28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a child custody dispute that raises no viable federal claim.

Robinson v. Basemoor · filed 2023-04-12

The Court may adjudicate claims that arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005) (federal question jurisdiction). ... Robinson’s issues regarding his child custody case simply do not confer federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted treaties and other sources provide no basis for jurisdiction over the claims.

Houston v. US Department of Justice · filed 2023-05-02

Thus, all six of Plaintiffs’ alleged bases of federal question subject matter jurisdiction fail.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when the complaint asserts a claim arising under federal law, even if it does not expressly cite the federal statute.

Jarvis v. District Taco, LLC · filed 2023-06-06

A careful examination of the state court complaint shows that it does assert a claim arising under federal law, despite the position of the parties.

Section 1331 requires facts showing that a claim arises under federal law; speculation that a defendant is a federal agent is insufficient.

Zloza v. Something · filed 2023-07-02

Although Mr. Zloza asserts that this court has federal question jurisdiction over his claim (see Compl. at 3), he makes no allegations that would allow the court to conclude that his claim “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over cases involving federal law; allegations that present no federal question do not qualify.

Green v. Cascella · filed 2023-08-01

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over civil cases, with some exceptions that are not relevant here, in only two instances: (1) under federal question jurisdiction, where the case involves an issue of federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or (2) under diversity jurisdiction, where the parties in the case are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ... However, no federal question presents itself in the facts alleged.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal claim that can support federal-question jurisdiction.

Turner v. Argo Group · filed 2023-08-15

As to federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff lists several claims, none of which can be a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the pleaded federal criminal statutes create no private cause of action.

Welch v. Morgan & Morgan · filed 2023-08-17

Therefore, the Court finds subject-matter jurisdiction is not proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Hurt v. Exeter Finance LLC · filed 2023-08-25

Nothing in plaintiff’s complaint indicates that the Court has jurisdiction over this matter. The instant action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, so federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal claim, either based on federal law or necessarily depending on a substantial question of federal law.

Kinsler v. Fay Servicing · filed 2023-08-28

Although the plaintiff brings this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the complaint does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law fraud claim when the plaintiff identifies no cause of action under federal law.

De Alwis v. Neyman · filed 2023-09-07

Here, the complaint does not set forth any federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff has not identified a cause of action under federal law and her claim of fraud arises under state law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over state law abuse of process claims against private individuals.

Perry v. Robles · filed 2023-10-16

Plaintiff does not specify the basis for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, but asserts claims of abuse of process against private individuals; such claims, therefore, appear to be brought under state law. The Court thus construes Plaintiff’s complaint as asserting claims under state law under the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, and not claims under federal law under the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, but a landlord-tenant dispute without a valid federal claim does not qualify.

Gu v. Zeng · filed 2023-06-22

Section 1331 grants a federal court jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... Here, Plaintiff states no valid federal claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges only fraud or negligence that does not turn on federal law.

Bell Corbett v. Noosa Pest Management LLC · filed 2023-12-04

Even construing Plaintiff’s allegations to state a cognizable cause of action, it appears that, at most, Plaintiff alleges fraud or negligence, neither of which turn on a question of federal law. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim implicating this Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the plaintiff cites federal criminal statutes that create no private right of action.

D.F. & C.R. Inc v. Wise · filed 2023-12-08

The reference to those statutes does not support federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, including state law claims that necessarily depend on a substantial federal question.

Rapp v. SSM Agnesian Health · filed 2023-12-28

He continues to plead only state law claims and he has made no effort to state a federal claim. Thus, the Court also lacks federal question jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims based on federal law.

Wilson v. Nelnet Inc. · filed 2024-04-29

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 resides in the same state as the plaintiff, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ... The Court therefore finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint cites federal statutes but alleges no claim arising under federal law.

McKay v. RBM Partners LLC · filed 2024-06-27

This case does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, so the Court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over an action asserting a substantial claim arising under federal law.

Cooper v. Fire & Ice Trucking, Corp. · filed 2024-07-09

Plaintiff’s Complaint thus arises under the laws of the United States, which gives the Court federal question subject- matter jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331's federal-question requirement is met when a complaint pleads a federal RICO claim, even if that claim is later dismissed for pleading deficiencies.

WEALTH v. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP · filed 2024-07-11

Therefore, Plaintiffs have met the threshold requirement, for pleading a federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a § 1983 claim against a private corporation that did not act under color of state law.

Bensouna v. E11Even Miami, Inc. · filed 2024-07-17

Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim accordingly fails as a matter of law and does not confer federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over federal claims that are neither brought solely to obtain jurisdiction nor wholly insubstantial and frivolous, even if their merits are disputed.

Digilytic International FZE v. Alchemy Finance, Inc. · filed 2024-08-30

Cheng does not provide any reason that the claims were made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction, nor are “wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” Carlson, 320 F.3d at 306. Accordingly, the Court finds that it has federal question jurisdiction over the case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a medical malpractice claim merely because the plaintiff identifies the Medicare Act as its basis.

Tucker v. Kwan · filed 2024-10-15

Nor does it appear that the Court would have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1332, which give federal courts “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” and “all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between . . . citizens of different States,” respectively.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over complaints alleging violations of federal constitutional rights and federal regulations.

Perry v. Bowers · filed 2024-10-25

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because Perry’s complaint asserts that the defendant’s opening and reading of his legal mail outside his presence violates his First Amendment right of access to the courts, his Fourth Amendment rights, 28 C.F.R. § 540.18, and the BOP’s Program Statement 5265.14.

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

Maney v. State of TN · filed 2024-11-25

A plaintiff properly invokes federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331 when he pleads a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... Neither has Plaintiff identified a federal question, nor can the Court discern one.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction based solely on the parties’ consent or the presence of a federal regulatory scheme; the defendant must identify a substantial, disputed federal issue.

First Internet Bank of Indiana v. Barboni · filed 2024-12-12

Neither the ... consent of the Parties nor the presence of a federal regulatory scheme can create a federal issue. ... Therefore, the Court finds ... that there is no stated federal issue, and that federal question jurisdiction does not provide an ... alternative basis for removal.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over actions asserting claims arising under federal law, without requiring diversity of citizenship.

Chey v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2024-12-23

Accordingly, Defendants’ removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, based on federal question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, was proper.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to show how the claims arise under federal law; an unsupported assertion that they are based on the Constitution does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Robinson v. Colorado Springs Utilities · filed 2025-01-07

Even if her Recommendation did address Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, it would not alter the Court’s finding that federal question jurisdiction is lacking.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when an eviction complaint raises no claim arising under federal law.

Prk Newport, LP v. Jones · filed 2025-01-27

Here, federal question jurisdiction is lacking because 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 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges only a state-law medical malpractice claim and no discernible federal claim.

Lewis v. Shorter · filed 2025-02-18

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, without more, a basis for additional federal claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a private contract payment claim that raises no substantial federal issue.

Wang v. United Healthcare of Washington Inc · filed 2025-02-24

But even if United could establish such effect, it would not transform this dispute into one that (1) “at bottom” seeks to recover benefits, Do Sung Uhm, 620 F.3d at 1142–43, or (2) otherwise raises a “contested and substantial” federal issue that a federal forum may entertain “consistent with congressional judgment about the sound division of labor between state and federal courts governing the application of § 1331,” Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 313–14 (2005).

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

Suleymanov v. Winston Premier Logistics, LLC · filed 2025-03-03

As explained, federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over all civil actions “arising under” the “laws . . . of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (providing for “federal question” jurisdiction). Plaintiff’s first cause of action alleges a violation of the FLSA, a federal law. ... The Court thus concludes that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over Suleymanov’s claims against Winston Premier pursuant to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction when the complaint alleges a claim arising under federal law, including a constitutional claim.

McCaigue v. Edwards · filed 2025-03-31

Though it is a close call, the court determines that it does have federal question subject- matter jurisdiction over the Infinity and Ascension defendants, and over the plaintiff’s claims against them.

Section 1331 does not give a federal district court jurisdiction to review a Kansas unemployment board decision under the Kansas Judicial Review Act.

Diakite v. Kansas Employment Security Board of Review · filed 2025-03-31

Plaintiff made no attempt to establish that the court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Nor could he demonstrate that this court has subject matter jurisdiction over his claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an automobile accident claim based on a federal regulation that creates no private right of action.

Tejeda v. Ripp · filed 2025-06-16

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

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the proposed § 1983 claim concerns only a private citizen’s conduct in a private dispute.

Whitehead III v. Ives · filed 2025-06-18

Likewise, Judge Katz correctly determined that plaintiff had not alleged any basis for “federal-question” jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that raise no federal question on the face of the complaint unless ERISA completely preempts them.

Albin v. Qwest Communications Corp. · filed 2002-01-24

The plaintiffs well-pleaded complaint ordinarily determines whether there is a federal question. ... Thus, complete preemption creates federal question jurisdiction for removal purposes. ... Therefore, this court has original subject matter jurisdiction permitting removal only if ERISA completely preempts either of the state law claims.

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

Jones v. CitiLink Bus · filed 2025-07-08

A federal district court does not have federal question jurisdiction over state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a § 1983 claim, which cannot be remanded merely because state-law claims predominate.

Suttles v. Raceland-Worthington Independent Schools · filed 2025-07-22

As a preliminary matter, this Court cannot remand the entire case. It is undisputed that the Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to show that a claim arises under federal law; vague references to legal doctrines do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Fox v. Hanson · filed 2025-07-31

The vague references in the Amended Complaint are, quite obviously, insufficient to show that any claim asserted “arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

An asserted constitutional violation that states no federal cause of action did not establish federal-question jurisdiction in this case.

Villanueva v. Witt · filed 2025-08-25

Thus, there is no federal question jurisdiction as no cause of action has been stated.

A complaint that raises a federal question can establish jurisdiction under § 1331.

Waba v. Amazon.com Services, LLC · filed 2025-08-28

A cursory review of Waba’s Second Amended Complaint makes clear that he has raised a federal question.

Section 1331 can provide jurisdiction over a pro se complaint that, read liberally, suggests a First Amendment retaliation claim against state actors even if it cites no jurisdictional or constitutional provision.

Murphy v. Alabama Mental Health Authority (MAG+) · filed 2025-08-29

The complaint is arguably sufficient to invoke the court’s federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1343 to the extent plaintiff sues state actors.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an eviction action, which arises under state law.

Hep Tarra v. Santa Barbara City College · filed 2025-02-12

An action for eviction does not raise a question “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state residential eviction proceedings.

Blowers v. Novak · filed 2022-01-21

Eviction proceedings do not establish a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over eviction or landlord-tenant proceedings that present no federal issue.

DAKOTA ASSET SERVICES LLC v. NIXON · filed 2020-09-22

Federal courts do not have federal question subject matter jurisdiction over eviction proceedings or landlord tenant matters.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a local landlord-tenant dispute that raises no federal question.

Johnson v. Robinson · filed 2009-08-06

Because the complaint is an outgrowth of a D.C. landlord-tenant dispute between residents of the District, the complaint was properly dismissed because it established neither federal question nor diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law forcible eviction claim when the removing party identifies no federal law forming the basis of the plaintiff’s claim.

Wells Fargo Bank v. Jones · filed 2010-08-19

He makes a conclusory statement that Plaintiffs claims present a federal question but provides no federal statutory or legal authority forming the essence of Plaintiffs lawsuit. As far as the court can glean from the record, Plaintiffs claim against Jones arises under the Texas Property Code concerning a forcible eviction of Jones from real property that Plaintiff purchased. ... Jones has failed to satisfy this burden under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state unlawful detainer claim merely because the same property is involved in federal court proceedings.

Finley v. Kondaur Capital Corp. · filed 2012-12-19

Moreover, there is no “substantial federal question of great federal interest” in this state case because its only federal characteristic is the fact that the same property which Finley allegedly unlawfully detains is subject to proceedings in federal court.

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

Seitu v. Huntwood Preservation, LLC · filed 2016-02-16

This Court lacks jurisdiction over that claim because (l) it does not present a federal question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) plaintiff and two of the private defendants reside in the District of Columbia, thereby foreclosing an action in diversity.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a routine state-law eviction complaint that raises no necessary, disputed, substantial federal issue.

Lincoln Manor Redevelopment LLC v. Combs · filed 2019-07-08

The complaint does not state a federal question. It is an eviction action, and a routine state-court eviction action does not “necessarily raise a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial.”

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s claim arises under federal law; a defendant’s assertion of federal rights does not create jurisdiction over a state-law unlawful detainer action.

(UD)(PS) Vij v. Mehl · filed 2019-09-04

Under § 1331, 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. ... Federal question jurisdiction cannot be based on an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim. ... This case arises purely under state law. See id. at 7−9 (complaint for unlawful detainer). With nothing in defendant’s notice of removal supporting this court’s jurisdiction, the court REMANDS this case to Yolo County Superior Court and DENIES as MOOT defendant’s motion for in forma pauperis status.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over a state-law unlawful detainer claim that raises no federal issue.

Carmel Terrace, L.P. v. Downey · filed 2019-12-12

The underlying state action is based upon state law. The only claim Plaintiff asserts is for unlawful detainer. Plaintiff does not state any federal causes of action or prayers for relief. The federal element is not “direct and essential” to the claim and is “incidental” or “attenuated.” See Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422, 424 (9th Cir. 1994). The Court concludes that the underlying action does not include a federal issue and that removal is not permitted.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges only a state-law unlawful detainer claim.

Bank of America, National Association v. German · filed 2019-12-12

The Complaint on its face does not allege a cause of action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States that would give this Court original jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that a landlord unlawfully entered a tenant’s apartment.

Dorsey v. Lankford · filed 2020-01-30

To the extent the plaintiff alleged that defendant unlawfully entered or caused others to enter his apartment, the plaintiff does not a state a claim falling within the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer action when no federal question appears on the face of the complaint.

Blvd 6200 Owner North, LLC v. Alvarado · filed 2020-02-12

Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and attached Complaint makes clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the instant matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 generally does not give federal courts jurisdiction over state residential landlord-tenant disputes without a federal question.

Pettus v. Erole · filed 2019-11-08

As a general rule, “federal courts do not have federal question subject matter jurisdiction over state residential landlord-tenant matters.” Galland vy. Margules, No. 05 Civ. 5639, 2005 WL 1981568, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (collecting cases.) In this case, the plaintiffs have not established any basis for this Court’s jurisdiction, and so the complaint is dismissed.

Section 1331 generally does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over landlord-tenant matters.

Bey v. 279 Capital LLC · filed 2020-05-19

Federal courts generally do not have federal question jurisdiction over landlord-tenant matters.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state landlord-tenant dispute when the complaint pleads no facts showing a claim arising under federal law.

Baker v. GVS Properties · filed 2022-08-22

Plaintiff has not pleaded facts showing that his claim arises under federal law. There is, therefore, no basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over state residential landlord-tenant matters.

Nichols v. Epstein · filed 2023-03-01

It is long settled that federal courts do not have federal question subject matter jurisdiction over state residential landlord-tenant matters.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a landlord-tenant dispute that does not arise under federal law.

Richardson v. LNU · filed 2023-03-08

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 arises where a “well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” ... However, Plaintiff’s claim appears to pertain to a landlord-tenant dispute and not a claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over an eviction claim against a private landlord when the complaint presents no federal claim.

Rodriguez v. Camba · filed 2023-12-19

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. ... The Complaint does not provide any other basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over an eviction-related claim against a private landlord.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over state residential landlord-tenant disputes.

Abatayo v. Tella · filed 2024-02-28

Federal courts do not have federal question subject matter jurisdiction over state residential landlord-tenant matters.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an eviction complaint arising under state landlord-tenant law.

SFR Borrower 2022-1 LLC v. Kareem Couch · filed 2024-05-24

Here, federal question jurisdiction is lacking because the Complaint does not state a claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “Because landlord-tenant disputes are matters of state law, an action for eviction cannot be the basis for federal question jurisdiction.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law landlord-tenant claims.

Bey v. Scott Sr. · filed 2025-10-06

The Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over Bey’s state law claims in this landlord-tenant matter.

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

SU v. MCCOY · filed 2025-10-09

Eviction is a state law cause of action that does not present any federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law lease and landlord-tenant claims.

Willis · filed 2025-10-22

Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against his landlords and neighbors Olufemi Ogunlana (or Ogunjana), Parish Ogunjana, Jeremiah W. Elliot, Christine Foureau and Amithe Foureau are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an action asserting only a state-law unlawful detainer claim.

Mesa Villa Apartments LLC v. Navarette · filed 2025-10-22

Here, the only claim asserted by plaintiff is for unlawful detainer against defendants. See dkt. 1 at 1-2. The Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must remand.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a landlord-tenant claim that alleges no federal statute or constitutional basis.

Snead · filed 2026-02-05

Ms. Snead does not refer to or cite any federal statute or constitutional provision as a basis for jurisdiction. This Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over Ms. Snead’s claims.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when plaintiffs properly allege claims under the ADA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Atlanta Independent School System v. S.F. · filed 2010-09-16

As the Court has noted above, Plaintiffs have properly alleged claims under the ADA and Section 1983, therefore the Court does have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress because they arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts as Plaintiffs’ federal law claims.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff asserts violations of federal statutes such as the ADEA and ADA.

Seeley v. Kansas Employment Review Board · filed 2019-06-28

Federal-question jurisdiction exists because Plaintiff asserts violations of the ADEA and ADA—both federal statutes.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a Rehabilitation Act claim, and a plaintiff’s improper anonymity does not divest that jurisdiction.

Guerrero v. University Incarnate Word · filed 2019-12-10

Indeed, Defendants cite no authority from this Circuit—nor can the Court identify any—holding that a plaintiff’s improper anonymity is grounds for a dismissal due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because this Court does indeed have jurisdiction, specifically under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Plaintiff’s Rehabilitation Act claim) and § 1367 (related state-law claims).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim under the FDCPA without requiring complete diversity between the parties.

Carroll v. Bank of America, NA · filed 2013-10-31

This case was not removed from state court based on diversity jurisdiction, however. Rather, this case was removed based on federal question jurisdiction, as the Carrolls’ Complaint set forth a cause of action for a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, a provision of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA). See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint sufficiently alleges an FDCPA violation.

Oney v. Assured Recovery LLC · filed 2019-07-25

Because Plaintiffs allege violations of the FDCPA, subject matter jurisdiction initially appears appropriate over this action pursuant to the general federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). ... On its face, Plaintiffs allege a complaint sufficient to implicate federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a Clean Air Act claim challenging current compliance with federal law despite an earlier state permit.

WILDEARTH v. Public Service Co. of Colorado · filed 2010-03-09

WildEarth does not complain that the 2005 permit was invalid. WildEarth has alleged an adequate factual basis for its claims challenging Xcel’s current compliance with the CAA in not having obtained a MACT determination despite the 2008 vacatur of the EPA’s delisting of mercury. WildEarth’s complaint raises federal questions under the CAA. ... Construing all reasonable allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, I conclude that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, I have subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over an Oil Pollution Act claim when the plaintiff alleges its basic elements, including a good faith allegation that an oil spill contaminated navigable waters or adjoining shorelines.

Danks v. Slawson Exploration Company, Inc. · filed 2020-01-22

If plaintiffs allege the basic elements of a claim pursuant to the OPA (including a good faith allegation that the oil spill has contaminated navigable waters or adjoining shorelines), that is all that is required to provide the court with jurisdiction over the OPA claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a cause of action that does not arise under federal law.

Tejeda v. Eberwein · filed 2020-06-03

Plaintiff’s cause of action does not arise out of a federal law. Thus, the principles of federal-question jurisdiction are inapplicable here.

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

Panchitkaew v. Blue Ridge Beverage Company, Inc. · filed 2020-06-05

Construing Plaintiff’s allegations to raise the strongest arguments they suggest, the complaint fails to invoke federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff alleges no facts establishing that his claim arises under the Constitution or any federal laws.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts only state-law tort claims and no federal claim.

Hastings v. Grundy · filed 2020-06-10

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Yokeno v. Mafnas, 973 F.2d 803, 809 (9th Cir. 1992).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law workers’ compensation retaliation claim that does not arise under the Constitution, treaties, or federal law.

Day v. University of Kansas Hospital Authority · filed 2020-06-22

However, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the state law claim because it does not arise under the United States Constitution, treaties, or federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because it uses a federal statute to establish one element; the federal issue must be necessarily raised and substantial without upsetting the federal-state balance.

Brady v. Truman Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2020-06-25

Here, Plaintiff alleges this Court possesses federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which authorizes federal district courts to exercise original jurisdiction in “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... Thus, Plaintiff’s complaint simply uses federal law to establish one element of a state-law claim, which does not create a substantial issue of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims or allegations of federal criminal violations that a private plaintiff cannot prosecute.

Zaldivar v. Rico · filed 2020-06-25

Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant violated federal criminal law cannot be a basis for federal question jurisdiction, and his remaining claims arise under state law. The Court therefore cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over a state-law claim for access to state court records when the denial of access states no federal civil rights claim.

Maldonado v. Sixth Judicial District Court · filed 2020-06-30

While S. Maldonado states a claim to access the records, the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over his claim, which properly belongs in state court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1367.

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

White v. Verzola · filed 2020-07-21

In short, nothing on the face of the complaint or plaintiffs subsequent responses establishes that plaintiff's cause of action against Dr. Verzola was created by federal law, or involves a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state law claims merely because deciding them requires applying HIPAA standards to the facts.

Klein v. Aicher · filed 2020-07-21

While Plaintiff is correct that his state law claims likely require some consideration of HIPAA and its ensuing obligations, that is not sufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction here.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory-relief claim that raises only state and local law issues.

Britton v. County of Santa Cruz · filed 2020-07-22

For the Court to have federal question jurisdiction, the complaint must arise under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Accordingly, because there is no “issue of federal law” raised by Plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief, there can be no federal question jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law malpractice claim involving Indian gaming law when resolving the claim would have no broader effect on that law or related federal enforcement claims.

Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma v. Campbell · filed 2020-07-28

The same reasoning applies in this case. Accepting, for purposes of the pending motion, that the hypothetical “case within a case” involves the Notice of Violation issued by IGRA, defendants have failed to demonstrate the resolution of the Tribe’s malpractice claim against the attorneys will have any effect on Indian gaming laws in general or on IGRA’s claims against the Tribe.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when an underlying federal issue lacks substantial importance to the federal system as a whole.

RICHARDSON v. CITY OF DURHAM · filed 2020-07-30

Thus, Defendants have failed to show that any federal issue underlying Richardson’s state claims is so substantial as to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Curry v. Charleston County Public Defenders · filed 2020-08-04

A claim of legal malpractice is a matter of state law, and the Complaint indicates Plaintiff and Lewis are citizens of the State of South Carolina. Accordingly, the court would lack federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction over such a claim, which, as noted infra, belongs in a separate lawsuit from his claims against the Charleston police officers.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law FEGLI insurance claim that does not necessarily raise a disputed issue of federal law.

Ritchey v. United States Office of Personnel Management · filed 2020-08-05

Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, therefore, does not “necessarily” raise a disputed issue of federal law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, including a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act.

Maximum Fidelity Surgical Simulations, LLC v. Baker · filed 2020-08-05

Federal question jurisdiction exists when a claim arises under federal law, such as a federal statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, federal question jurisdiction exists because Plaintiff alleges a claim pursuant to the Defend Trade Secret Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836, et seq.

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

Glickstein v. Pensam Capital · filed 2020-08-10

To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s claims must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... 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 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when none of the plaintiff’s claims arises under federal law.

Friedman v. Bank of Jackson Hole · filed 2020-08-11

Thus, federal-question jurisdiction does not exist in this case.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil claims arising under federal law, but not claims lacking a federal constitutional, statutory, or treaty basis.

HAMILTON v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2020-08-12

Plaintiff’s complaint does not assert a claim based on the United States Constitution, a federal statute, or a federal treaty. The Court thus lacks federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim.

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

Williams v. O'Conor · filed 2020-08-12

Since Plaintiff’s claims for negligence and battery arise under South Carolina law, they do not qualify for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over contract and property claims that raise only state-law issues.

Maxwell v. Kaylor · filed 2020-08-14

The Court finds that the contract and property claims raised by Plaintiff are state law claims that do not present federal questions. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because it references a federal statute when the claim does not require analysis or interpretation of that statute.

White v. NewRez, LLC · filed 2020-08-17

While Plaintiff references the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which also prohibits the collection of such unauthorized convenience fees, Plaintiff’s claims do not rely on the analysis or interpretation of that federal statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law breach of contract claim merely because the complaint alleges constitutional violations.

Heath-Hamilton v. Heath · filed 2020-08-18

Though Plaintiff claims certain Constitutional rights were violated, the factual allegations of his Complaint make clear the he is asserting a state law breach of contract claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over negligence and battery claims arising under state law.

Williams v. O'Conor · filed 2020-08-20

Since Plaintiff’s claims for negligence and battery arise under South Carolina law, they do not qualify for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that do not arise under federal law.

Ajenifuja v. Dangote · filed 2020-09-02

And these claims do not arise under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state law claims that do not arise under federal law.

Lerner v. Colman · filed 2020-09-04

The remaining state law claims do not give rise to federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint asserts no federal claim and relief does not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Clouser v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-09-08

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state law claims that assert no federal claim and do not depend on resolution of a federal law question.

Brown v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-09-08

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint asserts no federal claim and relief does not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

McBride v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-09-08

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim only if it meets all four requirements for a substantial federal issue; a reference to federal law alone does not suffice.

EDWARDS v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC · filed 2020-09-14

Under § 1331, federal question jurisdiction only exists in a case such as the one before the court “‘if [the] case meets all four requirements’ of the Supreme Court’s four-prong standard.” Burrell, 918 F.3d at 386. Because this case fails to do so, this Court concludes that it does not have federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law conversion claim that neither arises under federal law nor requires resolution of a federal-law question.

Big Red Box LLC v. Grisel · filed 2020-09-16

Federal question jurisdiction does not exist in this case because Plaintiff’s conversion claim does not “aris[e]” under federal law.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates a claim or a state-law claim necessarily raises a disputed, substantial federal issue that a federal court can hear without disrupting the balance between federal and state courts.

Austin v. Budget Rental Car, Inc. · filed 2020-09-17

Federal-question jurisdiction is present when one or more legal claims in the complaint “aris[es] under” federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim arises under federal law in two scenarios: (i) when federal law creates the claim asserted, and (ii) when a state-law claim necessarily raises a federal issue that is actually disputed and substantial, and that may be considered by a federal court without disrupting the congressionally approved balance between federal and state courts.

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

Phillips v. D.R. Horton, Inc. · filed 2020-09-18

Here, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining claims because they arise under state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint pleads only state-law claims and no viable claim arising under federal law.

Roach v. Brown · filed 2020-09-21

Plaintiff also has failed to demonstrate that she has standing or that the Court has federal question jurisdiction over this lawsuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff fail to plead any viable federal claims “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties in the United States.” Id. In her Complaint, Plaintiff brings only state law claims, alleging that Defendants trespassed on her property “by way of its use of robbery,” and that their actions violated “Texas Penal Code § 42.06.”

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

Welress v. The Clam Man · filed 2020-09-21

Here, the Court does not have federal question subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331. Welress does not identify, nor can the Court discern, and claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because they implicate a federal settlement.

Robin v. Creighton-Smith · filed 2020-09-23

The mere fact that the BP settlement is implicated in Plaintiffs’ state law claims is not enough to give rise to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a mortgage foreclosure action that raises only state-law claims.

USAA FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK v. BELFI · filed 2020-09-28

Furthermore, removal here cannot be based on federal question jurisdiction because the matter does not raise any federal law questions.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law abuse-of-process claim merely because the allegedly abused process arose in federal litigation.

Fouad v. The Milton Hershey School and School Trust · filed 2020-09-28

The tort of abuse of process arises under state law; the fact that the process that was allegedly abused was federal in nature does not transform the state tort into a federal claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the claim is based on a violation of a federal regulation.

Hsu v. First Bank · filed 2020-09-29

Instead, she implies that, simply because her California Business and Professional Code claim is based on a violation of a federal regulation, she has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This is incorrect.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law breach of contract claim that raises no federal question.

Bracho v. Clark County Court Interpreters Services · filed 2020-09-29

A breach of contract claim is a state law claim, so there is no federal question at issue.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because an alleged violation of a federal regulation is one element; the federal issue must be substantial.

Dumas v. Albaier · filed 2020-10-07

A claimed violation of a federal regulation as an element of a state cause of action is “insufficiently ‘substantial’ to confer federal question jurisdiction.”

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

Alfred W. Cortese, Jr. v. Nowezki-Cortese · filed 2020-10-13

First, there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction, as the state court complaint discloses no claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over claims arising only under state law.

Bell v. Birmingham Board of Education · filed 2020-10-14

But she has not alleged a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Instead, she asserts only claims arising under state law: claims of obstruction of justice, hindering prosecution, and negligence. Those claims cannot support federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because they rely in part on alleged ADA violations.

Mosley v. Hastings Village Investment Company LP · filed 2020-10-16

However, the fact that plaintiff relies in part on ADA violations as the basis for his state claims, ... is insufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law defamation claims that allege no violation of federal law or constitutional rights.

Brown v. Siers · filed 2020-10-19

In the instant case, Plaintiff asserts state-law defamation claims, which do not satisfy § 1331 because this tort claim does not involve alleged violations of federal statutes or alleged deprivations of constitutional rights.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a state law claim only when a federal issue is necessarily raised, actually disputed, substantial, and capable of resolution without disrupting the federal-state balance.

GOLD FISH, LLC v. ROWAN COUNTY SHERIFF KEVIN L. AUTEN · filed 2020-10-19

Under § 1331, federal question jurisdiction only exists in a case asserting state law actions “‘if [the] case meets all four requirements’ of the Supreme Court’s four-prong standard.” Id. at 386 (quoting Pressl v. Appalachian Power Co., 842 F.3d 299, 303 (4th Cir. 2016)). Because this case fails to do so, this Court concludes that it does not have federal question jurisdiction.

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

The People of the State of California v. Juarez · filed 2020-10-22

Thus, Petitioner’s claims include only state and local law claims and do not invoke this Court’s federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a damages claim that does not arise under the United States Constitution or federal statutes.

Perez v. Wiggins · filed 2020-10-22

Plaintiff's damage claim does not arise under the United States Constitution or federal statutes.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law tort claim that does not arise under the Constitution or federal statutes.

Perez v. Ditrick · filed 2020-10-22

Plaintiff's damage claim does not arise under the United States Constitution or federal statutes.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint alleges no federal claim and no federal issue is necessary or essential to those claims.

Brigham Field v. Genova Capital Inc. · filed 2020-10-23

Here, Plaintiffs have not affirmatively alleged any federal law claims (see generally Complaint), and Defendants have not demonstrated any purported federal law issues are necessary or essential Plaintiffs’ claims.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over a slander claim arising solely under state law.

Goff v. Moore · filed 2020-10-27

First, federal district courts have jurisdiction “of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. As Goff clearly states that he is suing the Defendant for slander, a claim arising under Tennessee law, there is no federal question jurisdiction in this case.

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

Davis v. Murphy · filed 2020-10-29

While the plaintiff marked the box under the “Jurisdiction” section of the complaint that said he was suing for a violation of federal law under 28 U.S.C. §1331, negligence is a state-law claim.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim brought under a federal statute that incorporates state law.

Roy v. Pioneer Human Resources Inc · filed 2020-11-02

Courts have federal question jurisdiction when a claim is brought under a federal statute that incorporates state law.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction only when a civil action arises under the U.S. Constitution, a federal statute, or a federal treaty.

CHAN v. MAINE STATE PRISON · filed 2020-11-06

Pursuant to section 1331, federal district courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... That is, Plaintiff has not asserted a claim based on the United States Constitution, a federal statute, or a federal treaty.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an amended complaint asserting only state-law assault, battery, and negligence claims.

Price v. Cardinal Health · filed 2020-11-09

The claims pleaded in the amended complaint do not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Jones v. Wright · filed 2020-11-24

Plaintiff’s does not assert any claims under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a civil conspiracy claim arising under state law.

WALTHOUR v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2020-12-02

The general federal question statutes grants district courts original jurisdiction over “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. But the cause of action pleaded by Plaintiff—a claim for conspiracy against Trust Defendants related to a sale of property—arises under state law. See Phillips v. Selig, 959 A.2d 420, 437 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008) (describing the elements of civil conspiracy under Pennsylvania law). Plaintiff has therefore failed to show that federal question jurisdiction exists for his claim.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a substantial claim arising under federal law, including a Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim that is not immaterial to the suit.

Gleske v. Jayco, Inc. · filed 2020-12-04

The court has jurisdiction over a claim arising under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This dispute concerns a warranty claim covered by the MMWA that isn’t immaterial to the suit, see, e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998), so a federal question exists.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a defamation claim arising solely under state law.

Carter v. Wilke · filed 2020-12-07

As Carter clearly states that he is suing the Defendant for defamation, there is no federal question jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; alleging that a defendant is generally subject to federal law is insufficient.

Momou, Gnamien v. Dean Health Plan · filed 2020-12-08

As noted, however, a claim must arise under federal law for § 1331 to apply; it is not enough to allege that a defendant is generally subject to a given federal law.

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

Foreman v. West · filed 2020-12-10

Two claims remain under Maryland law: the negligence claim in Count I, and the claim in Count II under the Maryland Declaration of Rights. These claims do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts no federal claim and the state-law claims do not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Tillson v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-12-11

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Yokeno, 973 F.2d at 809.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts only state-law claims that do not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Raub v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-12-11

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint asserts no federal claim and relief does not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Lane v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-12-11

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a state Rosenthal Act claim refers to the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Dollaga v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC · filed 2020-12-11

While “[t]he Rosenthal Act mimics or incorporates by reference the FDCPA’s requirements[] and makes available the FDCPA’s remedies for violations,” see Riggs v. Prober & Raphael, 681 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2012), courts in the Ninth Circuit have consistently rejected the argument that mere reference to the FDCPA in the context of a Rosenthal Act claim confers federal question jurisdiction. ... Defendants have not cited any cases finding otherwise and this Court finds that the district court caselaw on this issue is on point and persuasive, especially given that the “removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” See Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d at 1087.

A complaint that identifies no federal law giving rise to its claims does not appear to establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Soto v. Child Protective Services Department · filed 2020-12-15

Because Soto’s complaint does not identify any federal law giving rise to her claims, the case does not appear to fall within “federal question” jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after the federal claim is resolved.

Anderson v. United States · filed 2020-12-15

Because this case solely involves state law, Anderson may no longer rely on federal-question jurisdiction.

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

SCIACCA v. THE DURHAM COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION · filed 2020-12-18

Plaintiffs have alleged violations of the United States Constitution, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Court has original jurisdiction over these claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction over the other claims as they form part of the same case or controversy, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting only state-law claims.

Ikwuano Development Association, New York Chapter, USA v. Adindu · filed 2020-12-21

None of Plaintiffs’ claims “arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States[,]” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, rather all four claims are grounded in state law. See ECF No. 1 at 4–11. Thus, this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because federal interests are implicated; the claim must require resolution of a federal issue.

Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians of Utah v. U.S. Bank National Association · filed 2020-12-21

Federal interests are routinely implicated in state-law claims. This, however, does not automatically confer federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract dispute when resolving the dispute does not require interpreting federal law.

Tenants' Development Corporation v. AMTAX Holdings 227 LLC · filed 2020-12-23

First, this case does not “necessarily raise[]” the federal question of the correct interpretation of 26 U.S.C. § 42. Gunn, 568 U.S. at 258. Resolving the parties’ dispute simply does not require deciding whether the Agreement’s right of first refusal falls into the safe harbor created by the statute.

Section 1331 requires a claim created by federal law or one whose resolution necessarily depends on a substantial question of federal law; citing federal law in support of a state-law dispute does not itself establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Serna v. BBVA Compass Bank · filed 2020-12-28

The federal law cited to support Plaintiff’s allegations of denial of due process and a void state-court judgment do not create the cause of action in this case and do not constitute a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over state law indemnification and fraud claims.

The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Moore · filed 2021-01-05

Federal question jurisdiction does not exist with respect to Third-Party Claims 1 and 3 because these claims are state law claims for indemnification and fraud.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state law breach of contract and defamation claims merely because the complaint cites a federal definitional statute that creates no cause of action.

Gonzalez v. Szabo · filed 2021-01-11

In addition, Plaintiff’s Complaint consists of state law claims for breach of contract and defamation. While Plaintiffs cite to a federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 4101, presumably as the basis of their defamation claim, this statute is the definition section of the Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage (“SPEECH”) Act, and does not create a cause of action. ... Accordingly, upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to allege any basis for the Court’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction when a claim arises under the U.S. Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.

Washington v. Bristol West Insurance Group · filed 2021-01-11

Federal question jurisdiction exists where claims arise under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States whereas diversity jurisdiction exists where the parties have complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Here, the Magistrate Judge correctly noted that there are no allegations in the Complaint, or its amended version, that the Plaintiff’s claim arises under “the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only a state-law claim, even when the complaint cites an inapposite federal statute.

Driessen v. Miami-Dade County School Board · filed 2021-01-13

Despite citing an inapposite federal statute, Plaintiff raises only a state law claim of defamation against Defendant. As a result, the Court has no federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.