28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law; allegations invoking criminal statutes that a private citizen cannot prosecute do not establish a federal question.

Wiltz v. OhioHealth Riverside Methodist Hospital · filed 2024-04-30

But “as a private citizen, [Ms. Wiltz] has no authority to initiate a federal criminal prosecution of the defendants for their alleged unlawful acts.” ... A review of the Complaint thus reveals that it asserts no federal question and that there is not complete diversity among the parties.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to show that the case arises under federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Joplin v. Capstone Real Estate Services, Inc. · filed 2024-05-02

Plaintiff has not shown that the Court has federal question jurisdiction over this case.

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

Roberts v. Montefiore Mount Vernon The University Hospital for Albert Einstein College of Medicine · filed 2024-05-02

Plaintiff invokes this Court’s federal question jurisdiction as a basis for the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction, but she does not allege facts suggesting that Defendant violated any federal law.

Section 1331 requires facts supporting a claim under the Constitution or federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Bailey v. Oregon State Treasurer · filed 2024-05-05

Plaintiff, therefore, has not alleged facts sufficient to establish this Court has federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the defendant fails to establish that federal labor law completely preempts them.

Jacobs v. Palamerican Security California Inc. · filed 2024-05-06

Defendant has failed to show Plaintiff’s claims are substantially dependent on any of the identified provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, so § 301 preemption is inapplicable. Consequently, Defendant has failed to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question; allegations concerning union rules, without a specific federal constitutional or statutory violation, do not suffice.

CASIANO v. COLVIN · filed 2024-05-07

Because Casiano does not allege a specific violation of the U.S. Constitution or of a federal statute, her claims are more logically construed as a violation of the AFSCME constitution and/or bylaws and, therefore, do not present a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a purely private family dispute outside federal law.

Harvey v. Wilder · filed 2024-05-08

To bring this case within federal jurisdiction, Harvey must either bring a claim based on a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or allege a basis for diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This case involves purely private behavior—a dispute among family members—which takes it outside the realm of federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal cause of action or a right to relief that necessarily depends on a substantial federal question.

Afiz v. Buckner · filed 2024-05-09

A petitioner 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 a substantial question of federal law.” Williams v. Ragnone, 147 F.3d 700, 702 (8th Cir. 1998). ... Here, Petitioner seeks relief exclusively under Rule 91.01 of the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner does not invoke the federal habeas statutes and there is no indication that diversity jurisdiction exists in this matter. Thus, the Court will dismiss this matter for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a plausible claim under federal law; merely citing a federal statute does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Planque v. Seattle Police Department · filed 2024-05-17

It is not sufficient to simply reference a federal statute because not all statutes provide grounds for a civil lawsuit in federal court.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; invoking federal jurisdiction without facts supporting such a claim is insufficient.

Lacey v. Sure Shot Books Publishers LLC · filed 2024-05-28

To support federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s claims must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint regarding Defendant’s failure to send him the written materials that he had paid for do not implicate a claim under federal law. Thus, federal question jurisdiction is lacking.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint invokes federal jurisdiction without facts showing a federal-law claim.

Debellis v. Sanchez · filed 2024-05-29

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

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the action contains no RICO claim or other claim implicating a federal question.

Starlight Dunes Homeowners Association v. Sadorra · filed 2024-05-30

The instant case does not involve a RICO claim or any other claim that would implicate a federal question.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction over asserted § 1983 constitutional claims even if those claims may ultimately fail.

Wilson v. Johnson · filed 2024-05-31

Plaintiffs clearly assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims which falls under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction) over state law claims. This is clearly sufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction as is not a question of whether those claims may ultimately be successful, but rather whether they are asserted – which they are.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law; a plaintiff need not file such a claim in state small claims court because the defendant prefers that forum.

Mancilla v. Chesapeake Outdoor Services, LLC · filed 2024-05-31

No authority exists supporting the proposition that a plaintiff must file their federal-question-based lawsuit in state small claims court rather than federal court when a defendant would have preferred an alternate forum. Rather, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides that federal district courts “shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Plaintiff’s claims arose under a federal law—the FLSA—and the Court properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction regarding Plaintiff’s MWHL and MWPCL claims. Plaintiff will not be admonished for filing a federal claim in federal court.

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

Shaw v. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority · filed 2024-06-04

The district court properly denied Shaw’s request for entry of default and dismissed Shaw’s action because Shaw failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (setting forth requirements for federal question jurisdiction), § 1332(a) (setting forth requirements for diversity jurisdiction); Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (explaining that the party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction); see also Tuli v. Republic of Iraq (In re Tuli), 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that “a district court has an affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties” before entering default).

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law regardless of a party’s citizenship.

Doss v. Connexion Point · filed 2024-06-05

Plaintiff’s claims arise under Title VII and the ADA, and the Court therefore has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which does not depend on a party’s citizenship.

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

Heath v. Gallaway · filed 2024-06-10

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

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

Craft v. United Services Automobile Association · filed 2024-06-10

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

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint contains no federal claims.

(PS) Lewis v. Bear Stearns Residential Mortgage Corp. · filed 2024-06-11

Therefore, remand to state court is necessary because Wurz’s joinder destroys diversity jurisdiction and no federal claims exist in the SAC to establish the federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions asserting federal statutory claims.

Floyd v. Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC · filed 2024-06-11

The Court finds it has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides that “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Floyd’s First Amended Complaint asserts two federal causes of action: (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and (2) 42 U.S.C. § 2000a.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims under federal statutes such as the ATA; whether a plaintiff qualifies to sue under the ATA is a merits question.

Caballero v. Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias De Colombia · filed 2024-06-13

But the Florida court undoubtedly had federal-question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to address Caballero’s claim against FARC under a federal statute like the ATA. ALBA argues that Caballero was not a U.S. citizen when his father was murdered and the ATA only permits suits by plaintiffs who were U.S. nationals at the time their cause of action accrued.33 But this is a merits argument about the scope of the ATA, not a jurisdictional argument that dispels the Florida court’s subject matter jurisdiction to address the scope of the ATA in the first instance.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff merely invokes federal law without establishing a federal basis for the claims.

Jones v. Navy Federal Credit Union · filed 2024-06-14

The Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis that Jones’ haphazard implication of federal law is insufficient to establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or § 1332.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the court finds no plausible federal claim.

VALENTINE v. MONROE TOWNSHIP · filed 2024-06-20

Without a federal claim, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and so, the Court dismisses this action.

Section 1331 does not support subject matter jurisdiction when the complaint establishes no federal question.

Bell v. SCF Investments Advisors, Inc. · filed 2024-06-26

Appellant has not demonstrated that the district court erred by dismissing the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because the complaint established neither federal question nor diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a claim asserting a federal question for a district court to exercise federal-question jurisdiction.

Harris v. Dr. Jason Eric Garber · filed 2024-06-27

Because Plaintiff does not establish diversity jurisdiction and fails to plead a claim that asserts a federal question, Plaintiff fails to establish the Court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over her claims.

Section 1331 requires a plausible claim arising under federal law; citing federal law that does not apply to the alleged facts does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Franklin v. Walmart Service Department Mechanic · filed 2024-06-27

With respect to federal question jurisdiction, Franklin cites to federal law, including cases under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but none of the federal law she invokes is applicable to the facts she alleges.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that can succeed on an alternative theory without resolving a disputed federal issue.

Blandford v. UofL Health, Inc. · filed 2024-07-01

Blandford’s “complaint on its face [therefore] states alternate theories supporting a state-law claim,” see White, 2022 WL 4588417, at *3 (quoting Long, 201 F.3d at 760); “a federal question is not ‘necessarily raised’ or ‘actually disputed,’” Williams, 2023 WL 2789296, at *3; and remand is required.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to establish a federal question to invoke federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

Lara v. Lara · filed 2024-07-02

Nor has she otherwise established federal question or diversity jurisdiction necessary to invoke this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over her claims. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a).

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

Piens v. Reckard · filed 2024-07-08

Plaintiff has not alleged that his claim arises 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 provides original jurisdiction over federal-question claims, but the complaint must establish a basis for that jurisdiction.

Flenaugh v. Eacrett · filed 2024-07-03

As pleaded, the Court is unable to establish subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.

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

Gaston v. Eldertline Women Shelter · filed 2024-07-10

Liberally construing plaintiffs allegations to raise the strongest arguments they suggest, the complaint does not suggest any basis for the exercise of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a federal district court jurisdiction over a section 1983 suit because it raises a federal question; venue is a separate issue.

JACKSON v. DIXON · filed 2024-07-12

And this Court has jurisdiction—a separate question from venue—under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiff’s section 1983 suit raises a federal question.

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

Cahill v. Cahill-Vieira · filed 2024-07-15

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 gives federal district courts original subject matter jurisdiction over claims under the Labor Management Relations Act.

Adams v. Ford Motor Company · filed 2024-07-16

While Plaintiff argues that this case should be remanded to state court because this Court does not have jurisdiction over his claims, (ECF No. 6, PageID.111), Defendant UAW is correct that this Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the LMRA claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when the complaint’s asserted § 1983 claim alleges no cognizable deprivation of a federal right.

Green v. McComas · filed 2024-07-18

Green has not established federal question jurisdiction. ... As for the named officers in the Complaint, Green does not allege a cognizable deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to link the alleged conduct to an issue of federal law to plead federal question jurisdiction.

Hunter v. Addison on Main · filed 2024-07-19

Substantively, Hunter complains about how she was treated by Defendants but does not link that alleged conduct to any issues of federal law. Therefore, she has not pled federal question jurisdiction as to any of those claims either. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Myers v. City of Naples, Florida · filed 2024-07-24

The Court finds no federal subject matter jurisdiction is stated because plaintiff has failed to allege a claim under 42 U.S.C. §$ 1983, or any other federal statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the claim has no federal cause of action and raises no substantial question of federal law.

Smith v. People's Bank of Middle Tennessee · filed 2024-07-24

First, the Court lacks federal-question jurisdiction. Smith’s cause of action is not created by a federal statute; rather, the only federal law he cites is an inapplicable Department of Agriculture regulation that contains no cause of action. Nor does Smith raise a substantial question of federal law; instead, he essentially alleges wrongful foreclosure—a state-law claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when an unintelligible complaint fails to allege a discernible basis for it.

Cole v. WH Puppetry · filed 2024-07-26

Here, Plaintiff fails to adequately allege that this Court has jurisdiction under a statutory grant, federal question jurisdiction, or diversity jurisdiction. Indeed, as the Complaint is unintelligible, it is impossible for the Court to discern a basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a DMCA claim even when whether the alleged conduct occurred domestically remains a merits question.

Superama Corporation, Inc. v. Tokyo Broadcasting System Television, Inc. · filed 2024-08-01

Whether Superama alleged domestic conduct thus did not affect the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction. ... Because the district court had federal question jurisdiction over Superama’s DMCA claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the district court had supplemental jurisdiction over the Japanese law copyright claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over cases in which the plaintiffs assert federal claims.

Murphy v. Brixworth Homeowners Association, Inc. · filed 2024-08-08

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the BHOA violated two federal statutes—the ADA and FHA—and their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. ... Because Plaintiffs assert multiple federal claims, the Court has original jurisdiction and will not remand the case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint does not plead a plausible federal claim.

Sutton v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections · filed 2024-08-12

Having reviewed the relevant filings, including the Notice of Removal and Plaintiff’s Petition, the Court agrees with the parties that the Petition does not, on its face, plead a plausible federal claim. Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this action, and Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Remand will be granted.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction over a Truth in Lending Act claim.

TODD JR. v. CAPITOL ONE · filed 2024-08-13

The motion to remand is DENIED as this Court has federal question jurisdiction stemming from Plaintiff’s federal Truth in Lending Act claim.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction when federal law creates the claim or a well-pleaded complaint necessarily depends on a substantial federal question.

Davila v. Blaise · filed 2024-08-15

A case properly invokes federal question jurisdiction when federal law creates the plaintiff’s cause of action or when “the well-pleaded complaint necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” ... Construing Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the ACS caseworker to “raise the strongest arguments they suggest,” McLoed v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d 154, 156 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Bertin v. United States, 478 F.3d 489, 491 (2d Cir. 2007)), they fail to assert any plausible facts to suggest that Defendant violated the Constitution or federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the pleadings establish no federal basis for the claims.

Dudley v. East Texas Educational Insurance · filed 2024-08-15

As the Report explains, the pleadings in this case do not establish a basis for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 or federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege a basis in the Constitution or federal law to establish federal question jurisdiction.

McCafferty v. Salina, Kansas, City of · filed 2024-08-16

Plaintiff must allege facts concerning a violation of the Constitution or another federal law for this court to have jurisdiction over the action. ... Therefore, he has failed to show that this court has federal question jurisdiction and his complaint is subject to dismissal.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the alleged conduct violates neither the Constitution nor a federal statute.

Lewis v. Ludwig · filed 2024-08-21

Nothing that Phillips allegedly said or did violates the United States Constitution or a federal statute, which means the court does not have federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction when a complaint alleges a cause of action under federal law or the right to relief necessarily depends on a substantial question of federal law.

Millard v. Lauder · filed 2024-08-22

Federal question jurisdiction exists if the complaint alleges a cause of action under federal law or the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law. ... Here, Millard does not plead facts sufficient to establish either federal question or diversity jurisdiction. First, although Millard’s pleadings attempt to implicate federal statutes, none apply to this case.

Federal-question jurisdiction is determined from a voluntarily amended complaint, so dropping the only federal claim ends that basis for jurisdiction.

Bate v. Securly, Inc. · filed 2024-08-23

Second, plaintiffs relinquished federal-question jurisdiction when they dropped their only federal claim in their new complaint.

Section 1331 requires a party invoking federal-question jurisdiction to identify a federal law, constitutional provision, or treaty that supplies jurisdiction.

Mukamal v. Ofer · filed 2024-08-23

In his Notice, Ofer fails to cite to any law, provision in the Constitution, or relevant treaty which confers § 1331 jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to establish a claim under federal law or the Constitution to invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Williams v. La Vie Residences · filed 2024-08-26

The Complaint does not identify the domicile of the named defendants and does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides 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.

Doumbia v. Bamba · filed 2024-08-26

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

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

Shepard v. Jacobs-Epps · filed 2024-08-26

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

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over the remaining claims when an amended complaint removes all federal law claims.

Chapski v. Cosmetic Executive Women, Inc. · filed 2024-08-28

In response, pursuant to this Court’s Individual Rules I(C)(3) and II(B)(6), Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint removing all federal law claims. ... A review of the notice of removal and the complaint in this action reveals no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction when a complaint raises federal issues.

Sterusky v. Cooper · filed 2024-08-30

This Court properly has federal question jurisdiction over this case because both the original Complaint and Amended Complaint raised federal issues.

Section 1331 requires a plausible federal-law basis for federal-question jurisdiction.

Butler v. Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority · filed 2024-09-04

Because Plaintiff alleges no plausible basis for federal question jurisdiction, this Court is unable to find that it exists.

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

Spencer, Heru v. The Church of Prismatic Light · filed 2024-09-04

This case involves claims that arise under federal law, as well as related state-law claims. Accordingly, this court has subject matter jurisdiction authority over all of the claims.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts a federal cause of action.

Gaines v. State of California · filed 2024-09-05

There is a federal cause of action to enforce RICO, 18 U.S.C. 1964, and that is Plaintiff’s first claim for relief, so there is federal jurisdiction over this case.

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

Barnes v. City of Cleveland, Ohio · filed 2024-09-10

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 confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a federal defense is available to a state-law claim.

Beard v. Connolly-Pacific Co. · filed 2024-09-10

There is no federal question jurisdiction simply because there is a federal defense to the claim.

Section 1331 provides an independent basis for jurisdiction over a federal claim when joining non-diverse defendants destroys diversity jurisdiction.

Caballero v. Gateway Mortgage · filed 2024-09-11

The Court finds that federal question jurisdiction provides an independent basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the § 1983 claim against the non-diverse Constables Odom, Barnes, Frias, Kitchens, and Jason Johnson even though their joinder destroys diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction when a complaint alleges federal civil rights violations.

Letricia Brown v. State of California · filed 2024-09-16

Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, the district court had removal jurisdiction because the original complaint alleged federal civil rights violations. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (allowing removal if the district court has original jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (setting forth original jurisdiction); K2 America Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024, 1029 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that a case arises under federal law if “federal law creates the cause of action”).

Section 1331 requires facts supporting a claim arising under federal law; merely naming a federal statute does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

ASHFAQ v. AROCHO · filed 2024-09-17

Federal question jurisdiction exists when a dispute “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. While Plaintiff’s Civil Cover Sheet indicates that this case involves the False Claims Act, his Complaint does not set forth any facts that could support such a claim. This Court need not credit this bald assertion. ... Accordingly, this Court has no basis for exercising subject matter jurisdiction, and the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

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

DODSON v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL · filed 2024-09-20

Subject matter jurisdiction in federal court falls within two categories: (1) diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which encompasses disputes between citizens of different states alleging an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000; and (2) federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which encompasses disputes “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... Indeed, the Complaint does not assert any federal causes of action and does not name the U.S. government as a party.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question for federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

Ruiz-Romero v. Industrial Comission of Puerto Rico, Inc. · filed 2024-09-23

After a review of Plaintiff’s response to the Show Cause Order and his Amended Complaint, which involves a workers’ compensation claim, the Court finds it fails to present a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or establish diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to state a claim arising under federal law for federal-question jurisdiction.

De La Torre v. Castillo · filed 2024-09-26

Here, the Complaint does not state a claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Griego v. CHAPS Housing Assistant Program · filed 2024-09-27

It is unclear whether there is any basis for federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The complaint identifies no federal cause of action or federal question.2 The Court cannot discern from the complaint any basis on which subject matter jurisdiction could exist.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a complaint that invokes a federal statute, even if the claim fails on the merits.

Nelson v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 2024-09-30

Nelson’s complaint explicitly relied on § 301—a federal statute. That gave the federal court jurisdiction and made removal proper. The fact that he can’t actually state a hybrid claim under § 301 relates to the merits of his claim, not the district court’s jurisdiction to decide it.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction merely because a complaint alleges federal-law violations; the court must determine whether the complaint actually presents a federal question.

Morgan v. 21st Judicial District Court of Louisiana · filed 2024-09-30

Although Morgan alleges violations of federal laws as the bases for federal question jurisdiction, a review of the complaint reveals that no federal question exists here.

Section 1331 provides subject matter jurisdiction over federal claims.

Doe 1 v. Gupta · filed 2024-09-30

There is no question that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides for subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ federal claims and that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 provides for supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ related state-law claims.

Section 1331 provides original jurisdiction over federal claims even when the plaintiff considers the state law claims more important or says they predominate.

Arntsen v. State of Washington · filed 2024-10-03

Nor is it of any moment that Arnsten himself puts more subjective value on his state law claims; he asserted multiple federal law claims against the defendants, and they were entitled to remove the case on that basis. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Whether the state law claims predominate is an issue the Court considers when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, not whether to exercise original jurisdiction over federal claims.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to establish that the action arises under federal law; a complaint that identifies no federal law fails to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Kush v. Dickson · filed 2024-10-08

As to bringing a claim under federal law, Mr. Kush does not cite or mention any federal law under which his action is brought.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the complaint’s substance does not suggest a federal question.

Time Warner Inc. v. Johnson · filed 2024-10-22

Neither does this Court have federal question jurisdiction. The substance of Mr. Johnson’s Complaint is not clear, but it does not suggest that this Court has federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal cause of action or federal question to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Griego v. CHAPS Housing Assistant Program · filed 2024-10-28

It is unclear whether there is any basis for federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The complaint identifies no federal cause of action or federal question; instead, Plaintiff submits “racial discrimination” and disability discrimination” as the basis of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over state law defamation claims when the complaint alleges no facts suggesting a federal claim.

Zorilla v. Youtube · filed 2024-10-28

Because Plaintiff has not alleged facts suggesting a viable claim arising under federal law, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction of this action.

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

BAISDEN v. HAWKINS · filed 2024-11-08

Federal question jurisdiction exists when a dispute “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff does not assert any claims arising under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question; unexplained case citations and a reference to a historical judiciary order do not establish jurisdiction.

Epperson v. Codification Order 497 · filed 2024-11-08

The apparent case law citations in his complaint, without more, are not sufficient, nor is his reference to a judiciary order from 1758. Thus, Plaintiff's complaint does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges no claim within that jurisdiction.

VIRGO v. VIRGO · filed 2024-11-14

Because Virgo has not alleged a claim within this Court’s federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, ... there is no ... apparent basis for the Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over any claim Virgo seeks to bring against Sandra Lee Virgo.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a foreign-judgment recognition action that functions as a declaratory action when its mirror-image coercive action presents an independent federal claim, even if recognition also seeks monetary relief.

Guotaiqixing Biomedical International (S) PTE Ltd. v. Dai · filed 2024-11-18

While it is true that the MJA Action seeks more than just declaratory relief, that does not preclude application of the mirror image rule.

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

Navin v. Peyton · filed 2024-11-13

However, Plaintiff’s Complaint and Motion to Withdraw border on indecipherable and fail to establish a basis to proceed in federal court.

Section 1331 requires a federal question; a complaint establishes no federal question jurisdiction when it invokes no federal cause of action and alleges no facts showing a federal basis.

Spencer v. Self Storage Plus · filed 2024-11-20

First, Plaintiff has failed to state a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff neither invokes any authority that provides a federal cause of action nor can the court independently discern any basis for federal question jurisdiction from the facts in the complaint.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over civil actions raising federal constitutional or statutory claims.

Hess 353733 v. Dannels · filed 2024-11-20

A federal court has original jurisdiction “of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Accordingly, the Court finds Defendants properly interpreted Plaintiff’s Complaint as raising federal causes of action and thus properly removed the matter to this Court.

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

Duncan v. Marks Taxidermy · filed 2024-11-20

Here, Plaintiff does not invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, and her allegations do not suggest any viable claim under federal law. The Court therefore lacks federal question jurisdiction of this action.

A complaint that does not establish whether its claims arise under federal law does not establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Bennett v. Scouting America Aloha Council 104 · filed 2024-11-29

However, even liberally construing the Complaint, the Court is unable to determine whether Plaintiff is bringing employment discrimination and/or retaliation claims and, if so, whether he is bringing those claims under federal law. The Court therefore concludes that the Complaint does not establish jurisdiction based on federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A prior judgment that may preclude a federal claim does not defeat federal-question jurisdiction when the claim otherwise satisfies § 1331.

Mosher v. Veyda · filed 2024-12-02

The existence of a prior decision that has preclusive effect is a fairly common reason why claims are dismissed, but that is because such claims fail to state a claim on which relief can be granted, not because the applicability of a doctrine such as res judicata or collateral estoppel deprives the court of subject-matter jurisdiction when the claim otherwise meets the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1332.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for civil claims based on 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343.

Roberson v. Williams · filed 2024-12-12

Therefore, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343 neither entitle Roberson to civil relief nor trigger jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a medical malpractice complaint that asserts no federal question.

Sanders v. Stanley · filed 2024-12-16

This Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s medical malpractice Complaint, which does not assert a federal question or invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law or the Constitution; a complaint alleging only state-law claims does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

(PS) Nguyen v. Frank · filed 2024-12-17

Plaintiff also has not established federal question jurisdiction. ... There is no federal law or statute cited in the first amended complaint that governs an issue or claim alleged.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the alleged private conduct does not support a § 1983 claim.

Timmons v. Hunt · filed 2024-12-17

The Magistrate Judge further concluded that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the private conduct Plaintiff complains of is not actionable under § 1983. ... Upon such review, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no federal law governing an alleged claim or issue.

(PS) Nguyen v. Chau · filed 2024-12-17

Plaintiff also has not established federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”). There is no federal law or statute cited in the complaint that governs an issue or claim alleged.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when no federal law or statute governs an issue or claim alleged in the complaint.

(PS) Nguyen v. Nguyen · filed 2024-12-17

Plaintiff also has not established federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (the federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”). There is no federal law or statute cited in the complaint that governs an issue or claim alleged.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint invokes § 1983 but identifies no federal right allegedly violated.

Lewis v. Michigan Secretary of State · filed 2024-12-18

For starters, Lewis’ complaint does not demonstrate that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. ... It is not enough for Lewis to simply use the Section 1983 label.

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

Hunt v. Street · filed 2024-12-23

Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not established jurisdiction based on a federal question.

Section 1331 requires facts showing that a civil action arises under federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Sanchez v. West Valley R.E. L.L.C. · filed 2024-12-23

Plaintiff does not provide any facts to suggest her allegations constitute a civil action “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Thus, Plaintiff has not established that there is federal question jurisdiction over her claim.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, including claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Benjamin v. Spiess · filed 2024-12-26

Because claims under § 1983 arise under federal law, the Court has jurisdiction over such claims pursuant to § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state wrongful death claims invoking federal motor-carrier standards when the federal issues are not substantial and a federal forum would disrupt the federal-state balance.

KERR v. INGERSOLL-RAND INDUSTRIAL U.S., INC. · filed 2025-01-06

Plaintiff’s state law wrongful death claim against Defendant Ingersoll-Rand does not merit federal question jurisdiction. To the extent the claim raises the question of Ingersoll-Rand’s duty under FMCSA or FMCSR, the question is not substantial and hearing it would disrupt the federal-state judicial balance approved by Congress.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on a CVRA claim because the CVRA creates no private right of action.

Alcala v. Office of Crime Victim Services · filed 2025-01-07

A case properly invokes this jurisdiction when federal law creates the plaintiff’s cause of action. ... Even if Alcala had named a defendant that was amenable to suit, he could not successfully invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by alleging a CVRA violation.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction for cases involving the Constitution, a federal law, or a treaty; allegations presenting none of these do not establish it.

Graham v. Terry Family Funeral Home · filed 2025-01-10

A “federal question” case involves the Constitution or a federal law or treaty. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Plaintiff does not allege any federal cause of action, and she and Defendant are citizens of the same state, Oregon. Thus, Plaintiff fails to show federal court jurisdiction over this case.

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

Winters v. Unknown Party · filed 2025-01-10

Second, as explained above, Plaintiff has failed to allege any claim arising under the FLSA or other federal law. The Court therefore does not have federal question jurisdiction over her Complaint.

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

Gregson v. RI Parole Board · filed 2025-01-13

Even considering Mr. Gregson’s pro se status, and all the leniencies afforded to pro se plaintiffs, the Court finds no question (in this claim) on which it has jurisdiction. As there is no claim for diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1332, Mr. Gregson would have to allege a Federal law contravened to invoke federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over claims arising under the U.S. Constitution, a federal statute, or a treaty; a state law trust claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Harris v. Michigan, State of · filed 2025-01-13

This includes two main types of cases: (1) cases in which a plaintiff alleges a violation of the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute or treaty, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) cases in which a plaintiff raises state law claims against defendants who are citizens of a different state and alleges over $75,000 in controversy, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ... Harris’ sole claim is for breach of a constructive trust—if this is indeed a claim,1 it is a state law claim. ... So Harris’ complaint does not plead facts to support federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to identify a cause of action arising under federal law for federal-question jurisdiction to attach.

IRVING v. JACK DANIELS AUDI · filed 2025-01-14

While Plaintiff’s Complaint indicates that this case involves theft and fraud, the Complaint does not set forth any facts that identify a cause of action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States such that federal question jurisdiction would attach.

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

Wrenn v. Williamson · filed 2025-01-14

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint failed to establish either diversity or federal question jurisdiction.

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

LUCIANO v. THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA · filed 2025-01-15

These allegations do not invoke this Court’s federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions alleging violations of the Constitution or federal statutes.

McWilliams v. Gilligan · filed 2025-01-17

WHEREAS, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides that district courts shall have original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the laws of the United States. WHEREAS, Defendants have established subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff alleges violations of his Constitutional rights, along with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over an alleged federal claim even when the complaint fails to plead its required elements, unless the alleged cause of action is so patently without merit that jurisdiction is absent.

Gedney v. Dollar General Corporation · filed 2025-01-21

But a court only lacks jurisdiction under Section 1331 when “the cause of action alleged is so patently without merit.” ... Here, Plaintiff raises a federal question. ... But that does not mean that the Court lacks jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction to review agency action when Congress has barred review, including review of USCIS’s discretionary adjustment-of-status process.

Geda v. Director United States Citizenship and Immigration · filed 2025-01-23

Rather we hold as a threshold matter that the INA precludes § 1331 federal question jurisdiction here.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim asserting a violation of federal law.

Ellis v. Pinckley · filed 2025-01-23

As noted by Defendants in the Proposed Pretrial Order (Record Document 130), Ellis asserted a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act (“FDCA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, thereby implicating federal law and giving rise to jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction ends when the plaintiff dismisses the federal claims that enabled removal, leaving only state-law claims.

Garcia-Lumbano v. Marsh Puerto Rico, Inc. · filed 2025-01-24

Therefore, given Plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of her federal law claims, the Court no longer has jurisdiction over the remaining Puerto Rico law claims, and remand is proper.

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

Bellas v. Kahn · filed 2025-01-24

Here, Plaintiff states no cause of action arising under federal law or the U.S. Constitution. See ECF No. 1-1 at 6. Thus, Plaintiff does not state a basis for the Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law medical negligence claim when the complaint supplies no basis for a viable federal claim.

Nasir v. Bayhealth · filed 2025-01-28

Employing the less stringent standard afforded to pro se litigants, see Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94, the Court cannot discern from the allegations in the Complaint any basis for a viable federal claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law; a well-pleaded complaint must raise a federal issue.

Kingsley v. United States · filed 2025-01-28

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to pursue a negligence claim against GEO Transport and its transport officers, he has failed to show that this Court has jurisdiction over such a claim. ... 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.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a public-records request when the asserted federal claim alleges no constitutional violation.

Klat v. Wahl · filed 2025-01-29

Federal-question jurisdiction does not exist here. Although Plaintiff attempts to couch the case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as a question arising under the United States Constitution, a failure by a police department to provide records in response to a public records request is not a constitutional violation and therefore does not fall under Section 1983, which requires an underlying constitutional violation.

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

GREENE v. ST VINCENT DE PAUL CARDINAL MANNING CENTER · filed 2025-02-03

Here, Greene not only fails to cite any federal authority or allege facts essential to show jurisdiction, but the Court cannot discern a federal claim against St. Vincent De Paul that would allow him to proceed in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a discernible federal claim supported by alleged jurisdictional facts.

GREENE v. WEINGART CARE FIRST VILLAGE · filed 2025-02-03

Here, Greene not only fails to cite any federal authority or allege facts essential to show jurisdiction, but the Court cannot discern a federal claim against Weingart that would allow him to proceed in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the federal statute invoked does not apply to any named defendant.

Johnson v. Veritas Investment Inc · filed 2025-02-03

A plain reading of the statute demonstrates that it cannot apply in this case because all Defendants are private parties and Plaintiff does not name a local government as a defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiff has again failed to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction over the named Defendants.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over claims arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Tatchi v. TransUnion LLC · filed 2025-02-11

Plaintiff’s Complaint raises claims arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States, and thus this Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a justiciable federal question; citing the statute alone does not establish one.

Hairston v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-02-12

Citation to the statute providing for federal question jurisdiction does not in and of itself create or evidence a justiciable federal question.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law; the court found that the pleaded state-law claims and deficient civil RICO claim did not establish that jurisdiction.

Nair v. Titan Towing · filed 2025-02-14

Plaintiff fails to establish diversity or federal question jurisdiction and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim that comprise the vast majority of his claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint invokes the ADA but alleges no conduct that could constitute discrimination under it.

Porter v. Services for the Underserved · filed 2025-02-15

Federal subject matter jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or when plaintiffs and defendants have complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ... Plaintiff does not allege a single action or inaction by Defendant that the Court may construe as discriminatory conduct. Thus, Plaintiff’s attempt to invoke the ADA as the basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction fails.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to review whether state action complies with federal law when the governing federal statute does not withdraw that authority.

Churchill Downs Technology Initiatives Company v. Michigan Gaming Control Board · filed 2025-02-19

Even if a federal statute “does not confer jurisdiction,” so long as it “does not divest the district courts of their authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to review the [state actor’s] order for compliance with federal law,” then federal jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 requires plaintiffs to show that their claims present a federal question; citing federal statutes that do not support claims against the defendant does not establish jurisdiction.

French v. Westcorp Management Group Empire Apts. · filed 2025-02-21

Consequently, the plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing there is federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to establish that the case arises under federal law to support federal question jurisdiction.

Walz v. Federal Home Loan Mortage · filed 2025-02-24

Therefore, the Amended Complaint fails to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction through a federal question.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a non-frivolous claim under a federal statute; a complaint alleging no violation of federal law does not establish it.

McSpadden v. Craighead · filed 2025-02-27

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. ... Plaintiff’s allegations do not suggest the existence of a federal question as Plaintiff does not allege a violation of any federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question; citing the statute without a substantive basis for federal jurisdiction is inadequate.

Bluebird Drive, LLC v. Obando · filed 2025-03-03

First, defendants cite 28 U.S.C. § 1331, ECF No 1. at 1, but fail to present a question of federal law. Citation of the statute without substance to support the Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to the statute is inadequate.

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

Warfield v. Tucker · filed 2025-03-03

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Plaintiff’s cause of action must “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 requires sufficient factual allegations to establish federal-question jurisdiction; dissatisfaction with legal representation alone does not establish it.

MACELLARI v. IMPERIAL · filed 2025-03-04

Even under the liberal reading that this Court gives to Macellari’s Complaint, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), the Court is unable to determine if it has subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit—diversity of citizenship or federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Without more factual allegations, Macellari’s alleged dissatisfaction with Imperial’s legal representation is insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction.

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

GRANT v. LLAMAS · filed 2025-03-04

However, even under a liberal construction of the Complaint, the Court cannot discern any basis for Grant to pursue a federal claim against Llamas such that the Court could exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when all claims in the complaint arise under state law.

Escalera v. Jose · filed 2025-03-10

First, plaintiff's complaint does not appear to present a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because all of his claims arise under state law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction merely because a complaint refers to federal law.

Pollard v. Equifax Information Services LLC · filed 2025-03-05

Even if Plaintiff's complaint is read to raise issues sounding in federal law, it does not necessarily mean that jurisdiction is appropriate in federal court.

Section 1331 gives original jurisdiction over the FDCPA claim, but the remaining state-law contract and UCC claims do not independently provide federal-question jurisdiction.

Keller v. Kerwin · filed 2025-03-11

The Court having found in favor of Defendant on the FDCPA claim has dismissed the only claim Plaintiff presents that gives the Court original jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s remaining claims are all state law claims regardless of how Plaintiff argues.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Courville v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections · filed 2025-03-12

Therefore, the § 1983 claim presents a federal question, and the Court has jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint states no cognizable federal claim.

Boutros v. The UPS Store Corporate · filed 2025-03-12

The Court is unable to identify a cognizable federal claim (or any claim) in Plaintiff's Complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law defamation claim against private parties when the complaint alleges no claim based on the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty.

Jackson-Tatum v. Sook · filed 2025-04-02

And the complaint has no other potential claim that is based on the United States Constitution, federal laws, or treaties of the United States that could provide federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because a defamation claim against non-governmental actors is based on state law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint cites a federal statute but alleges no facts implicating it.

Bennett v. Robinhood Financial LLC · filed 2025-04-02

First, Plaintiff has not stated any claims arising under federal law. The complaint states that jurisdiction exists “under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) because”—but Plaintiff fails to finish the sentence, offering no reason why the action presents a federal question. (Dkt. 1 at *2.) And although the complaint cites to a federal statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a), it makes no factual allegations relating to or implicating that statute. Indeed, 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a), which falls under the Civil Rights Act, guarantees equal rights to make and enforce contracts and initiate legal action, inter alia. Absent from the complaint is any factual allegation that would suggest that Plaintiff complains of discrimination, which is what 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a) protects against. Thus, no federal question exists.

Section 1331 provides subject-matter jurisdiction when a complaint arises under federal law.

Davis v. Kirk · filed 2025-04-03

This contention is without merit: the magistrate judge had subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because his complaint arises under federal law, and there was personal jurisdiction because Plaintiff filed his complaint in this district.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law; claims with no identified federal statutory basis do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Donoho v. Johnson · filed 2025-04-04

Under federal question jurisdiction, a federal district court has jurisdiction over “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... For her other claims, Plaintiff fails to provide the federal statutes that would give the Court authority to hear those claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff states no plausible claim under the cited source of federal law.

Gant v. Orbit Leasing · filed 2025-04-16

Plaintiff objects that this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because he “is suing under federal laws of the United States.” (ECF No. 10, PageID.29–30). But as the Magistrate Judge correctly found, Plaintiff has not stated a plausible claim under the one source of federal authority he cites. The Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction of this case.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the complaint alleges only a state-law claim and no plausible federal claim.

Colbert v. Marshall · filed 2025-04-17

Thus, federal subject matter jurisdiction cannot be based on § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to establish a federal question as a basis for jurisdiction; a complaint that identifies no federal law at issue does not meet that burden.

SMITH v. EKEMEZIE · filed 2025-04-23

Plaintiff has therefore not met her burden of establishing federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff identifies no federal law or constitutional right related to the claim.

McKenzie v. Chong · filed 2025-04-23

Federal subject matter jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or when a plaintiff and defendant are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ... As before, Plaintiff claims that her lawsuit arises under federal law; however, she still has not identified any federal law or constitutional right related to the allegation of medical malpractice involving her daughter’s care.

Section 1331 requires a non-frivolous federal claim; passing and conclusory references to federal law do not establish jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Thompson v. Nebraska Medical Center · filed 2025-04-23

Plaintiff’s passing and conclusory references to “HIPPA” and the U.S. Constitution fail to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when the only asserted federal claims cannot survive dismissal.

Monbo v. Richmond American Homes of Maryland, Inc. · filed 2025-04-25

Second, the claims alleged by Ms. Monbo against Judge Tuffler pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and 1343(a) cannot survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Thus, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction based on the violation of federal laws and the Constitution.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction when the complaint asserts federal causes of action.

Hattons Ford Rd LLC v. Anderson County · filed 2025-04-25

Accordingly, the Court finds subject matter jurisdiction exists in this action pursuant to § 1331 and this action was properly removed by Defendants.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law, the Constitution, or a treaty; merely suggesting a federal question does not establish jurisdiction.

Eborka v. Gustafson · filed 2025-04-25

Subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, commonly referred to as “federal question” jurisdiction, is proper when a plaintiff asserts a claim arising under a federal statute, the Constitution, or treaties of the United States. ... Here, Plaintiff does not cite or allude to a federal legal basis for his claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a suit raising only state-law claims.

Rodriguez v. Neal · filed 2025-04-30

Absent diversity jurisdiction, the Court sees no independent basis for jurisdiction, as Plaintiff’s suit raises state-law claims, not claims rooted in any federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; ECF No. 1-1 at 3 (“Complaint for a Civil Case” form explaining the two general bases for federal court jurisdiction).

Section 1331 supplied jurisdiction over the federal claim, but the court found no remaining basis for subject matter jurisdiction after the amended complaint removed all federal claims.

Uy v. Van · filed 2025-04-30

This Court had subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ FAC because it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over the federal claim and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... The Court agrees that it no longer has subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims involving federal law or the federal Constitution; a complaint that describes no federal-law violation does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Discepola v. Welfare for Medicaid State of Illinois · filed 2025-05-05

Federal courts have jurisdiction to consider and decide cases that involve violations of federal laws or the federal Constitution, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and cases between citizens of different states if the amount of money in dispute is more than $75,000. ... Because the plaintiff has not described a violation of any federal law that the court is aware of, and because she seeks only $10,000 in damages (which is less than the $75,000 required for federal jurisdiction), the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a legal claim involving federal law, the federal Constitution, or a United States treaty for federal-question jurisdiction.

Fortner v. Lake County Jail · filed 2025-05-06

The Court DISMISSES the complaint for failure to state a claim because it does not allege any violation of federal law or the federal Constitution, as is needed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... For this Court to have jurisdiction over an action, there must be either (1) diversity jurisdiction, i.e. the defendants must be from a state other than California and the amount in controversy be over a certain amount, or (2) federal question jurisdiction, i.e., the legal claim involves a federal law, the federal Constitution, or a United States treaty. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when complete preemption converts a state-law claim into a federal claim.

Liu v. Sealy Inc. · filed 2025-05-09

Governing law requires that because Plaintiffs have raised a completely preempted state law claim, this Court must construe their complaint as having raised a federal claim, providing this Court with federal question jurisdiction.