed 2024-02-09

However, the federal statute to which plaintiff cited, titled “Breach or violation of required contract terms,” governs certain contracts made by agencies of the federal government. ... Thus, it is inapplicable to plaintiff or the present action and cannot form the basis of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only state-law tort claims.

OLIVER v. LOCKWOOD · filed 2024-02-12

Even liberally construing the allegations of the Complaint, the Court can discern no plausible basis for a claim based on federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The only potential claims that the Court can discern are tort claims under Pennsylvania law.

Section 1331 cannot be invoked when the complaint fails to allege a federal claim.

Miller v. Catholic Charities · filed 2024-02-20

Here, even afforded a liberal construction, Plaintiff’s complaint has failed to allege a federal claim such that the Court’s federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 may be invoked.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action or relief necessarily depends on resolving a substantial question of federal law.

Wilson v. Ramsey County · filed 2024-02-23

Nor does Wilson plausibly allege the Court has jurisdiction over any state law causes of action. Ordinarily, a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction when it has federal question or diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Federal question jurisdiction exists when “federal law creates the cause of action” or if “relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”

Section 1331 requires sufficient allegations of a claim arising under the Constitution or federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Samuelson-Brandon v. United States Senate · filed 2024-02-23

Plaintiff also has not alleged that Defendants violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights or that Defendants violated Plaintiff's rights under a federal law or statute. Plaintiff, therefore, has not alleged facts sufficient to establish this Court has federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint pleads a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or federal law.

Bounds v. People Ready Temp Agency · filed 2024-02-27

A plaintiff properly invokes §1331 federal question jurisdiction when he pleads a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a removed action when the removing party fails to establish a federal question.

Chavez v. Chavez · filed 2024-02-27

The district court properly sua sponte remanded this action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Leah Chavez failed to establish federal question jurisdiction or show a basis for civil rights jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over cases involving questions arising under federal law.

Irvine Promenade Apts LLC v. Skyler Gist · filed 2024-03-01

A federal court can assert subject matter jurisdiction over cases that involve ... questions arising under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Even if Hill had removed with the other defendants’ consent, removal would still be improper because—as a federal district court has already explained in this exact case—this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction over a civil action asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Boso v. Rolyson · filed 2024-03-05

In addition to diversity jurisdiction, however, this Court also exercises original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, in Count One, Plaintiffs have asserted a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides subject-matter jurisdiction when a plaintiff adequately alleges claims arising under federal law.

Ajjahnon v. Amerilife of North Carolina, LLC · filed 2024-03-05

In her Motion, Plaintiff states that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because she is alleging claims arising under federal law. In this respect, the Court agrees that Plaintiff has adequately alleged the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s Motion will be granted as to Defendant’s second defense.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a case that presents no federal question.

JOHNSON v. META PLATFORMS, INC. · filed 2024-03-08

This case does not present a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a complaint cites inapplicable federal statutes.

Bui v. Caballero · filed 2024-03-12

Plaintiff cannot create federal question jurisdiction by merely citing inapplicable federal statutes.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the federal statute invoked does not apply to the relief sought.

Wallace v. Patriot Federal Credit Union · filed 2024-03-18

Although Wallace’s amended complaint references the federal Right to Financial Privacy Act, 12 U.S.C. § 3401 et seq., that Act governs the disclosure of financial records to government agencies, and is inapplicable to the relief sought by Wallace. As such, it does not confer federal question jurisdiction over his claims for relief.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim when it necessarily raises an actually disputed and substantial federal issue that a federal court can resolve without disrupting the federal-state balance.

CARROLL v. HACKENSACK MERIDIAN PASCACK VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER · filed 2024-03-18

This so-called “arising under” or “embedded” jurisdiction applies in the “slim category” of cases in which a state-law claim implicates a federal issue that is: “(1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.” ... WHEREAS Plaintiff’s CEPA claim does not meet these four elements, and therefore, the instant action must be dismissed.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under a federal statute, the Constitution, or a treaty for federal-question jurisdiction.

Short Bear-Traversie v. U.S. Government · filed 2024-03-18

Plaintiff has not alleged that her claim arises under a federal statute, the United States Constitution, or any treaty of the United States as required for “federal question” jurisdiction unde 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Garkov v. Jehovah's Witnesses · filed 2024-03-25

The district court properly dismissed appellant’s case without prejudice because the complaint established neither federal question nor diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; allegations of a state-law contract dispute alone do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Hooks v. Reese · filed 2024-03-27

Federal question jurisdiction exists if the case arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”9 Ms. Hooks does not rely on, or cite to, any federal law in her Complaint. Instead, Ms. Hooks alleges that the Defendants interfered with her ability to secure a contract – a claim that seemingly arises under Arkansas (not federal) law. Based on the allegations in the Complaint as it is currently pled, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under a federal statute, the United States Constitution, or a United States treaty for federal-question jurisdiction.

DeCory v. Regional Health Hospital · filed 2024-03-27

Plaintiff has not alleged that his claims arise under a federal statute, the United States Constitution, or any treaty of the United States as required for “federal question” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under a federal statute, the U.S. Constitution, or a treaty for federal-question jurisdiction.

DeCory v. South Dakota Department of Social Services · filed 2024-03-27

Plaintiff has not alleged that his claims arise under a federal statute, the United States Constitution, or any treaty of the United States as required for “federal question” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a municipal case based on local-law citations merely because the defendant asserts federal constitutional rights.

AVON MUNICIPAL COURT v. URUZA · filed 2024-03-28

But the municipal case involved citations under local laws, not claims “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Thus, this Court lacks original jurisdiction over the municipal case.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims invoking federal law or the Constitution even if those claims may be substantively defective.

Robertson v. Breakthrough Towing, LLC · filed 2024-03-29

The Court has original jurisdiction over these claims because they “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Even though a plaintiff’s claim may be substantively defective, the raising of a federal question by invoking a federal statute or the Constitution is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on a federal court to adjudicate the claim.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal statutes or the Constitution.

Lysyy v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company · filed 2024-04-03

District courts have original federal question subject matter jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Plaintiffs’ first and second arguments fail because MSJ Defendants removed this case on the basis of federal question jurisdiction in addition to diversity jurisdiction.

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

White v. Shenava · filed 2024-04-03

Likewise, White has failed to plead the existence of Federal Question Jurisdiction. Simply put, White has not brought any claims that arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim for relief; citing procedural rules and the constitutional article establishing the Supreme Court does not establish a federal question.

Edwards v. California Supreme Court · filed 2024-04-04

A claim “arises under” federal law and triggers federal question jurisdiction if, based on the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” the plaintiff alleges a federal claim for relief. ... These rules governing procedure and constitutional authority do not give rise to a private cause of action or a federal question.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction over a viable, well-pleaded § 1983 claim even when an affirmative defense may defeat the claim.

Plaquemines Parish Ventures LLC v. Plaquemines Parish Council · filed 2024-04-04

PPV’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 triggers jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The defendants do not contest subject-matter jurisdiction on these grounds. Rather, they assert that this Court lacks jurisdiction because they are protected by legislative immunity. However, whether legislative immunity precludes a cause of action is an affirmative defense that is properly raised as a 12(b)(6) challenge; it is not a complete bar to the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to show that federal law creates the claim or that relief necessarily depends on resolving a substantial federal question.

Stergen v. Stergen · filed 2024-04-04

Plaintiff’s complaint does not demonstrate either that federal law creates a cause of action or that his right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

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

Qtaish v. Metro Lab · filed 2024-04-08

The district court correctly concluded that the complaint established neither federal question nor diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, and appellant has not asserted any basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction on appeal.

Section 1331 requires a nonfrivolous claim for relief under federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Minor v. Sanchez · filed 2024-04-09

If subject matter jurisdiction relies on a federal question, the party bringing the case must demonstrate that they have asserted a claim for relief under federal law and that the claim is not frivolous. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 199 (1962); 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Here, Plaintiff has failed to establish a federal question under § 1983 as there is no allegation of a specific federal right being violated.

Section 1331 requires allegations supporting federal-question jurisdiction; a complaint without them does not establish federal jurisdiction.

Harrison v. Andrews Mike · filed 2024-04-10

The Court concludes it does not have jurisdiction over this case because: (i) the Complaint does not contain allegations to support diversity or federal question jurisdiction; (ii) Plaintiffs did not show cause why the Court should not dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction; and (iii) Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to Judge Ritter’s Order to Show Cause.

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

Brown v. NYCHA Development · filed 2024-04-15

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 show a claim arising under federal law; allegations that do not point to a federal-law violation do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Robinson v. Sedgwick Claims Management Service · filed 2024-04-15

Plaintiff does not invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, and the facts alleged do not plainly point to any violation of federal law. The allegations of the complaint thus do not show that the Court has federal question jurisdiction of this action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over the proposed medical-malpractice negligence complaint.

Blair v. Hattiesburg Clinic · filed 2024-04-16

However, even if this were considered an attempt to amend her Complaint to add these new allegations, such an amendment would be futile since, as stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Court would still lack subject matter under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 or 1332.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a petition seeking child support and custody that presents no federal question.

Lax v. Michele N. West Harvey · filed 2024-04-17

However, the Petition confirms the underlying state case seeks an order for, among other requests, child support and legal and physical custody of Plaintiff and Defendant’s minor children. See dkt. 11 at 44-61. Thus, the Court concludes it does not have federal question jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Murphy v. Aramark Campus, LLC · filed 2024-04-22

All the statutes under which plaintiff seeks relief are laws of the United States giving rise to federal question jurisdiction.

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

Shackleford v. Pirro & Church, LLC · filed 2024-04-23

The Court does not have federal question jurisdiction because the plaintiff's allegations fail to state a claim under federal law.

Section 1331 supplies subject matter jurisdiction when a proposed amended complaint includes a viable claim arising under federal law.

Datres v. Winfree · filed 2024-04-24

As an initial matter, the Court is satisfied that it now has subject matter jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. As discussed below, Datres’s proposed second amended complaint contains at least one federal question for which amendment would not be futile, namely several claims arising under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”).

Section 1331 requires a plausible federal question to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Gioia v. Johnson & Johnson · filed 2024-04-19

None of these complaints alleges a plausible federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the federal provisions a plaintiff cites provide no cause of action against the defendant.

Richmond v. Weise · filed 2024-04-26

Richmond does not allege any federal cause of action against Backyard Specialty sufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law.

Wilson v. Key Bank Corp. Financial Corporation · filed 2024-04-29

Because these claims arise out of federal law, the Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 requires facts supporting a claim arising under federal law; merely invoking federal jurisdiction does not suffice.

Bell v. New York Legal Assistance Group · filed 2024-04-29

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... Here, Plaintiff invokes the court’s federal question jurisdiction, but his allegations do not suggest a viable cause of action under federal law.

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

Roberts v. Narayan Pharmacy · filed 2024-04-29

The alleged facts therefore do not show that any federal law or constitutional right was implicated when Plaintiff attempted to fill her prescription.