28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction over traditional state common law claims or federal statutes unrelated to the pleaded facts.

Gray v. Amazon · filed 2021-01-14

Rather, Plaintiff's claims for negligence, breach of warranty, and products liability, Dkt. No. 15 at 9-10, are traditional state common law claims that do not "arise under" federal law. Further, although Plaintiff does cite to federal statutes in her amended complaint, they bear no apparent relationship to the facts alleged in the amended complaint and do not form a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

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

BERKERY v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2021-01-22

Under § 1331, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ... Berkery’s claims, however, all arise under state law, not federal law.

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

Smith v. Harris · filed 2021-01-26

Smith does not invoke the Court’s federal-question jurisdiction, and the facts alleged in the complaint do not suggest any claim arising under federal law. The Court therefore cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges solely state-law claims.

Lannunziata v. American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC · filed 2021-01-27

In the case at bar, Plaintiff has included solely state law claims in her Complaint. Therefore, there is no arguable basis upon which the Court may assert “federal question” subject matter ...jurisdiction over this action, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over assault and battery claims arising under state common law.

Fenton v. Kirk · filed 2021-02-08

However, Plaintiff’s action does not arise under the Constitution or any federal laws. Rather, her two claims, assault and battery, are state common law claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state tort and contract claims that do not implicate federal law.

Bodhi Building v. Elmsford Chicken, LLC · filed 2021-02-09

Plaintiff’s twelve alleged causes of action—trespass, negligence, intentional tortious damage, private nuisance, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting trespass, aiding and abetting intentional tortious damages, aiding and abetting private nuisance, constructive eviction, and breach of contract—do not present a federal question and therefore cannot invoke jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a breach of contract claim arising under state law.

(PS) Warfield v. Attorney General State of California · filed 2021-02-11

Plaintiff has only stated that he is attempting to bring a breach of contract claim, which is a state law claim and therefore does not qualify for Section 1331 jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal issues they raise are too fact-specific and insubstantial.

Scott v. Gate Gourmet, Inc. · filed 2021-02-22

As such, the Court finds that plaintiffs complaint raises federal issues that are too fact-specific and insubstantial to fit within the narrow category of state law claims that support federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that implicates significant federal issues.

Bridgeton Landfill, LLC v. Missouri Asphalt Products, LLC · filed 2021-02-19

In addition, federal-question jurisdiction exists where state law claims implicate significant federal issues.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States; a complaint asserting no such claim does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Scott v. Odhwani · filed 2021-02-25

Moreover, Scott’s complaint does not assert any claims arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, meaning the court also lacks federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Parker v. Apple, Inc. · filed 2021-02-25

Plaintiff cites no other basis to conclude his claims arise under federal law as required to invoke jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor is any such basis apparent.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no facts suggesting that any claim arises under federal law.

Amelio v. Fischer & Burstein, P.C. · filed 2021-03-01

Here, Plaintiffs do not allege facts suggesting that any of their claims arise under federal laws. The Court therefore lacks federal-question jurisdiction to consider Plaintiffs’ claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law trespass claim.

Callwood v. Albert Bryan Jr. Governor et.al · filed 2021-03-03

Moreover, a state law trespass claim does not present a federal question.

Section 1331 does not give federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because courts use federal law to inform state law.

Boxx Sanitation, LLC v. Express Disposal, Inc. · filed 2021-03-11

And a state-law claim doesn’t “arise under” federal law for the purpose of § 1331 simply because courts look to federal law to inform state law.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a federal claim even when the plaintiff could have pursued state law claims instead.

Percival v. Poon · filed 2021-03-15

Ms. Poon does not cite any authority supporting the proposition she advances here: that a federal court lacks federal question jurisdiction whenever a plaintiff could have proceeded exclusively under state law but chose to assert a federal claim. ... Ms. Percival chose to rely upon both federal and state law, and the Court cannot disregard her decision to do so.

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

Wong v. Dawson · filed 2021-03-15

The single claim asserted by Plaintiff, for unlawful detainer, does not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an action asserting only state-law claims, even when the complaint invokes it.

ELALEM v. CNI ADVANTAGE, INC · filed 2021-03-15

Clearly, this action does not arise under federal law. Regardless of the Amended Complaint’s statement that there is federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction is in fact rooted in 28 U.S.C. § 1332, based on the parties’ diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy.

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

McIver v. Mount Vernon CMV Police Dept. · filed 2021-03-16

Rather, her claims arise under state law, and this Court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction over such claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when no claim necessarily depends on an issue of federal law.

Ndukwe v. Walker, Jr. · filed 2021-03-16

The amended complaint makes no reference to federal law, and defendants have not shown that any claim necessarily depends on an issue of federal law for its resolution.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint does not allege a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Brockington v. Barr · filed 2021-03-18

The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff’s allegations do not suggest that the case arises under the United States Constitution or its laws or treaties and therefore do not implicate federal question jurisdiction. ... The court has thoroughly reviewed the record and concurs in the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. The Report, ECF No. 10, is incorporated herein by reference.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because they relate to HIPAA.

SACCHI v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED · filed 2021-03-23

Although these claims relate to HIPAA and the protections it affords, that does not convert this matter into a federal cause of action.

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

Carter v. University of Washington School of Dentistry · filed 2021-03-26

Mr. Carter’s complaint alleges only state-law claims. (See Compl. at 7.) Thus, Mr. Carter does not allege a basis for this court’s federal question jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that does not arise from the Constitution or federal law.

CLEMONS v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL · filed 2021-03-29

There is no basis for the Court to exercise federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as any claim against Jane Doe #2 would not seem to arise from the Constitution or federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that do not necessarily raise an actually disputed and substantial federal issue.

JLLJ Development, LLC v. Kewadin Casinos Gaming Authority · filed 2021-03-30

The parties have failed to identify any disputed federal issue necessarily raised by any of the state law claims, let alone one actually disputed and substantial.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a cause of action based on state law rather than the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Johnson v. Ford Motor Company Headquarters · filed 2021-03-31

As previously explained, the Plaintiff’s cause of action is based on Indiana state law, not the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. As such, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over this matter.

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

Jinxing Investment LLC v. Chen · filed 2021-04-12

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. First, there is no federal question apparent from the face of the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple unlawful detainer cause of action.

Section 1331 provides no federal question jurisdiction over a remaining state law defamation claim.

Adeyemi v. State of MD · filed 2021-05-05

At this juncture, the only remaining claim is the defamation claim that falls under State law. There is no basis for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that do not require resolution of a disputed federal issue.

Greenbaum v. Knoxville HMA Holdings, LLC · filed 2021-05-06

Because Plaintiffs’ state-law claims attacking Defendants’ liens do not require the Court to resolve any disputed questions under the Medicare Act, the Court does not find that this case falls within the “special and small category of cases” where the substantial federal question doctrine applies.

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

Asmelashe v. Dawit Auto Body Shop · filed 2021-05-10

There is federal-question jurisdiction if the case “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... At best, the plaintiffs appear to be alleging conversion of the car, which is a state-law claim that can be brought in a civil lawsuit in state court. There is no equivalent federal claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Ingraham v. Casey · filed 2021-05-12

As Plaintiffs do not establish that any of their claims arise under any Constitutional provision or federal statute, they have not demonstrated federal question jurisdiction.

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

Seniw v. Bagwell · filed 2021-05-15

Mr. Seniw’s Complaint only seeks relief on products liability, personal injury, and medical malpractice grounds, see Compl., all claims arising under state laws. ... As a result, this case will be dismissed for lack of a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges only state law causes of action.

(PS) Mincey v. Puila · filed 2021-05-19

The basic federal jurisdiction statutes are 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, which confer “federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. ... Here, plaintiffs’ complaint fails to allege a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. The complaint alleges only state law causes of action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims based only on state law against a private actor.

Moses v. Corte Madera Tow · filed 2021-05-24

First, there is no federal-question jurisdiction because the plaintiff’s claims are state-law claims against a private actor, Corte Madera Towing.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law fraud claim that does not necessarily raise a federal issue.

Commerce Home Mortgage LLC v. Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco · filed 2021-05-24

Consequently, the fraud claim does not necessarily raise a federal issue.

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

Burns v. Stroud · filed 2021-05-27

Reading Plaintiff’s Complaint liberally, the remaining claims appear to assert state law claims for fraud and/or civil conspiracy. These claims do not arise under the “Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff therefore fails to state a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction for state-law property damage and harassment claims that allege no federal claim.

Stanton v. Garrett County Community Action Ink · filed 2021-06-04

Nevertheless, the alleged conduct does not amount to a federal claim. At best, the Complaint asserts claims for property damage and harassment. Such claims arise under Maryland law and may be raised in a state court, but cannot be brought in this court, absent a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when references to federal law merely provide context for state law claims.

Adkins v. OnPoint Community Credit Union · filed 2021-06-14

Because they provide context for Plaintiff’s state law claims, Plaintiff’s references to federal law in the compliant do not necessarily raise federal questions.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; state-law tort and contract claims and unspecified allegations of rights violations do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Gordon v. First Chicago Insurance Company · filed 2021-06-16

To invoke jurisdiction under § 1331, Ms. Gordon must bring a claim arising under federal law. Ms. Gordon’s complaint primarily alleges state law tort claims and state law breach of contract claims relating to First Chicago’s alleged failure to pay her for her pain, suffering, medical expenses and other damages following the 2015 accident. The Complaint also alleges that First Chicago and Ms. Gordon’s attorneys in the underlying action “violate[d] my rights,” d/e 1, p. 11, but nothing in the Complaint or any of Ms. Gordon’s other filings indicates that any specific right arising under the laws or Constitution of the United States was violated.

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

Ingraham v. Saint Mary Hospital · filed 2021-06-21

To establish federal question jurisdiction, the claims must "arise[] under the Constitution [or] laws … of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over remaining claims arising only under state law after the federal claims are dismissed.

Pittman v. The Board of Curators of the University of Missouri · filed 2021-06-22

As the only remaining claims are under state law, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over that claim.

Section 1331 supplies original jurisdiction over federal-law claims but does not supply original jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Favors v. Johnston · filed 2021-06-24

Unlike with the federal-law claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not provide a basis for the Court’s jurisdiction over the state- law claims, and Favors does not allege that the parties are of diverse citizenship such that 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) may supply jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; a removing party who fails to show one does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Smith-Hagans v. Garsiyya-Bey · filed 2021-06-29

With respect to federal question jurisdiction, Respondent did not meet her burden to show that any claims arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction for a professional-negligence claim that pleads no facts supporting a federal question.

ABDI v. TEPLER · filed 2021-06-30

Plaintiff has not plead any facts which would support federal question jurisdiction. The complaint appears to attempt to assert a claim for professional negligence against Defendant,1 which is a state law tort claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the PREP Act may supply an immunity defense; that defense is not a necessary element of the claims.

Elliot v. Care Inn of Edna LLC · filed 2021-06-30

Because PREP Act immunity is a defense, it is not necessarily raised as an element of Plaintiff's claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims based on failures of care that do not implicate the PREP Act or necessarily raise a substantial federal issue.

Acra v. California Magnolia Convalescent Hospital, Inc. · filed 2021-07-01

The Court would conclude that Plaintiffs’ claims in the instant action do not implicate the PREP Act, and therefore do not invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law challenge to a state policy decision merely because federal funds are implicated.

D.A. v. Hogan · filed 2021-07-01

Challenges to state policy decisions that merely implicate funds granted to a state pursuant to a federal statute do not automatically trigger a federal question warranting federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer complaint that presents only an issue under state law.

Urban League Village LLC v. Tahir-Garrett · filed 2021-07-06

Federal question jurisdiction exists where there is a claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... First, there is no federal question jurisdiction. At the time of removal, the Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer action, which presents a narrow issue under Washington law, not federal law.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over an ERISA claim and counterclaim rooted in federal law.

Messing v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company · filed 2021-07-07

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Thus, the Court has jurisdiction over Messing’s claim because it is rooted in ERISA, a federal law. The same is true for Provident’s counterclaim, which is also based on ERISA.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that raise no federal issue.

Law Office of Guy Levy, Inc. v. Moishes Moving Systems · filed 2021-07-09

There is no indication that the state law claims raised in the complaint raise a federal issue.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer claim arising solely under state law.

Johns Creek, LLC v. Brown Bey · filed 2021-07-12

The Court further finds that it cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction over this action. As explained above, this matter involves a claim against Defendant for unlawful detainer—a claim that arises solely under Virginia law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a landlord-tenant breach of contract claim arising under state law.

El v. Walker Mews Apartments · filed 2021-07-13

Such claims arise under Maryland law and may not be brought in this Court, based on federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil claims arising under a federal statute, including the Administrative Procedure Act.

Gupta v. U.S. Attorney General · filed 2021-07-16

Here, the district court clearly had subject matter jurisdiction. Gupta brought a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, which is a federal statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the . . . laws . . . of the United States.”).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a guardianship dispute that alleges no violation of federal or constitutional law.

Foster v. Sullivan · filed 2021-07-19

The allegations in no way allege or imply a violation of constitutional or federal law and simply do not confer federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only a state-law defamation claim.

Torres v. Nexus-Woodbourne Family Healing · filed 2021-07-20

The sole claim raised by plaintiff is one for defamation under Maryland law which he may pursue in the Maryland state courts. ... The allegations do not establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint pleads only state-law claims despite identifying federal statutes and constitutional provisions.

Williams v. Browns · filed 2021-07-21

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 a claim arising under federal law; an alleged collusion in obtaining a foreclosure that arises under state law does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Sanderson v. HSBC Bank USA · filed 2021-07-26

The plaintiffs have not alleged any new facts that would support the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. As an initial matter, the plaintiffs have not alleged any claims arising under federal law in their amended complaint. To the extent the plaintiffs allege “collusion” in obtaining a foreclosure against the property at 318 East 16 Street, that claim would arise under state law.

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

Gaines v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceutical · filed 2021-07-26

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. ... In sum, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to show that he brings any claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when none of the claims arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Diffee v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company · filed 2021-07-30

Nor do any of Plaintiff's claims arise under “the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over negligence and malpractice claims based on state law rather than federal law.

Lueken v. Egner · filed 2021-08-03

Federal courts only have jurisdiction to decide certain types of cases. For instance, federal courts have jurisdiction over “federal question” cases. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. These are cases that bring claims based on federal laws. But Lueken has not pointed to any federal laws as the basis for her lawsuit. Instead, it is clear that her claims of negligence and malpractice are based on state law, not federal law. Therefore, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over her case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that neither arises under federal law nor necessarily raises a substantial federal issue.

Sally v. Panera Bread Company · filed 2021-08-03

Nor does this case fall within the narrow category of cases described in Grable, as Panera has failed to carry its burden of showing that an issue of federal law is either necessarily raised or substantial in this case. Therefore, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the Court must remand the case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law medical malpractice complaint that alleges no federal claim.

Adamek v. Gray · filed 2021-08-04

Although the Complaint alleges that the Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, (Id. at 3), Plaintiff’s Complaint appears to bring a medical malpractice claim, which is a state cause of action. See A.R.S. § 12-562. Although Plaintiff may bring this state claim before state court, she may not do so here in federal court unless she also brings a federal claim.

Section 1331 does not give federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the claim presents a federal issue.

Raith v. International Guiding Eyes Inc. · filed 2021-08-05

But as the Court noted in its OSC, the presence of a federal issue in a state law claim alone does not compel federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction only when the claim arises under federal law; state-law contract and medical-malpractice claims do not qualify merely because defendants are subject to federal statutes.

Momou v. Dean Health Plan, Inc. · filed 2021-08-09

But, as the district judge informed Momou, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229668 at *7, §1331 supplies jurisdiction only when the claim arises under one of these statutes, which Momou’s breach-of-contract and medi- cal-malpractice claims do not.

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

WHITE v. FAMILY DOLLAR · filed 2021-08-11

Plaintiff has also failed to assert facts establishing any other basis for federal court jurisdiction in this case; he does not allege facts suggesting that he has a claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or facts showing that this case is between citizens of different states under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law dispute about bank-account funds merely because the funds are subject to federal insurance.

ROWAN BLVD. ASSOCIATES, LLC v. REPUBLIC FIRST BANK · filed 2021-08-12

That does not mean, however, any state law dispute, such as a breach of contract claim like the one asserted here, that arises over a bank’s actions relative to those funds automatically confers subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331 simply because of the tangential presence of federal insurance.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff asserts no claim arising under federal law.

Martin v. St. Louis City Family Court · filed 2021-08-13

Here, plaintiff invokes this Court’s federal question jurisdiction, but she asserts no claims that arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because federal law also regulates the underlying conduct.

CHVALA v. HARMONY FIRE DISTRICT · filed 2021-08-18

State law claims based on conduct that is also regulated by federal law does not necessarily give rise to federal question jurisdiction.

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

MBC Ventures, LLC v. Miniventures of NY, Inc. · filed 2021-08-20

In the case at bar, Plaintiff has included only state law claims for breach of contract – breaches of loan agreements and a "guaranty" – in the Complaint. Therefore, there is no arguable basis upon which the Court may assert "federal question" subject matter jurisdiction over this action, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.6 Plaintiff must, thus, establish diversity of citizenship.

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

Beckman v. James Pena Ayan Group Inc · filed 2021-08-20

Plaintiff does not allege that her claims arise under any federal laws, and the Court is unable to discern from the Complaint any legal theory that would provide relief to Plaintiff under federal law. Rather, liberally construing the Complaint, it appears that Plaintiff seeks to pursue state law tort claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to properly invoke this Court’s federal question subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a civil action to arise under federal law; claims arising only under state law do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Mohanna v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2021-08-24

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a civil action to arise under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ... This is incorrect since Plaintiff brings only state law claims.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; a business dispute does not establish federal-question jurisdiction when the cited criminal provisions supply no civil claim and no other federal statute is implicated.

Randall v. Velarde · filed 2021-08-25

Plaintiff’s More Definite Statement simply lists 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242. The Court is not aware of any other federal statute implicated by Plaintiff’s allegations regarding his business dispute with Defendants. The Court therefore lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims for fraud, theft, breach of contract, or unjust enrichment alone.

Grajales-El v. Amazon Prime · filed 2021-08-25

Liberally construing Grajales-El's amended complaint to include claims for “fraud, theft, and breach of contract or, in the alternative, unjust enrichment,” such causes of action are state law claims that do not alone give rise to jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on references to state statutes.

Lightfeather v. PornHub.com · filed 2021-08-26

Plaintiff’s references to Nebraska statutes do not provide the court with “federal question” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and Plaintiff does not seek to invoke “diversity of citizenship” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a federal-law violation is only one possible, nonessential basis for the claim.

HCMS, Inc. v. Los Angeles Yacht Charters · filed 2021-08-27

The Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) stating that there was no foundation for federal question jurisdiction since Plaintiff brought a single cause of action under state law and, while a violation of a federal law was one basis for the state claim, it was not a necessary element for the claim — citing to Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 346 (9th Cir. 1996). ... In light of the above, the Court orders that: (1) the August 30, 2021 OSC re jurisdiction and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) scheduling conference be taken off-calendar; and (2) this action be remanded forthwith back to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a violation of federal law is only one possible basis for the claim and is not a necessary element.

Health Club Marketing Specialist, Inc. v. Aken · filed 2021-08-27

The Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) stating that there was no foundation for federal question jurisdiction since Plaintiff brought a single cause of action under state law and, while a violation of a federal law was one basis for the state claim, it was not a necessary element for the claim — citing to Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 346 (9th Cir. 1996). ... In light of the above, the Court orders that: ... this action be remanded forthwith back to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law.

Loper v. Howard County Public School System · filed 2021-08-27

As for subject matter jurisdiction, which plaintiff does not appear to challenge, defendants’ assertion of so-called federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, appears to be sound. ... Thus, federal question jurisdiction obtains as to those claims.

Section 1331 requires a claim based on federal law for federal-question jurisdiction; a state-law breach-of-contract claim does not suffice.

Mamot v. Walgreens Pharmacy · filed 2021-08-30

In that type, the complaint must have a claim based on a federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... His only claim against the Defendant is that Walgreens Pharmacy breached a contract by failing to develop his photographs within one week as promised. Breach of contract is based on a state law and may be raised in state courts, and, indeed, plaintiff litigated this claim in New York City’s Small Claims Court and was offered a settlement.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law property claims that do not necessarily raise a federal issue, even when they relate to a federal consent order.

Villella v. Logan · filed 2021-09-07

That the Consent Order was the product of a suit that arose under federal law does not mean plaintiffs’ claims necessarily raise a question of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint invokes federal law but alleges only a state-law property dispute.

Vitucci v. Radparvar · filed 2021-09-07

Although Plaintiff invokes federal law, he alleges no facts suggesting that any of his claims arise under federal law. Rather, Plaintiff’s claims arise from a dispute over ownership of property, which is a matter of state law.

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

Taylor v. Aiken County School District · filed 2021-09-10

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

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

Hale v. Long · filed 2021-09-13

Plaintiff’s common law fraud claim does not establish federal question jurisdiction because it does not “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Hart v. Mickey Henschel · filed 2021-09-15

Plaintiffs assert federal question jurisdiction based on the Fifth Amendment and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, (see Dkt. 6, FAC at ¶ 3), but plaintiffs do not allege claims that “arise under” federal law.

A complaint alleging only a state-law negligence claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction on its face under § 1331.

HARUN v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE · filed 2021-09-21

Further, Plaintiff’s alleged basis for jurisdiction is federal-question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Thus, from the face of her Complaint, as pled, the cause of action being brought is one of “negligence,” a purely state-law claim. ... As such, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to RECAST her Complaint to (1) comply with the pleading standards required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and to SHOW CAUSE why the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over her non-federal, state-law claim of negligence.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the pleaded facts do not show that the claims arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

BURTCH v. THOMAS · filed 2021-09-23

No facts indicate Plaintiff’s claims arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, and therefore it does not appear federal question jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over state law claims arising on federal land when the state retains concurrent legislative jurisdiction and the claims do not arise under federal law.

Lake v. Ohana Military Communities · filed 2021-09-27

Federal courts generally have no judicial jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to hear state law claims––even where there is concurrent state-federal legislative (i.e. political) jurisdiction––where the state claims do not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a suit based solely on state law.

Baptiste v. Bourland · filed 2021-09-27

Given that Plaintiff’s suit is based solely upon state law, this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction cannot rest upon federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on a state procedural rule or a state-law defamation claim.

McFarland v. St. Louis County Family Court Division · filed 2021-09-28

Plaintiff’s reliance on MRCP 74.06, however, is misplaced, as this section of the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure is a state court rule that is applicable to Missouri state courts. It does not govern federal courts and has no basis in federal law or procedure. As such, it does not provide federal question jurisdiction. Likewise, plaintiff’s allegation that his “character has been defamed” encompasses a state law tort, not a violation of federal law. ... For the reasons discussed above, plaintiff has not carried his burden of demonstrating that this Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a breach-of-contract claim arising under state law rather than federal law.

LYLES v. NORTH AMERICAN DENTAL GROUP LLC · filed 2021-09-28

The Court does not have jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because the claim arises under Pennsylvania contract law and not federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim merely because the complaint makes a passing reference to a federal statute.

Washington v. Motel 6 · filed 2021-10-07

To the extent defendants rely on the passing reference to the ADA in connection with plaintiff’s negligence claim, (see Dkt. 1, NOR at ¶¶ 3, 6), it is insufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that do not necessarily require resolution of a federal issue.

GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA, INC v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2021-10-07

The absence of a federal issue necessarily requiring resolution in this case raising only state statutory and constitutional claims precludes “arising under” federal jurisdiction under the Grable test.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law civil rights claim merely because the claim refers to Section 1983.

MANN v. RUTGERS UNIVERSITY CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE · filed 2021-10-12

Plaintiff’s mere reference to Section 1983 in the second count of his amended complaint does not convert his new NJCRA claim into a Section 1983 claim for the purpose of determining whether the Court has federal question jurisdiction over the claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from a nursing facility resident’s COVID-19 death based on the PREP Act preemption and substantial-federal-question theories advanced here.

De Vitela v. Silverscreen Healthcare Inc · filed 2021-10-13

Defendants removed this case because they contend that (1) Plaintiffs’ state law claims are entirely preempted by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (“PREP Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 247d-6d; (2) Plaintiffs’ claims present a substantial federal question; and (3) removal is proper under the federal officer statute, 28. U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). ... This broad consensus in the Central District is convincing. The Court agrees with their reasoning and similarly finds that it does not have jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims based on state law.

Abdel-Malak v. United States · filed 2021-10-14

In the same vein, to the extent his claims are based on California state law, Compl. ¶ 40, this Court likewise lacks jurisdiction because claims based on state law do not “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Sounders v. South Carolina Public Serv. Authority, 497 F.3d 1303, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Claims founded on state law are also outside the scope of the limited jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims.”).

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States; a state-law medical malpractice claim does not invoke federal-question jurisdiction.

Jones v. OSHU · filed 2021-10-19

In addition, Jones has not invoked federal question jurisdiction by pleading a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States. Rather, he has alleged a medical malpractice claim, which typically arises under state law and is resolved in state court.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising under state rather than federal law.

Hafner v. Baker · filed 2021-10-20

The Court would lack subject matter jurisdiction to entertain such claims under the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because they do not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction over claims based on federal causes of action, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act.

Maslic v. ISM Vuzem d.o.o. · filed 2021-10-26

The Court clearly has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ first, second, and ninth claims because federal law is the basis for each.

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

Bennett v. Sheehy Ford of Marlow Heights, Maryland · filed 2021-11-08

As such, the Complaint does not establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the federal laws a plaintiff cites are unrelated to the pleaded causes of action.

Dweck v. City of Miami Springs · filed 2021-11-10

In the Amended Petition, Dweck attempts to invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction by alleging three independent bases that are unrelated to his causes of action. ... However, Dweck’s claims are not based on any of those statutes or constitutional amendments.

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

Trapp v. Gunn · filed 2021-11-18

Plaintiff’s remaining claims arise under Missouri state law. As such, these claims do not satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides this Court with jurisdiction to hear actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over state-law mortgage and bank fraud claims that do not arise under the Constitution or a federal statute.

Reece v. Thomas · filed 2021-11-29

Plaintiff asserts claims of mortgage and bank fraud, which arise under state law. As Plaintiff‘s allegations do not arise under the Constitution or any federal statute, federal question jurisdiction does not apply.

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

LEMMONS v. HOLMAN · filed 2021-12-10

Because his claim arises under state law, not federal law, § 1331 provides no basis for jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint seeks relief only under state law.

Prouty v. Kosloski · filed 2021-12-16

Prouty seeks relief only as a matter of state law and, therefore, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not provide a statutory basis for the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, but not claims arising only under state law.

Deng v. Seattle Municipal Court · filed 2021-12-17

First, the Court has “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This applies to Plaintiff’s claims that vindicate his rights conferred to him by the Constitution and federal law, but not state law.

Section 1331 requires the party invoking federal-question jurisdiction to show that a claim arises under federal law.

Fletcher v. Williams · filed 2021-12-17

With respect to federal question jurisdiction, Defendant fails to meet his burden to show that any claims arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim based entirely on California law.

Able P.M. Inc. v. Emmons · filed 2021-12-20

A California statute cannot form the basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law fraud claim solely because the alleged fraud involved a bankruptcy filing.

Reece v. Thomas · filed 2021-12-22

Plaintiff has not invoked any federal law that applies to her claim, and her claim that Defendant defrauded her arises under state law (even if it involved the filing of a suit in federal Bankruptcy Court).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim simply because a federal judgment or statute might make the challenged ordinance unlawful.

City of Cullman, Alabama v. Cullman Electric Cooperative · filed 2022-01-04

Accordingly, the Court does not have jurisdiction over this case simply because Ordinance No. 2022-03 might be unlawful under Judge Nelson’s 1991 judgment and/or § 13 of the TVA Act.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that neither challenge an EPA-directed CERCLA cleanup nor arise from RCRA remedial measures.

West Virginia State University v. The Dow Chemical Company · filed 2022-01-10

Second, we hold that there is no federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, over WVSU’s state claims because they are neither challenging an EPA-directed “cleanup” under CERCLA nor arise from RCRA remedial measures and, thus, are not preempted.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over common law fraud claims because they arise under state law.

Jensen v. Rubin · filed 2022-01-12

But common law fraud is a state law cause of action; therefore Jensen’s common law fraud claims do not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising only under state law, including a challenge to the validity of a will.

Bey v. O'Neal · filed 2022-01-13

Moreover, none of the plaintiff’s claims arise under federal law. ... The Court can find no other basis for federal question jurisdiction in the complaint. Instead, the plaintiff appears to challenge the validity of her stepmother’s will. That claim is purely a state law matter, which the plaintiff could raise in New York’s Surrogate’s Court.

Section 1331 gives federal courts federal-question jurisdiction over a cause of action created by the IDEA.

Steckelberg v. Chamberlain School District · filed 2022-01-18

Because the IDEA creates the cause of action the School District presents in this case, the cause of action arises under federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §1331, and this Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction over the School District’s complaint.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when a federal statute does not completely preempt them and any federal issue appears only as a defense.

Pirotte v. HCP Prairie Village KS OPCO LLC · filed 2022-01-20

Thus, the complete preemption exception to the “well-pleaded complaint” rule does not apply here, so the court cannot conclude that plaintiff brings a “civil action[ ] arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Barton v. Northeast Transport, Inc. · filed 2022-01-24

Because these claims are both state common law claims, it cannot be said that the facts or allegations arise under federal law. Therefore, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims based solely on state contract, property, and probate law.

Clark v. Hager · filed 2022-01-26

Best the Court can tell, these are state-law claims based on Florida contract, property, and probate principles. In other words, there is no federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim based solely on its reference to a federal statute.

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA v. CVS RX SERVICES, INC. · filed 2022-01-26

The City’s reference to the CSA, without more, does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts only state-law claims and implicates no federal law.

American Commerce Insurance Co v. Bronko Construction, LLC · filed 2022-02-02

Because Plaintiff has asserted exclusively state law claims in the Complaint, there is no arguable ground upon which the Court may assert the alternative basis of "federal question" subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331, captioned "Federal question," provides: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." No such federal law is implicated in this case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over defamation, fraud, or other tort claims that do not arise under federal law.

Thomas v. Richard · filed 2022-02-03

Rather, the claims are seemingly focused on some defamation, fraud, or tort claim, none of which arise under federal law as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction merely because state-law claims relate to alleged federal-law violations in a separate action.

Crawford v. Bleeden · filed 2022-02-10

All claims asserted by the Recevier in this action, however, are state law claims. Thus, unlike the Underlying Action, federal question jurisdiction will not support the court’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim that implicates no federal law.

Allard v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC · filed 2022-02-11

From the face of the Complaint, there is no arguable ground upon which the Court may assert the alternative basis of "federal question" subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331, captioned "Federal question," provides: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." No such federal law is implicated in this case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction over state law contract claims.

Johnson v. New York State Insurance Company · filed 2022-02-17

To the extent plaintiff claims that defendant “breached all contracts” with him, Doc. #1 at 3, such claims sound in state law and cannot support federal question jurisdiction.

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

PAGE v. SUN JOURNAL NEWSPAPER · filed 2022-02-17

Plaintiff has alleged a defamation claim. The tort claim Plaintiff asserts arises under state law, not federal law. The Court’s federal question jurisdiction, therefore, is not applicable.

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

PAGE v. WILLIAMS · filed 2022-02-17

Plaintiff has alleged a defamation claim against Defendant. The tort claim Plaintiff asserts arises under state law, not federal law. The Court’s federal question jurisdiction, therefore, is not applicable.

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

PAGE v. ST MARY'S REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER · filed 2022-02-17

The tort claim Plaintiff asserts arise under state law, not federal law. The Court’s federal question jurisdiction, therefore, is not applicable.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting only state-law claims of defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud.

Ashmore v. Smith (MAG+) · filed 2022-02-25

Based on these claims, the Complaint does not raise a question of original federal question jurisdiction that extends to “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a tribe’s state-law property-damage claims to land it owns in fee simple when no tribal trust property is involved.

Hillman v. PacifiCorp · filed 2022-02-28

In sum, because case law supports the proposition that it is only tribal trust property issues that triggers federal jurisdiction given the government’s pervasive role in such questions, and because it is clear here that no such trust property is involved, federal jurisdiction is lacking.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when the well-pleaded complaint asserts a federal statute as the basis for relief.

DOE v. RUTGERS · filed 2022-03-02

Because Doe’s cause of action arises out of federal law, this court can exercise federal question jurisdiction over the case.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising under the FACE Act, a federal law.

Pennington v. Meyers · filed 2022-03-04

Plaintiffs assert claims under the FACE Act—a federal law—so, the court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because plaintiffs’ claims “aris[e] under the . . . laws . . . of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Pineda v. Rodriguez · filed 2022-03-07

Given that the suit involves only state law tort claims, the court also finds now basis for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Erasmus v. Long Beach Memorial Medical Center · filed 2022-03-14

For purposes of removal based on federal question jurisdiction, the well-pleaded complaint rule “provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Smallwood v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 660 F.3d 1115, 1120 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2429 (1987)). ... The Complaint asserts only state-law claims under the Unruh Act and UCL.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a claim arising under federal law; a request for apartment repairs alone does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Christian v. Director Fordham Housing Management Jane/John Doe · filed 2022-03-14

Plaintiff fails to plead facts showing that his claim arises under federal law. There is, therefore, no basis for federal question jurisdiction.

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

Johnson v. Vera House, Inc. · filed 2022-03-18

The Complaint asserts no basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not bring any claim that would give rise to federal question jurisdiction.2 Accordingly, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of federal law, including RESPA and Dodd-Frank.

Choi v. Kondaur Capital LLC · filed 2022-03-22

Choi provides no reason for remand, and this court sees none: the court has federal question jurisdiction, because Choi’s alleged violations of RESPA and Dodd-Frank arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction over a state law claim merely because resolving the claim requires deciding a federal issue.

Roy v. Pioneer Human Services · filed 2022-03-22

While the cause of action involves a federal issue because its resolution requires consideration of whether 18 U.S.C. § 3624 imposed a duty on defendants and whether defendants breached that duty, the federal issue does not meet the requirements for the exercise of federal question jurisdiction over a state law claim.

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

Givens v. Summit County Children Services · filed 2022-03-29

Second, Plaintiff’s complaint on its face alleges no discernible claim arising under federal law for purposes of establishing federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence or medical-malpractice claim.

GRAHAM v. COSTELLO · filed 2022-04-07

To the extent Plaintiff alleges a state law negligence (medical malpractice) claim against Defendants Armor Correctional Healthcare Services, Inc., Woodward and/or Usova, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the matter. The Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is not applicable, and Plaintiff has also failed to allege any facts to support a claim within the Court’s diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 generally does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law unemployment benefits appeals.

Turner v. BCforward · filed 2022-04-11

Unemployment benefits appeals are generally a state law matter, and therefore do not provide the Court with federal question jurisdiction.

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

Burton v. Civil Court of the City of New York · filed 2022-04-13

Plaintiff’s potential claims regarding her name change application submitted to the Civil Court of the City of New York would arise under state law,1 not federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a rental-deposit claim that presents no federal cause of action or substantial federal question.

Dumond v. Carrington · filed 2022-04-14

Dumond’s claims thus do not “arise under” federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over breach-of-contract and defamation claims that do not arise under federal law.

White v. Dave Dennis Inc. · filed 2022-04-14

Furthermore, breach of contract and defamation are not claims for relief arising under federal law, thus failing to support federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the disputed funds came from a federal agency when resolving the claim does not require interpreting federal law.

McCollum v. McCollum · filed 2022-04-19

And, although the “embezzlement” claim allegedly involved funds distributed by a federal agency, nothing on the face of Randy’s and Ronnie’s complaint or their response to the show cause order suggested resolution of the claim would entail interpreting any federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the court may need to apply federal law.

Tackett v. Equitrans, Limited · filed 2022-04-19

In the alternative, the Court does not understand why the fully competent Floyd Circuit Court could not deduce and apply the appropriate standard of care; the mere need to apply federal law does not confer federal-question jurisdiction.

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

Fleenor v. O'Donnell · filed 2022-04-20

Plaintiff asserts a state law cause of action, not a claim that arises under the “Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a claim created by federal law or one that necessarily depends on a substantial federal question; a claim under a state constitution alone does not suffice.

Vicioso v. Sharinn · filed 2022-04-22

Plaintiff also does not plead federal question jurisdiction, i.e., that her claims arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. She pleads only that her rights under the Constitution of New York were violated. Dkt. No. 1 at 3. She does not assert a claim created by federal law or that necessarily depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim arising under §301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.

Schmidt v. IAP Worldwide Services, Inc · filed 2022-04-22

As it is undisputed that the CBA was in effect at the time of Thompson’s termination, federal question jurisdiction exists over Thompson’s claim against IAP. 29 U.S.C. §185; 28 U.S.C. §1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim arising under a federal statute.

Iovino v. Michael Stapleton Associates, LTD. · filed 2022-04-25

And Iovino’s core retaliation claim, arising under a federal statute, is a textbook example of federal question jurisdiction.

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

J.V. v. Brownsville Independent School District · filed 2022-05-04

Plaintiffs’ THRC claim is neither a claim brought under federal law nor a claim between diverse parties.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only state-law negligence and no violation of the Constitution, a federal law, or a treaty.

SCHENCK v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION · filed 2022-05-06

The Complaint has not alleged the violation of any constitutional provision, law, or treaty of the United States because the sole count in Plaintiff’s Complaint is a common law negligence claim brought under New Jersey state law.

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

Polus v. Sharp Healthcare · filed 2022-05-09

The Court does not have federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiff’s cause of action for negligence arises out of state law.

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

Toner v. National City Mortgage Co. · filed 2022-05-10

Under § 1331, the Court has federal question jurisdiction where a plaintiff pleads a colorable claim “arising under” federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts only state-law claims and no federal law is implicated.

Innovative Inflatables, LLC v. Ally Bank · filed 2022-05-10

The Court notes that because Plaintiff has included solely state law claims in its complaint, there is no arguable basis upon which the Court may assert “federal question” subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” No federal law is implicated in the present matter.