28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the plaintiff’s claim; a defendant’s separate federal allegations do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Parks · filed 2025-09-17

To invoke federal question jurisdiction, the petitioner’s claims in the state court action must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Defendant’s own articulation of the federal claim purportedly raised herein is not one alleged in the Ramapo Justice Court action itself. Rather, Defendant independently makes federal claims that his Fourteenth Amendment rights are being violated by the Ramapo Justice Court.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; a federal preemption defense alone does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Roach v. Purple Innovation, LLC · filed 2025-09-29

The existence of federal-question jurisdiction “is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Thus, “a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense, including the defense of pre-emption, even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” Id. at 393.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a properly pleaded complaint, either as a federal claim or as a substantial federal question necessary to a state-law claim.

Vo v. AB Car Rental Services · filed 2025-10-01

On the face of Plaintiff’s properly pleaded Complaint, no basis for federal jurisdiction exists. Plaintiff’s Complaint includes only claims that arise under state law, so no issue of federal law has been directly raised.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; vague allegations of state-law defamation and assault do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Lawhorn v. Swope · filed 2025-10-02

In the present case, Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The “well-pleaded complaint” rule requires that “a federal question be presented on the face of the complaint.” Mich. S. R.R. Co. v. Branch & St. Joseph Cntys., 287 F.3d 568, 573 (6th Cir. 2002). Here, Plaintiff makes only vague allegations of defamation and assault which are state-law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that raise no federal issue on the face of the complaint merely because the plaintiff accepted a Medicare assignment.

APC v. United Healthcare Insurance Company · filed 2025-10-02

Here, Plaintiff's suits against Defendant are based entirely on state law causes of action. None of these causes of action, on their face, turn on a federal issue. Indeed, despite Defendant’s lengthy discussion regarding Medicare, Plaintiff only mentions Medicare once in each of his complaints, simply noting that he accepted a Medicare assignment.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a federal defense does not suffice.

TD Bank, N.A. v. Toliver · filed 2025-10-06

Because the well-pleaded complaint rule governs and because there is no federal question on the face of the complaint, this Court lacks the subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to be affirmatively alleged in the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.

Clark v. Blueprint Investments · filed 2025-10-15

The “well pleaded” complaint rule provides that a cause of action arises under federal law only if a federal question is affirmatively alleged in the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint. ... Ms. Clark fails to claim that the “properly pleaded claim for relief” in any of the Municipal Court cases implicate federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a later federal tax claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction over the action.

East West Bank v. HERBL · filed 2025-10-21

Simply stated, this action could not have been originally filed in federal court because the East West Bank’s complaint does not allege facts supporting federal question jurisdiction, and therefore removal on this ground is improper.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; federal defenses and counterclaims do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Gwyn · filed 2025-10-22

For a court to have federal question jurisdiction under § 1331, there must be a federal question on the face of plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint. ... Since Gwyn’s federal constitutional and statutory claims do not appear on the face of the County’s complaint, they do not establish federal question subject matter jurisdiction over this suit.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a complaint raising only state law claims does not satisfy that requirement.

Grant-Foster · filed 2025-10-24

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint only raises state law causes of action. Thus, Plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint, on its face, does not present a federal question giving rise to federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.

Lawhorn · filed 2025-10-27

Moreover, Plaintiff has not met her burden of establishing federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The “well-pleaded complaint” rule requires that “a federal question be presented on the face of the complaint.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when an otherwise state-law complaint contains only an ambiguous reference to exhausting federal administrative remedies.

Kreszowski · filed 2025-10-27

The Court finds Plaintiff’s errant and ambiguous reference to exhaustion of federal administrative remedies does not suffice to establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when taken in context of the remainder of the Complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff expressly limits the complaint to state-law claims, even if the allegations could support a federal claim.

Ayarzagoitia · filed 2025-10-27

Even if some of Plaintiff’s allegations may be consistent with federal causes of action, Plaintiff has explicitly designated his claims as arising solely under state law. As such, Defendant has failed to demonstrate that this Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded complaint based on federal law; a possible federal defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Servider · filed 2025-10-28

Rather, the only factor that matters for federal question jurisdiction is whether a well-pleaded version of the complaint would be based on federal law. In the present case, Attorney’s complaint raises only state-law contract claims and contains no claims based on federal law. See Compl. ¶¶ 1–20. Therefore, federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is not present.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; federal defenses do not establish jurisdiction on removal.

Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Williams · filed 2025-10-31

In removal cases, the existence of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is determined under the well pleaded complaint rule, which provides that federal question jurisdiction is established when the face of a properly pleaded complaint asserts a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s complaint; a defendant’s federal defenses or counterclaims do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

FORNICOLA · filed 2025-11-04

In fact, it would be vacatable error for the Court to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over the State Foreclosure Action based on the arguments raised by Defendants concerning issues under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to arise from the plaintiff’s claims; anticipated counterclaims or third-party claims cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction.

New Century Financial Services Inc v. Grossberger · filed 2025-11-13

Although Grossberger sought to allege federal counterclaims against the New Jersey Superior Court for violating his rights during various state court proceedings, federal question jurisdiction must arise from a state court plaintiff’s claims, not anticipated counterclaims or third-party claims.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a properly pleaded complaint invokes federal law as the basis for relief.

Romero · filed 2025-11-17

Because a federal question is “presented” on the face of Romero’s complaint, I deny her motion to remand.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense or counterclaim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Schooley · filed 2025-11-18

Because there are no federal claims on the face of Trestle Creek’s complaint, and a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense or counterclaim, federal question jurisdiction is lacking.

Section 1331 requires the plaintiff’s complaint to show a claim arising under federal law; a defendant’s unsupported references to federal law do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Bob Faler, LLC v. Tyler Brothers Entertainment · filed 2025-11-21

A plain reading of Plaintiff’s Complaint clearly shows that it raises no issues invoking a federal question. ... The Court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, which must appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.

Mendez · filed 2025-11-24

Federal subject matter jurisdiction exists only where a claim arises under federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or where there is complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, jurisdiction must appear from the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; anticipated defenses or counterclaims cannot supply federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal counterclaim cannot supply federal-question jurisdiction for removal.

Luther · filed 2025-12-02

But any alleged controversy involving federal law only appears in Luther’s counterclaim, and it is well-established that federal question jurisdiction cannot form the basis for removal unless the federal question is raised in the complaint that began the case.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s claim; federal counterclaims and affirmative defenses do not establish original jurisdiction.

Hardwick · filed 2025-12-08

But counterclaims, affirmative defenses, or Hardwick’s arguments are irrelevant to whether the district court has original jurisdiction over CCF’s civil action.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a federal defense cannot establish jurisdiction.

Riggieri · filed 2025-12-12

However, based on the well-pleaded complaint rule articulated above, removal cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim raising a federal question. ... The complaint raises no federal question. Therefore, the court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not permit federal-question jurisdiction based on a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim.

Lacewell · filed 2025-12-12

Federal question jurisdiction therefore cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim raising a federal question.

Federal-question jurisdiction requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; a potential federal defense does not suffice.

Weir v. Wasserman · filed 2025-12-19

To the extent that her vague references to due process can be construed as an attempt to establish federal-question jurisdiction, they fall short. Because a federal question must appear on the face of the complaint, “potential federal defenses” are not considered.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law trust modification petition that presents no federal question on its face.

Lamberson · filed 2025-12-29

The Court agrees with Petitioner Gary Lamberson that federal question jurisdiction is lacking in this case.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint states a claim created by federal law or one that necessarily depends on a substantial federal question.

Torres · filed 2026-01-05

A case arises under federal law for purposes of § 1331 if “a well-pleaded complaint establishes 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.” ... Mr. Torres’s complaint does not contain a well-pleaded claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts state-law claims and refers to the “constitution” without identifying federal law.

Keith · filed 2026-01-06

But including the word “constitution,” without specifying federal or state, in the Amended Complaint did not change the nature of the original complaint that only focused on violations of state law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.

Russell · filed 2026-01-08

Generally, the “well-pleaded complaint” rule requires that the federal question appear on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a federal defense or counterclaim does not create federal-question jurisdiction.

Yan · filed 2026-01-12

Thus, the Complaint provides no basis for federal question jurisdiction, and Vdovicenco cannot create federal question jurisdiction by invoking federal law as a defense or counterclaim.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a defendant’s asserted federal issue does not establish jurisdiction.

Campbell · filed 2026-01-13

Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a civil action to arise under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. A claim “arises under” federal law only if a “well-pleaded complaint” alleges a cause of action based on federal law; “an actual or anticipated defense” does not confer federal jurisdiction. ... However, the removed complaint makes only a state-law claim for unlawful detainer.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a removing party’s constitutional allegations do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

JENKINS · filed 2026-01-14

Thus, Jenkins’ assertions that the “defendants” violated the Constitution cannot serve as a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a state law foreclosure claim that does not depend on a federal issue does not qualify.

Christian-Hart · filed 2026-01-14

For purposes of § 1331, the Court applies the well-pleaded complaint rule to determine whether a claim arises under federal law. ... The complaint does not assert a cause of action under the United States Constitution or any federal statute, nor does Plaintiff’s right to foreclose depend on the resolution of any federal issue.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint presents a federal cause of action or necessarily depends on a substantial federal question; claims arising only under state law do not qualify.

Connor · filed 2026-01-14

For the reasons discussed herein, the Court grants the Motion because Plaintiff’s claims arise under state law—not federal law—depriving this Court of federal question jurisdiction. ... The Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as to “only those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that [1] the federal law creates the cause of action or that [2] the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Potter v. Hughes, 546 F.3d 1051, 1064 (9th Cir. 2008) (alteration in original) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr., 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)).

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction for removal must arise from the plaintiff’s claim; federal counterclaims do not establish it.

BAQUERO · filed 2026-01-28

Even if the Court were to accept Mr. Baquero’s representations regarding that pleading as true, (see Notice of Removal at 2) (stating that Capital One seeks to recover “an alleged credit card debt of approximately $3,765.98”), it is evident that Capital One’s claims do not provide a basis for subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... As noted above, counterclaims do not provide a basis for removal on federal question grounds.

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded complaint to show that federal law creates the cause of action or that relief necessarily depends on a substantial question of federal law.

SHAPIRO · filed 2026-01-28

In order for a district court to exercise federal question jurisdiction, “a party must establish in the ‘well-pleaded complaint . . . 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.’” Carpenter v. Barton, No. 24-2898, 2025 WL 2992423, at *2 (3d Cir. Oct. 24, 2025) (quoting Goldman v. Citigroup Glob. Mkts. Inc., 834 F.3d 242, 249 (3d Cir. 2016)).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because the facts could support a federal claim that the plaintiff did not plead.

Wright · filed 2026-01-29

Although the factual allegations could potentially support a federal civil-rights claim, the mere possibility that a plaintiff could have asserted a federal claim is insufficient to confer federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a defendant’s counterclaims cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction.

WBL SPO I, LLC v. Revive Pittsburgh Real Estate · filed 2026-02-03

However, Defendant’s counterclaims are not to be considered when evaluating whether Plaintiff’s action is “arising under” a federal law.

Section 1331(a) does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an ejectment claim merely because the plaintiff’s asserted right to possession rests on a federal statute or treaty.

The Oneida Indian Nation Of New York State v. The County Of Oneida, New York · filed 1972-07-12(a)

As to this, a long and unbroken line of Supreme Court decisions holds that the complaint in such an action presents no federal question even when a plaintiff's claim of right or title is founded on a federal statute, patent or treaty.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to show on its face that federal law creates the cause of action.

Prewitt · filed 2026-02-06

Therefore, the complaint or amended complaint must show on its face that the cause of action is created by federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to arise from the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; potential constitutional defenses or counterclaims do not establish jurisdiction.

Sanders · filed 2026-02-06

There are no federal claims in Plaintiff’s state court foreclosure action, and Defendant’s “potential constitutional defenses or counterclaims are irrelevant to the jurisdictional inquiry.”16 Accordingly, Defendant does not establish federal question jurisdiction as a basis for removal.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff pleads only state-law claims, even if the allegations could also support a federal claim.

NaphCare · filed 2026-02-10

Even if some of Plaintiff’s allegations may be consistent with federal causes of action, Plaintiff has explicitly designated his claims as arising solely under state law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on a defendant’s asserted constitutional rights when those rights are absent from the plaintiff’s claim and are not an essential element of the relief sought.

Lohr · filed 2026-02-11

Although Defendant argues the state court action implicates his federal constitutional rights, those rights are not presented in Plaintiff’s requested relief below, nor are such rights an essential element in the relief Plaintiff seeks. Stated differently, Plaintiff’s request for a stalking order against Defendant does not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; state-law claims alone do not invoke federal jurisdiction.

SULLIVAN · filed 2026-02-26

Because Sullivan's Complaint does not cite any federal law or assert any federal claims, it does not invoke federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the plaintiff’s complaint; allegations in a defendant’s notice of removal cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Phillips · filed 2026-02-26

Federal question jurisdiction is based on the complaint filed by the Plaintiff in state court, not in the Notice of Removal that Defendant files before this Court. Accordingly, the Court concludes that it lacks federal question jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the defendant raises a federal tribal-sovereignty defense.

Farrer · filed 2026-03-05

The present case thus appears to be analogous to the many other cases where the presence of a federal, and even a constitutional, defense to state law claims is insufficient to create § 1331 jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s claims; a defendant’s federal defenses or counterclaims do not establish jurisdiction.

City of Philadelphia v. Hand · filed 2026-03-12

Although Hand sought to raise defenses and cross- and counterclaims under federal law, federal question jurisdiction must arise from the state court plaintiff’s claims, not the defendant’s anticipated responses.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the properly pleaded complaint; a complaint with no viable federal claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Russell · filed 2026-03-12

Generally, the “well-pleaded complaint” rule requires that the federal question appear on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint. ... The Court finds that plaintiff has not alleged a viable claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint, and the party invoking jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing it.

Washington v. Washington · filed 2026-03-20

Moreover, Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The “well-pleaded complaint” rule requires that “a federal question be presented on the face of the complaint.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts state-law claims and its references to federal due process do not state a federal claim.

Kamineni · filed 2026-03-20

Given the Defendants’ burden to establish this Cout’s jurisdiction and that all doubts must be resolved in favor of remand, the Court declines to construe Count VIII to assert a claim under the U.S. Constitution.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a federal counterclaim does not confer jurisdiction.

AmeriHome Mortgage Co., LLC v. De Jesus · filed 2026-03-30

AmeriHome’s second argument is that the Defendants’ assertion of federal counterclaims in their answer does not confer federal question jurisdiction. Based upon well-established authority, the Court agrees.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint alleges a federal cause of action or a state claim that necessarily depends on a substantial federal question.

Hunte · filed 2026-03-31

As discussed above, the issue before the Court is whether Plaintiff’s “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. It plainly does. While Plaintiff urges the Court to find that the many references to the FCRA in the Complaint are only for “background,” the Complaint clearly alleges that AMEX both violated the FCRA and that same alleged wrongful conduct constitutes an unfair or deceptive trade practice under North Carolina law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint asserts a federal law claim, including one stated ambiguously in the complaint.

Denton · filed 2026-04-09

Because Plaintiff’s Complaint claims that Defendants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and states that it is asserting a “Count II” seeking recovery for that violation, this action was properly removed, and the Court will DENY the motion.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction on removal only when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Brummage · filed 2026-04-10

Removal based on federal question jurisdiction is appropriate where a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; citing a federal criminal statute that provides no private right of action does not establish jurisdiction.

El-Bey · filed 2026-04-29

Federal question jurisdiction is determined “by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” ... Here, the only statute Plaintiff cites in the complaint is 18 U.S.C. § 1341, a federal criminal statute. This criminal statute does not provide a private right of action under which Plaintiff can seek redress. ... Because Plaintiff has not properly pled a federal claim and the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded complaint to identify a federal basis for the claim and allege facts sufficient to show that it arises under federal law.

Russell · filed 2026-04-30

At this stage, plaintiff's allegations as to the existence of federal question jurisdiction are “too insubstantial for consideration” even under the liberal pleading standard afforded to plaintiff as a litigant proceeding pro se.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s complaint raises no federal question, even if the defendant asserts constitutional violations.

Ramlow · filed 2026-05-06

That Ramlow asserts violations of his constitutional rights during the state court proceedings likewise fails to establish federal question jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the Court deems it appropriate to sua sponte remand the matter to state court because the complaint does not raise a federal question and removal under § 1331 was improper.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; a federal preemption defense alone does not establish jurisdiction.

Chaney · filed 2026-05-14

To determine whether a case “arises under” federal law for the purposes of establishing federal question jurisdiction, the Court adheres to the well-pleaded complaint rule, in which jurisdiction exists “only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” ... It is not enough that there may be a defense grounded in federal law, including a defense of preemption, to establish jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff pleads only a state-law claim, even if the alleged facts could also support a federal claim.

State of Conn. v. Levi Strauss & Co. · filed 1979-05-31

A plaintiff alleging facts that would support both a federal and a state law claim is free to confine his claim to one based on state law and proceed in state court.

Section 1331 requires the federal question to appear in the plaintiff’s cause of action; anticipating a defense does not create federal-question jurisdiction.

Begay v. Kerr-McGee Corp. · filed 1980-10-01

The federal question must be raised in the statement of the plaintiff’s cause of action. A plaintiff cannot anticipate or reply to a probable defense in order to have his cause of action arise under federal law. Plaintiff’s invocation of the Williams test is simply an anticipation of a defense.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the well-pleaded complaint; a federal defense does not establish original jurisdiction.

Sullivan v. First Affiliated Securities, Inc. · filed 1987-04-20

A case "arises under" federal law within the meaning of section 1331 only if a federal question appears on the face of plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint; original jurisdiction is lacking even if a defense is alleged to be based exclusively on federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a state-law complaint anticipates a state-law defense and raises a constitutional response to it.

Bracken v. Matgouranis · filed 2002-07-15

Speculation on a state defense and a constitutional answer to it just cannot be the basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint anticipates a state-law defense and asserts a constitutional response to it.

Bracken v. Matgouranis · filed 2002-08-05

Speculation on a state defense and a constitutional answer to it just cannot be the basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when federal law incorporates a state-law claim as federal law, placing a federal question on the face of the well-pleaded complaint.

Ten Taxpayer Citizens Group v. Cape Wind Associates, Llc · filed 2004-08-19

We hold that Ten Taxpayer's claims, though ostensibly premised on Massachusetts law, arise under the "law of the United States" under § 1333(a)(2). A federal question thus appears on the face of Ten Taxpayer's well-pleaded complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Intransit, Inc. v. Excel North American Road Transport, Inc. · filed 2006-03-07

I find no error in Judge Cooney’s Findings, and adopt them in their entirety. ... The original federal question jurisdiction of the district court is defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The “well pleaded complaint rule” provides that “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint.”

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded complaint to present a federal question; citing federal provisions without facts bringing the dispute within them does not establish jurisdiction.

Cormier v. City of Topeka · filed 2007-01-03

The district court appropriately relied on the “well-pleaded complaint” rule to evaluate federal jurisdiction. ... However, the district court correctly concluded that M r. Cormier did not plead any facts that would place his alleged dispute within the ambit of those provisions. Thus, there is no federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires the complaint’s allegations to establish a federal question under the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Scarborough vs Carotex Construction, Inc. · filed 2011-03-15

Under these particular circumstances, we conclude that the Amended Complaint’s allegations are insufficient to establish a federal question under § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a federal cause of action that appears on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.

Williams ex rel. Samayoa v. Board of Regents · filed 2014-01-06

The Plaintiffs’ EMTALA claim meets the requirements for federal-question jurisdiction: it is a federal cause of action and it appears “on the face of plaintiffs well-pleaded complaint,” and the cause of action is “created by federal law.”

Section 1331 requires federal-question jurisdiction to appear in a well-pleaded complaint; federal defenses to a state-court judgment do not establish it.

Whittington v. Whittington · filed 1984-05-24

We conclude that Armstrong controls this suit and, under its well-pleaded complaint rule, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Colonial Penn Group, Inc. v. Colonial Deposit Co. · filed 1987-03-05

The “arising under” requirement contained in both these sections is a term of art which has received definitive interpretation by the United States Supreme Court under a third jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. That statute provides that “the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” Given the absence of any logical reason (or precedent thereupon) for distinguishing between the “arising under” requirement in the first two sections from that in § 1331, it follows that case law marking the boundries of § 1331 federal question jurisdiction is also applicable to § 1121 and § 1338(a).

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint asserts a claim created by federal law or necessarily raises a substantial question of federal law.

Barnes v. United States Postal Service · filed 2023-07-26

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.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27–28 (1983). ... Even liberally construing the Complaint “to encompass any allegation stating federal relief,” the Court is unable to discern a viable federal claim on the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Johnson v. Surface Services LLC · filed 2024-11-21

Third, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over this case; there is no federal question raised on the face of Johnson’s complaint. Dkt. 1-3. Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 “exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment claim when the federal question would arise only as a defense to a foreclosure or collection suit.

Dupuis v. Yorkville Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n · filed 1984-08-09

As the court held in First Federal, which neither party cited on this motion, federal subject matter jurisdiction does not exist to decide whether Yorkville could enforce the due-on-sale clause, and the first Cause is dismissed for this reason.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Schleider v. GVDB Operations, LLC · filed 2024-10-31

The well-pleaded complaint rule means that a ... federal question is “presented” when the complaint—on its face—invokes federal law as the basis for relief.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.

Sprague v. Bulletin Co. · filed 1981-12-10

Plaintiff’s claim must meet the standards of federal question jurisdiction set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and cases interpreting that statute. The United States Supreme Court has consistently held that an avermen triggering federal question jurisdiction must appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint. ... Reviewing carefully plaintiff’s lengthy complaint as filed in the Court of Common Pleas, this Court finds no federal question presented in the plaintiff’s complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff invokes federal preemption only in response to an anticipated defense to a state-law claim.

First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Anderson · filed 1982-06-25

The conclusion is inescapable that the plaintiffs’ reliance on the federal regulation replies to a probable defense. This observation, coupled with the unequivocal Eighth Circuit authority, requires us to dismiss these cases for lack of a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the plaintiff’s claim; the availability of a federal remedy alone does not create federal-question jurisdiction over an independent state claim.

Magic Chef, Inc. v. International Molders & Allied Workers Union · filed 1983-08-08

The fact that a plaintiff has both state and federal remedies does not mean that he must state his federal claim. ... The plaintiff’s motion to remand will be granted.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint’s well-pleaded allegations do not assert a violation of federal law.

Coastal States Trading, Inc. v. Shell Pipeline Corp. · filed 1983-10-26

Moreover, Plaintiff has not pleaded violation of any federal statutes and has not incorporated statutory violations as contentions in the pretrial order. Thus, under the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint the Court does not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 1337.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims unless federal law is an essential element of the plaintiff’s cause of action.

Stibitz v. General Public Utilities Corp. · filed 1984-10-24

This rule provides that a claim is jurisdictional under the statutory “arising under” language only if “[a] right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States [is] an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiffs cause of action.” ... We hold, therefore, that the plaintiffs’ state law claims do not arise under the Price-Anderson Act.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.

Evanston Ins. Co., Inc. v. Merin · filed 1984-11-19

Section 1331 affords no jurisdiction over an action on the basis of such a claim, however, unless the claim “arising under” federal law appears on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint requires the plaintiff to establish a proposition of federal law to obtain relief.

O'Quinn v. Albert Manuel, T.A. Morvant, Robert Searcy, Calcasieu Parish, Calcasieu Parish Sheriff's Depart · filed 1985-10-07

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, an action arises under federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1982) “if in order for the plaintiff to secure the relief sought he will be obliged to establish both the correctness and the applicability to his case of a proposition of federal law.” ... In the present case, the face of plaintiff’s complaint clearly states a federal question sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the district court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim when federal regulations matter only to a possible defense.

Elf Aquitaine, Inc. v. Placid Oil Co. · filed 1985-12-27

Reference to federal regulations is not needed to state this breach of contract claim. Only if the price control regulations are cited by the purchasers as a defense to Elf’s contract claim for the market price will Elf need to show that the oil was exempt under TIP. ... Because this case falls squarely within the bounds of the well-pleaded complaint rule, jurisdiction cannot be found under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal right or privilege to be an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim as pleaded.

Rice v. Exxon Corp. · filed 1986-04-10

In the instant action, the Plaintiffs have fairly clearly intended to bring this action only under the West Virginia Antitrust Law. The Court cannot find that a federal right or privilege is the essential element for finding in violation of the West Virginia Antitrust Law. The Defendant has suggested none. Accordingly, upon the face of the complaint, the Court determines that no action arising under the constitution or laws of the United States is found and accordingly, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider this action on removal.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; state-law claims do not create federal-question jurisdiction merely because the defendant raises a federal issue.

State of W. Va. v. Anchor Hocking Corp. · filed 1987-12-21

Thus, upon full consideration of the complaint, the memoranda filed by the parties and the authority cited herein, the Court is of the opinion and concludes as a matter of law that plaintiffs’ complaint does not state a claim arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States for purposes of creating original federal question jurisdiction in this Court.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint; a federal claim in the dispute underlying an arbitration petition does not suffice.

Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. v. Bock · filed 1988-10-11

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, a suit does not come within the federal question jurisdiction unless a proper statement of the relief sought would necessarily include reference to federally created rights. Because the Supreme Court has found that the right to compel arbitration under this Act is not one of the federally created rights that gives rise to federal question jurisdiction, the necessary reference to the Arbitration Act does not bring the suit into federal court.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in a well-pleaded claim; a federal defense does not establish jurisdiction.

People of State of NY v. Trans World Airlines · filed 1990-01-12

This court has original jurisdiction over cases “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In assessing whether a case removed from state court presents a federal question, the “well-pleaded complaint” rule requires the federal court to determine jurisdiction “from what necessarily appears in the plaintiff's statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided by anything alleged in anticipation of avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose.”

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates the claim or a substantial, disputed federal question is an element of the well-pleaded complaint.

Napoleon Hardwoods, Inc. v. Professionally Designed Benefits, Inc. · filed 1993-01-27

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, district courts have federal question jurisdiction in civil cases “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, federal law must create the cause of action, or some substantial, disputed question of federal law must be an element in the claim. ... On the face of the complaint, there was no federal question, only the state breach of contract or breach of duty questions.

Section 1331 requires the well-pleaded complaint to show that federal law creates the cause of action or that relief depends on resolving a substantial federal question.

Evans v. Sentry Property Management Corp. · filed 1994-05-16

In the instant case, the plaintiffs Complaint is based solely on alleged violations of state landlord/tenant law. The Complaint neither establishes that federal law creates the cause of action, nor that the plaintiffs rights are dependent upon the resolution of federal law.

Section 1331 generally requires a federal question to appear in the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint; a federal defense alone does not establish jurisdiction.

Pens. Plan Guide P 23926o Permelia Sue Clarkston v. Hubbard · filed 1996-07-03

The original jurisdiction of the federal courts extends to causes of action "arising under the ... laws ... of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The claim or right arising under federal law that provides the basis for federal jurisdiction is the plaintiff's claim or right. As a general rule, the federal question must be found in the plaintiff's "well-pleaded" complaint, and not in the defendant's notice of removal.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under federal law for federal-question jurisdiction, generally determined by the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Borek v. Weinreb Management · filed 1996-07-24

The existence of federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is generally determined by the “well-pleaded complaint rule.” ... Because the only remaining claim in this action does not arise under federal law, this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over the complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the complaint describes compliance with federal administrative exhaustion requirements.

Stephens v. Cowles Media Co. · filed 1998-01-12

In our view, the surplusage of those allegations, which attest to the Plaintiffs exhaustion of her Federal administrative remedies, do not convert her State law claims into their Federal analogs.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; a federal defense cannot create jurisdiction.

Hamby v. Ryobi Motor Products Corp. · filed 1998-09-29

Hamby’s complaint does not state a federal cause of action and Ryobi cannot create federal jurisdiction with its defense of her claim.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to govern an element the plaintiff must prove; federal law raised only to answer an anticipated defense does not establish jurisdiction.

Vandenbroeck v. Contimortgage Corp. · filed 1999-03-18

In other words, the federal law in dispute must form or govern an element that a plaintiff is required to prove to succeed on the claim. Thus, a federal question raised as a defense is insufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a federal claim appears on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.

McKinney v. City of Grosse Pointe Park · filed 1999-11-15

Whether a claim arises under federal law for purposes of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, which provides that “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint.” ... As enumerated above, plaintiffs first amended complaint explicitly asserts only two federal law claims against defendants, to wit: (1) unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment and (2) deprivation of liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Section 1331 requires a substantial, disputed federal question on the face of the well-pleaded complaint; federal law relevant only to a defense does not suffice.

Value Recovery Group, Inc. v. Hourani · filed 2000-09-21

A federal question arises if a substantial, disputed question of federal law is presented on the face of the well-pleaded complaint. ... While VRG may have asserted that federal law was applicable to its claims, it did not allege any cause of action that arose under the Constitution or laws of the United States until its first amended petition.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when federal issues arise only as defenses to state-law claims.

Aroostook Band of Micmacs v. Executive Director Maine Human Rights Commission · filed 2004-02-24

These counts involving federal questions only spring to life as defenses should the presiding court determine that one or other of the state anti-discrimination acts applies, by internal statutory definition, to the Band. This reality makes the Band’s § 1331 case less persuasive than that of the Penobscot Nation plaintiffs’.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint establishes a federal cause of action or a right to relief that necessarily depends on a substantial federal question.

Metro Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. v. Fraser · filed 2024-05-06

“A case arises under federal law within the meaning of § 1331 . . . if 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.” ... As both parties now recognize, Star Chrysler’s complaint does not assert a federal claim on its face, and none of Star Chrysler’s claims against Fraser are governed by Section 301 of the LMRA.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because a federal defense is the only contested issue.

City of Chicago v. Comcast Cable Holdings, L.L.C. · filed 2004-10-01

So the federal defense in § 542(b) does not supply jurisdiction if the claim itself rests on state or local law — which it does.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction based on a voluntary amended complaint alleging a federal claim arising from the same transaction as the original complaint.

In Re Wireless Telephone Federal Cost Recovery Fees Litigation · filed 2005-03-11

The district court below maintained jurisdiction in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as the plaintiffs filed suit under a federal statute, 47 U.S.C. §§ 201(b), 206, 207, challenging the rates charged by various wireless telephone carriers. ... As such, where a plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, federal courts must resolve questions of subject matter jurisdiction by examining the face of the amended complaint. ... Therefore, we hold that the amended complaint properly conferred jurisdiction on the district court to approve the settlement.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint.

Abele v. Grant Tolbert · filed 2005-05-03

Whether a claim arises under federal law for purposes of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a federal cross-claim cannot establish jurisdiction.

Palmer v. University of Medicine and Dentistry · filed 2009-03-27

There is no dispute that on its face Plaintiffs complaint raises no federal question under the “well-pleaded complaint” rule. ... UMDNJ fails to demonstrate that this action “arises under” federal law for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim when federal law arises only as a defense and the plaintiff can succeed without interpreting it.

Greenwich Financial Services Distressed Mortgage Fund 3, LLC v. Countrywide Financial Corp. · filed 2009-08-14

In contrast, if defendants had never raised TILA as an issue in this case, plaintiffs would not have required an interpretation of federal law in order to succeed on their claims.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction when the well pleaded complaint alleges a claim arising under federal law.

Mendenhall v. City of Akro · filed 2010-03-29

Whether a claim arises under federal law is determined by examining the “well pleaded” allegations of the complaint and ignoring potential defenses. ... We find that the district court did not err in denying the motion for remand.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a declaratory-judgment plaintiff anticipates a federal-law defense to a state-law claim.

Bacon v. Neer · filed 2011-02-01

Federal-question jurisdiction may not be created by a declaratory-judgment plaintiff’s “artful pleading [that] anticipates a defense based on federal law.” ... Thus, the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment Commerce Clause claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a state-law complaint raises no substantial federal issue and federal law arises only as a defense.

Garib-Bazain v. Hospital Español Auxilio Mutuo, Inc. · filed 2011-03-25

Because plaintiffs complaint does not allege a federal question on its face because the HCQIA does not provide for a private cause of action, and because there is no substantial federal question to decide, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this suit and remands it to Puerto Rico’s Court of First Instance, San Juan Superior Division, Civil Action No. KPE10-1201 (904).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a state-law complaint does not show on its face that the claim raises a federal question.

Settlement Funding, L.L.C. v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd. · filed 2017-03-22

For the reasons stated, we hold that there is no federal question jurisdiction because Rapid’s third-party complaint did not raise a federal question.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a claim arises under federal law, as determined from the well-pleaded complaint.

James Valley Coop. Tel. Co. v. S.D. Network, LLC · filed 2017-11-13

Typically, to determine whether a claim arises under a federal law, district courts examine the "well pleaded allegations of the complaint and ignore potential defenses."

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction only when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint.

Saunders v. Saunders · filed 2018-05-24

Finding that Plaintiff’s Complaint does not, on its face, present a federal question, the Court therefore finds that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction such that it may properly adjudicate Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over claims founded on federal common law only when the well-pleaded complaint rule is satisfied.

Mayor of Balt. v. BP P. L.C. · filed 2019-06-10

The well-pleaded complaint rule is plainly not satisfied here because the City does not plead any claims under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege facts supporting a cause of action created by federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Smith v. D.D Williamson and Co., Inc. · filed 2019-08-08

In the present case, Plaintiff has not met her burden of establishing federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Plaintiff states no factual allegations which support a cause of action created by federal law. Therefore, the complaint fails to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when a properly pleaded complaint asserts claims under the U.S. Constitution; anticipated defenses do not defeat that jurisdiction.

High Sierra Holistics, LLC v. State of Nevada, Department of Taxation · filed 2019-08-09

HSH’s complaint unequivocally asserts claims for violations of procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection premised on the United States Constitution. HSH’s own complaint defeats its claim that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a defendant’s proposed federal claim does not establish jurisdiction.

Providence City v. Thompson · filed 2019-10-07

Unlike Knick, there is no takings plaintiff in this action. This court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because Providence City’s Amended Complaint does not advance any federal claims.

Section 1331 requires the plaintiff’s complaint to show a claim based on federal law; a defense cannot establish federal question jurisdiction.

(UD) (PS) Cool Time LLC v. Chidester · filed 2019-10-21

Because plaintiff’s complaint does not show that it is based upon federal law, the court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the action.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint; a federal defense or counterclaim does not establish jurisdiction.

Gage v. Harris · filed 2019-11-13

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under” federal law. Removal based on § 1331 is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint” rule. ... Here, the underlying Complaint contains a single cause of action for unlawful detainer, which does not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; an isolated reference to a federal statute does not establish jurisdiction when the claims arise under state law.

James v. Jackson County Missouri · filed 2019-12-04

As such, it appears Plaintiff’s complaint does not arise under federal law, and thus federal jurisdiction is lacking.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s claim; a defendant’s asserted federal claim does not establish jurisdiction.

US Bank NA v. Gonzalez · filed 2019-12-16

It is clear that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Plaintiff’s Complaint states a single claim for unlawful detainer under California law. (Dkt. 1 Ex. A.) The Complaint does not include any 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 over state-law contract claims when the federal issue arises only as a defense.

CH4 Energy-Finley Utah v. Salt Lake Garfield & Western Railway Co · filed 2020-04-30

Therefore, there is currently no federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for a proper removal of the case under 28 U.S.C § 1441.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s claim; federal defenses and counterclaims do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Long Shores Lot Owners Assoc. Inc. v. DuBuclet · filed 2020-07-09

Nothing in the record suggests that the Association’s claim for unpaid dues was brought under or raises any question of federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim requires a federal question on the face of the complaint unless federal law completely preempts the claim.

Sekata v. Federal Express Corporation · filed 2020-11-06

Because there is no federal question presented on the face of Sekata’s complaint, the well-pleaded complaint rule precludes federal subject matter jurisdiction unless the asserted state law negligence claim is completely preempted by federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; state-law claims do not qualify merely because they mention federal constitutional rights.

Cotton v. City of Charleston · filed 2020-12-11

Applying the same analysis here, the court concludes that the face of the plaintiff’s complaint does not raise a federal question and thus that the removal jurisdiction is lacking.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to show on its face that the cause of action is created by federal law.

Wolfe v. Rushmore Loan Management Services · filed 2020-12-14

Therefore, the complaint must show on its face that the cause of action is created by federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; references to federal regulations or a federal defense do not establish jurisdiction.

NFG HOUSING PARTNERS LP v. SAINT PIERRE · filed 2021-01-20

However, the Court concludes that the October 26 Order did not bring this matter within the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction as delineated in 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a federal counterclaim cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Rez Capital, LLC v. Perez DO NOT DOCKET. CASE REMANDED TO 94th DISTRICT COURT. · filed 2021-01-28

Consequently, a counterclaim will not support removal.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a defendant’s federal allegations do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

HIGHVIEW TERRACE APARTMENTS v. ABULKHAIR · filed 2021-03-04

Second, Plaintiff does not raise any federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Here, Defendant raises federal questions, not Plaintiff.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint presents only state-law claims and no federal question appears on its face or through preemption.

Ardalan v. Borchardt · filed 2021-03-29

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

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a defendant’s federal counterclaim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Port of Bellingham v. Bornstein Seafoods Inc · filed 2021-05-04

The court concludes that CERCLA § 113(b) does not apply to strip the state court of jurisdiction to decide this case and does not disturb the rule that removal jurisdiction lies only where a federal question is presented in the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 does not give a federal court jurisdiction over a state contract claim merely because the plaintiff could have pleaded a federal claim.

VIOLETTE v. CITI BANK · filed 2021-05-04

As already noted, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not on its face assert a claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but, rather, a common law contract claim (see generally Compl.).

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the well-pleaded complaint; an ordinary federal preemption defense does not supply jurisdiction.

Independent Service Provider, LLC v. Kelley · filed 2021-05-11

Defendant removed this action to federal court predicating the court’s subject matter jurisdiction on the court’s original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Because Plaintiff, here, alleges only a state law claim, there is no jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; identifying federal laws does not establish jurisdiction over claims based in state law.

Williams v. Browns · filed 2021-06-07

Although Plaintiff identifies various federal statutes and Constitutional provisions, the claims against Defendants Browns and Johnson are based in state law. Plaintiff does not allege any violation arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. Thus, as pled, Plaintiff’s complaint does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires the basis for federal-question jurisdiction to appear on the face of the complaint; conclusory references to federal law are insufficient.

Gibson v. Attorney General Pennsylvania · filed 2021-06-21

Nor has Gibson shown subject matter jurisdiction based on a federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... While Gibson claimed in his supplement and on appeal that “federal laws on killing [were] not upheld” and that the Bill of Rights was violated, these conclusory assertions are insufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Dunford v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2021-08-31

Thus, federal question jurisdiction is absent because no “federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392.

Section 1331 supplies no federal question on the face of a complaint that pleads only state law claims.

Mkoma v. Ace Parking Management, Inc. · filed 2022-01-11

A review of the Complaint reveals that no federal question is directly implicated; Plaintiff only pleads claims under California state law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; these state law claims did not arise under the PREP Act.

Rosen v. Montefiore · filed 2022-01-31

This Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims do not make claims under the PREP Act.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim in the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; documents used to enforce a state court judgment do not themselves establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Gabrielino Tongva Tribe v. Stein · filed 2021-10-14

The Court Cannot conclude that the Exhibits attached to Defendants’ Notice of Removal give rise to an ERISA cause of action. Thus, the Tribe’s request for remand is GRANTED.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a potential federal counterclaim or defense does not establish jurisdiction.

REMAIN AT HOME SENIOR CARE LLC v. ADAMS · filed 2022-05-19

No federal question is presented on the face of RAH’s Amended Complaint. ... Defendants’ potential counterclaim or defense for retaliation under the FCA is insufficient to establish jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the well-pleaded complaint; allegations of state-law violations alone do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Kennamer v. Marshall County, Alabama · filed 2022-07-14

Rather, Plaintiff alleges only violations of state law, which do not create federal question jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the operative complaint; a proposed amendment that has not been accepted does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Tidwell v. Conner · filed 2022-08-02

Although the Court would have jurisdiction over any claims arising under the Constitution, the federal question “must appear in the well- pleaded [C]omplaint.” Panther Brands, LLC v. Indy Racing League, LLC, 827 F.3d 586, 589 (7th Cir. 2016); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The original Complaint contains no constitutional claims and only raises a single count of willful and wanton conduct (Doc. 9-2, p. 5). ... Thus, the Complaint was improperly removed to federal court because it does not invoke a violation of constitutional law.

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

Brown v. Madison County Sheriff's Office · filed 2022-09-12

According to the statute governing federal question jurisdiction, federal courts have original jurisdiction over claims “arising under the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... No federal question is presented in the first complaint, which focuses entirely on prosecuting the defendants for alleged crimes.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a federal defense does not establish jurisdiction.

Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Collins · filed 2022-10-17

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question jurisdiction exists “only when a federal question is presented on the face of the Plaintiff’s properly pleaded Complaint.” ... The plaintiff’s pleading—not the defendant’s response—establishes jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; a federal defense does not establish jurisdiction.

Hill v. Moore · filed 2022-11-17

The Court concludes the face of the complaint does not confer federal question jurisdiction upon this Court.

For removal, Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a federal counterclaim does not establish jurisdiction.

Clark County Education Association v. Roche · filed 2023-01-04

In determining the presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in removal cases, the “well-pleaded complaint rule” applies, “which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims unless the claims necessarily raise a federal issue; a later motion raising one does not suffice.

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

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

Section 1331 requires the complaint itself to show a federal cause of action or a right to relief that depends on a substantial federal question.

Manzanares v. City of Aurora Code Enforcement · filed 2023-03-09

Thus, on its face, Ms. Manzanares’ complaint presents no basis for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires the plaintiff's complaint to show a claim based on federal law; an answer or counterclaim cannot establish federal question jurisdiction.

(UD) (PS) Overlook at Blue Ravine LLC v. Dupuis · filed 2023-04-11

Because plaintiffs complaint does not show that it is based upon federal law, the court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the action.

Section 1331 requires federal-question jurisdiction to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; federal-law counterclaims cannot establish it.

Elliott v. Chang · filed 2023-04-14

Accordingly, Defendant’s counterclaims cannot provide this Court with appropriate jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense or counterclaim does not establish jurisdiction.

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Bagheri · filed 2023-04-19

The Court must therefore conclude that VRG intends to raise these issues as defenses which do not give rise to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts only state-law claims, even if its allegations could support a federal claim.

CALVERT v. NEW ALBANY MOTOR COMPANY, INC. d/b/a COYLE CHEVROLET · filed 2023-04-25

Because Calvert's Complaint does not cite any federal law or assert any federal claims, it does not invoke federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the well-pleaded complaint unless complete preemption makes a state-law claim federal.

Deugoue v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · filed 2023-04-27

Simply put, as pleaded, it is not apparent from the face of the complaint that Plaintiff’s claims invoke federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a defendant’s asserted federal violation does not suffice.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. v. ARSENIS · filed 2023-06-02

To begin, the Complaint solely alleges state law claims; thus, the Court may not exercise federal question jurisdiction.