28 U.S.C. § 1331

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

McArthur v. Nail Plus · filed 2022-05-20

McArthur’s remaining claims fail to provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction, because they arise under state law.

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

Shepherd v. Jackson · filed 2022-05-20

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... Under a liberal construction afforded pro se plaintiffs, the Court understands Plaintiff to be concerned about a termination of employment and struggles to find re-employment; however, this does not raise a federal question. Therefore, based on the allegations in the complaint, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction of any claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Jenkins v. Kellar Williams Group One, Inc. · filed 2022-05-23

The Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the case since Plaintiffs only assert state law claims in the Complaint, or diversity jurisdiction since Plaintiffs and Defendants are all citizens of Nevada.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law defamation claim when the complaint alleges no federal claim or other federal basis.

Atas v. The New York Times Company · filed 2022-05-31

Plaintiff’s complaint does not set forth any federal claims or otherwise assert a basis for federal question jurisdiction under Section 1331. Her claim that Defendants defamed her does not arise under federal law, but may be brought under state law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges only state-law defamation claims.

Lue v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. · filed 2022-06-03

However, Plaintiff does not allege that her claims arise under any federal laws, and the Court is unable to discern from the First Amended Complaint any legal theory that would provide relief to Plaintiff under federal law. Even when liberally construed, the First Amended Complaint enunciates only claims premised on state defamation law. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to establish federal question subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint raises only state-law claims.

Hanks v. Maricopa County Recorder's Office · filed 2022-06-10

In the Complaint (Doc. 1, Compl.), Plaintiff only raises claims under state law, so federal question jurisdiction is lacking.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a common law attorney-malpractice claim that does not arise under federal law.

Jackson v. Blessing · filed 2022-06-13

As this claim does not arise under federal law, the Court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over it under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a UCC claim when federal law neither creates the cause of action nor must be construed to resolve it.

Birch-Min v. Birch III · filed 2022-06-15

However, the UCC is not a federal statute from which federal question jurisdiction is derived. ... Because federal law does not create Plaintiff’s causes of action nor do her rights turn on “some construction of federal law,” federal question jurisdiction is not present.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only a state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Curbow v. Clintsman · filed 2022-06-15

And, because plaintiff’s claim – intentional infliction of emotional distress – arises from state law, there is no independent federal question that would confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction under Grable when the issues requiring adjudication do not involve a federal statute.

Martin v. Petersen Health Operations · filed 2022-06-15

Grable holds that a claim may “arise under” federal law for the purpose of §1441 (and 28 U.S.C. §1331) when a federal issue, nominally a defense, is bound to be the only issue contested in the litigation. ... These issues have nothing to do with any federal statute, so the conditions that Grable sets for federal jurisdiction are not satisfied.

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

Unified System Division BMWED-IBT v. Biden · filed 2022-06-17

Rather, it alleges only a violation of Utah law. Accordingly, the court has no federal question jurisdiction over count three.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no facts suggesting a federal claim.

Sumedeh v. Hugee · filed 2022-06-21

Liberally construing Plaintiff’s allegations, he also fails to allege facts to suggest that his claims arise under the Court’s federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a pleaded state-law claim may fail.

S&J WHOLESALE, LLC v. Alkitchmall (Seller ID: A2S9WQ2NR9EYP3) · filed 2022-06-21

But the possible failure of a state trade-secrets claim does not create a federal claim, much to the relief of civil defendants everywhere.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a lease dispute merely because the lease refers to the ADA.

JMA Enterprises LLC v. Taylor · filed 2022-06-27

The lease’s mention of the ADA—and the modifications that the plaintiffs made as a result—does not mean this case arises under the ADA itself.

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

Garber v. Burke · filed 2022-06-27

Plaintiff does not plead facts showing that her claim that Defendant engaged in “various civil and criminal wrongdoings against [her]” arises under federal law. There is, therefore, no basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over colorable claims arising under the U.S. Constitution or federal law.

EL v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY-JOHN JAY HOFFMAN · filed 2022-06-28

The Court finds, however, that it maintains federal question subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute. “A plaintiff properly invokes § 1331 [federal question] jurisdiction when he pleads a colorable claim ‘arising under’ the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

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

Point of Choice Consulting LLC v. Right Path LLC · filed 2022-06-30

The fact that Plaintiffs’ state law claims relate to certain intellectual property is not sufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law IIED claim that does not implicate federal rights.

Jackson v. Nelson · filed 2022-07-12

IIED is generally understood as a state law tort because it does not implicate any federal rights. See Grimsby, 530 P.2d at 296. Thus, this claim does not qualify for federal question jurisdiction.

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

Justice v. Simon · filed 2022-07-12

Federal question jurisdiction is lacking because Plaintiff does not allege a viable claim arising under the Constitution, law, or statutes of the United States.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint raises only state-law claims, even if the defendant believes the plaintiff could have pleaded a federal claim.

NATALIE MURRAY, as Next Friend to J.R.M. v. Joplin R-VIII School District · filed 2022-07-12

Regardless, Defendant’s insertion of this bracketed language in its briefing does not somehow create a federal cause of action when Plaintiff’s Petition clearly only cites to alleged claims under the MHRA – a state law claim.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; reliance on Texas statutes does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Sichanthavong v. Hernandez · filed 2022-07-13

Neither the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code nor Texas Penal Code, however, provide a basis for federal-question jurisdiction. Although Plaintiff purports to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction based on the presence of a federal question, neither of Plaintiff's amorphous claims support a basis for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Pigg v. B P X Energy · filed 2022-07-14

This is purely a Louisiana state-law claim that is insufficient to invoke the Court’s federal question subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim for state unemployment benefits when the complaint identifies no federal claim.

Watson v. Maryland Department of Labor, Division of Unemployment Insurance · filed 2022-07-15

Such claims typically arise under state, not federal law, and Plaintiff has not cited to a relevant provision in the APA or explained how the APA is relevant to her claim. The Complaint raises no other claims arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States; therefore, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; allegations about a financial agreement and abuse do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Cornelius v. Jagger · filed 2022-07-18

Plaintiff’s complaint does not set forth any federal claims or otherwise assert a basis for federal question jurisdiction under Section 1331. She asks this Court to review an alleged financial agreement between her and Defendant and compensate her for mental and physical abuse, claims that do not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint relies only on state law and presents no legitimate federal claim.

HALL v. MILLER · filed 2022-07-19

However, Hall listed only Pennsylvania statutory provisions in support of his assertion of federal question jurisdiction. ... Even under a liberal construction of the Amended Complaint, the Court cannot discern any legitimate basis for a federal claim here.

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

Robl v. Pennsylvania State Police · filed 2022-07-19

Since all that remains in this lawsuit is a state law contract claim, it is evident that the complaint does not allege any “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, giving rise to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a personal-injury claim that alleges no violation of federal law and raises no substantial federal issue.

Ousley v. Glockner · filed 2022-07-22

Here, Ousley’s complaint does not allege the violation of a federal law. Instead, Ousley appears to allege a personal-injury claim, which is a state tort claim. In addition, Ousley’s claim is not “substantial” such that it “necessarily raises” a federal issue. For these reasons, Ousley has not established federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction for claims arising under federal law; a state-law medical malpractice claim does not qualify.

Brock v. Vassar Brother Hospital · filed 2022-07-26

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. ... Plaintiff’s allegations do not suggest a violation of any federal law. Rather, he asserts that the defendant hospital committed malpractice by providing inadequate medical care for his fractured ribs, a claim that arises under state law.

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

McArthur v. C-Town Super Market · filed 2022-07-28

McArthur’s remaining claims fail to provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction, because they arise under state law.

Section 1331 does not give a district court original jurisdiction over an emotional-distress claim that does not arise under federal law.

GLENN v. VANIHEL · filed 2022-08-02

But, the Court does not have original jurisdiction over such claim because it does not arise under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (giving district courts original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States) and because this is not an action between citizens of difference states, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (giving district courts original jurisdiction over cases with diversity of citizenship and where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when resolving it does not require interpreting federal law.

Theodent, LLC v. Sadeghpour · filed 2022-08-05

For the reasons set forth in detail above, Defendant has not shown that Plaintiffs’ request for a declaratory judgment presents a federal question or that resolution of the claim will require interpretation of federal law.

Section 1331 allows federal courts to hear claims based on federal law; a claim with no federal-law basis falls outside federal-question jurisdiction.

Stickney v. Hyatte · filed 2022-08-08

This claim does not fall under federal question jurisdiction, which allows federal court to hear claims based on a federal law.

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

Anderson v. Ishrak · filed 2022-08-12

A federal district court does not have federal question jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction for cases arising under federal law; a complaint alleging only state-law claims against a nongovernmental defendant does not qualify.

Robinson v. O'Connor · filed 2022-08-12

Similarly, federal question jurisdiction only applies to cases “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. As Judge Nelson correctly noted, the Complaint only alleges state law claims against a non-governmental defendant.

Section 1331 does not give a federal district court federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim.

Mbwelera v. Byerly · filed 2022-08-16

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

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

Resper v. Corizon Health, Inc. · filed 2022-08-16

Remand is warranted because actions brought under state law do not give rise to federal question subject matter jurisdiction, and defendants have not identified another basis for this court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 allows federal jurisdiction over state-law claims when federal law completely preempts them or their resolution requires deciding a substantial federal issue.

City of Hoboken v. Chevron Corp · filed 2022-08-17

So the companies must show either that these state claims are completely preempted by federal law or that some substantial federal issue must be resolved.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; a complaint alleging only state tort claims does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Hunt v. Century Import Automotive, Inc. · filed 2022-08-23

Here, Howard-Hunt’s complaint fails to establish either a federal claim or federal question jurisdiction, since it contains no reference to federal law whatsoever, and the claims of “Personal Injury” and “Misrepresentation” sound, if anywhere, in state tort law.

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

McPeck v. Rodriguez · filed 2022-08-24

Defamation is a matter of state law, not federal. Plaintiff's Complaint does not raise a federal question; there is no indication that the parties are diverse; nor is there an allegation that jurisdiction exists under a specific statute.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction over claims that are not brought under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.

Cofield v. Worktime, Inc. · filed 2022-08-29

First, there is clearly no ... federal question jurisdiction over those claims because none of them is brought under the “Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims that are not brought under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.

Cofield v. The Progressive Corporation · filed 2022-08-29

First, there is clearly no ... federal question jurisdiction over those claims because none of them is brought under the “Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the operative complaint asserts only state law causes of action.

Red Rock Healthcare v. Rowland · filed 2022-08-30

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint asserts only state law causes of action against Defendants.4 Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is lacking, and complete diversity among the parties is lacking for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

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

Paramount Investments LLC v. Faison · filed 2022-08-30

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

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a claim alleges only state-law and community-covenant violations, with no federal constitutional or statutory violation.

Sims v. Krammer · filed 2022-08-31

First, the complaint alleges the Court has subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff's claims raise a federal question. However, the basis of Plaintiff's claim is that the Defendants violated state law and covenants governing the Daisy Landing Community in Sultan, Washington. Neither suggest a federal constitutional or statutory violation.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that alleges claims arising under federal law.

Maiani v. Citizens Financial Group Inc. · filed 2022-09-01

Because Maiani presented claims “arising under” federal law, Wells Fargo has properly removed the Complaint- under this court’s federal-question jurisdiction.

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

SOLAR BAT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. RIDGE ROAD OUTDOOR MARKETPLACE · filed 2022-09-02

In this case, Plaintiff has not stated any claims that arise under federal law. (See Am. Compl., ECF No. 8.) As a result, the Court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction over the action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law tort claim merely because the federal government was involved.

Jackson v. Nelson · filed 2022-09-07

But fundamentally state-law claims like Plaintiff’s tort claims are not covered by federal question jurisdiction simply because the federal government is somehow involved (and again, Plaintiff is not bringing a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over purely state-law contract or tort claims.

RIDRIGUEZ v. ATTAS · filed 2022-09-08

These state-law claims do not create federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under federal law through a federal cause of action or a substantial federal question.

Eiland v. United States Postal Service · filed 2022-09-09

As to HPH Milano — a private company — there is no federal question jurisdiction, as plaintiff's claim does not arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” and because he has not shown “either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts a cause of action under federal law, including Title VII.

Johnson v. Federal Information Systems, Inc. · filed 2022-09-16

Given that the only cause of action in the petition arises under Title VII, a federal law, Defendant has met its burden of establishing that this case was properly removed to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer original jurisdiction over claims based purely on state law.

HOLCOMB v. CARE ONE, LLC · filed 2022-09-19

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. ... Here, because Plaintiffs’ NJLAD, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and tortious interference claims are based purely on state law, they are not claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over fraudulent misrepresentation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims arising under D.C. law.

Odutola v. Floyd · filed 2022-09-23

The claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and intentional infliction of emotional distress are State law claims and do not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that neither implicate significant federal issues nor are completely preempted by federal law.

Whittum v. University Medical Center of Southern Nevada · filed 2022-09-23

The Court finds there is no federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiffs’ state-law claims do not implicate significant federal issues and are not completely preempted by federal law.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law; the remaining state-law claims did not support federal-question jurisdiction.

Speckman v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage NA · filed 2022-09-26

At that time, therefore, the Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Now, however, because all claims against Wells Fargo were dismissed, see Docket Nos. 39, 40, only plaintiffs’ claims against Minuteman remain. ... None of these claims arise under federal law. Thus, in order for the Court to proceed, the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction must be based on the diversity of the parties.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when even a liberal reading of the allegations produces no claim arising under federal law.

Muhtaseb v. Alzayat · filed 2022-09-29

Here, the parties appear to agree that no federal question jurisdiction exists here, and the Court concludes that even the most liberal reading of Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendants would not produce claims “arising under federal law.”

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a claim brought under the FDCPA.

Salas v. Statebridge Company, LLC · filed 2022-09-30

Since the FDCPA is a federal law, there is no question that the Court has jurisdiction over Salas’s Sixth Cause of Action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an allegation that private defendants installed a video camera in an apartment hallway.

Byvalets v. Cornerstone Group Management · filed 2022-09-30

Here, Plaintiff’s allegation that defendants unlawfully installed a video camera in the hallway of his apartment building does not provide a basis for this Court’s subject matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Youssef v. Youssef · filed 2022-10-06

Stalking is not a federal question, it is a state law claim that arises under California law.

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

Haapaniemi v. Anchorage Daily News · filed 2022-10-14

Plaintiff makes no allegations or claims under the United States Constitution or federal statutes. Accordingly, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint is fairly construed as asserting only state-law claims.

Hines v. Spirit Airlines Inc. · filed 2022-10-17

In sum, it is possible to construe all of plaintiff’s claims as state-law claims. ... Because federal question and diversity jurisdiction are lacking, remand is appropriate.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a private assault claim that does not arise under federal law.

Harris v. Lewis · filed 2022-10-17

Instead, Plaintiff is suing a private individual for assault, and he has not pleaded facts showing that his claim arises under federal law. There is, therefore, no basis for federal question jurisdiction.

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

Baker v. Netspend Corporation · filed 2022-10-24

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. ... There are no facts in the complaint suggesting that Plaintiff can state a claim under the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

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

Calderon v. Bircea · filed 2022-10-24

The Court construes Plaintiff’s complaint as asserting claims under state law under the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, not under the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no federal cause of action and alleges only state-law claims.

Johnson v. White · filed 2022-10-26

Johnson has not identified a cause of action under federal law and her claims of slander, defamation and harassment arise under state law.

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

Williams v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. · filed 2022-10-28

In this case, Plaintiff’s allegations of negligence, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and bad faith related to the motor vehicle accidents that caused his injuries pertain squarely to state law and do not arise under federal laws or the United States Constitution.

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

Feliciano v. Wayne Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation LLC · filed 2022-11-02

None of these claims “arise under” federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law water-rights claims that assert no claim arising under federal law.

Garner v. Sanders · filed 2022-11-04

The Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiffs seeks adjudication of water rights under Idaho state law and assert no claims arising under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on a California statute.

Aguilera v. Segovia · filed 2022-11-07

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

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the plaintiff identifies no federal statute under which the claims arise.

Gray v. Hickman · filed 2022-11-07

Gray does not identify any other federal statute that his claims arise under, and thus the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim arising under a state judicial review act.

Watson v. Kansas Employment Security Board of Review · filed 2022-11-07

Similarly, federal question jurisdiction cannot be invoked here because this case arises under the Kansas Judicial Review Act and involves a state government defendant but not a federal government defendant.1 (Doc. 1 at 6.)

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint’s sole claim arises under state law.

118 Ava LLC v. Hunter · filed 2022-11-08

Because the sole claim in the Complaint arises under state law, there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction.

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

Moore v. Brooklyn Hospital Center · filed 2022-11-08

Plaintiffs’ claims for negligence and medical malpractice arise under state law, not federal law.

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

Williams v. Williams · filed 2022-11-10

In this case, Plaintiffs allegations of negligence related to the motor vehicle accident that caused his injuries pertain squarely to state law and do not arise under federal laws or the United States Constitution.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the allegations suggest only state-law tort claims and no plausible federal-law claim.

Marte v. Boyd · filed 2022-11-14

Here, Plaintiff does not invoke the court’s federal question jurisdiction and her allegations, construed liberally, do not suggest a plausible claim under federal law. Plaintiff’s allegations instead suggest that she is asserting tort claims, which arise under state law. The Court therefore does not have federal question jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal claims have been dismissed.

Robinson v. Prince William-Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center · filed 2022-11-18

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s two federal claims under Title VII, the Court finds there is no subject matter jurisdiction for the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Jennings v. Stokes · filed 2022-11-21

Even liberally construing the Complaint as a challenge to the foreclosure of his property more generally and his subsequent eviction, foreclosure and eviction actions brought under state law do not raise a federal cause of action. As such, the Complaint does not establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides original jurisdiction only over civil actions arising under federal law.

Lock Logistics, LLC v. Harun Transportation, Inc. · filed 2022-11-23

Further, 28 U.S.C. § 1337(a) pertains only to “proceeding[s] arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce or protecting trade and commerce against restraints and monopolies” and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 pertains to “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Because none of the remaining claims in this case arise under any Acts of Congress or federal laws, this Court does not have original subject matter jurisdiction over them under either statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a medical malpractice claim that alleges no violation of federal law.

Brock v. Vassar Brothers Medical Center · filed 2022-11-28

Plaintiff’s allegations do not suggest a violation of any federal law. Rather, he asserts that the defendant hospital committed malpractice by providing inadequate medical care for his fractured ribs, which is a claim that arises under state law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a state civil rights claim is based on alleged federal constitutional violations.

MAHONEY v. MORRIS COUNTY · filed 2022-11-29

Thus, even though federal constitutional violations provide the basis for Plaintiffs’ NJCRA claims, that alone does not confer jurisdiction on this Court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s claims arise only under state law.

Belfor U.S.A. Group, Inc. v. Salem Consumer Square OH LLC · filed 2022-12-02

Although Salem also asserted removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Doc. #1, PagelD#3, removal jurisdiction under this section does not exist since BELFOR’s state law claims do not arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based solely on a California statute.

Uddin v. Lowe · filed 2022-12-08

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

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

HB in c/o Henry Banahene v. Brookdale Hospital · filed 2022-12-08

Here, there is no “federal question” jurisdiction because “[c]laims for negligence and medical malpractice arise under state law,” not federal law, “and a federal court generally will not have original jurisdiction over the claims unless complete diversity exists.”

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

Bruce v. Port Charlotte HMA, LLC · filed 2022-12-14

Since Plaintiffs two claims are brought only under state law, there is no federal question.

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

(PS) Sn v. Girish · filed 2022-12-15

Setting aside plaintiff’s claim under Title 18, there are no other claims arising under the court’s federal court jurisdiction, as plaintiff’s remaining claims arise under California law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

SMITH v. LEVINE · filed 2022-12-15

Plaintiff appears to be asserting common law tort claims against Defendant. These are not federal claims. Therefore, federal question jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under federal law; citing an Oklahoma statute does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Family Protection Irrevocable Trust v. Bales · filed 2022-12-16

The complaint fails to allege a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States. Instead, the complaint cites and quotes from an Oklahoma statute, 24 O.S. § 12, as the basis for § 1331 jurisdiction. See, doc. no. 1, ECF p. 3. This is not sufficient to establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

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

Blyden v. Government of the Virgin Islands · filed 2022-12-19

In implementing the provisions of Article III, section 2, of the Constitution, Congress has articulated several bases for jurisdiction in the federal courts, including, as potentially relevant here, the existence of a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331; ... None of those statutes provide a basis for jurisdiction. First, the complaint only states two causes of action – wrongful death and infliction of emotional distress – both of which are state tort claims.

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

Ball v. Baker · filed 2022-12-19

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... Through the preceding “selective process,” id. at 117, the Court determines that all four Grable-Gunn elements are met and accordingly denies Plaintiff’s motion to remand.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under federal law; the landlord-tenant and personal-injury claims described here do not satisfy that requirement.

Drummond v. Arnice · filed 2022-12-27

However, Plaintiff’s claims do not arise under the United States Constitution or the laws of the United States. Rather, Plaintiff seeks this Court’s intervention for claims related to property damage, constructive eviction, personal injury, payment errors, and the alleged resulting emotional distress.

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

Majette v. Wells Fargo · filed 2022-12-28

Unfortunately, based on the information set forth in the Complaint, it appears that Plaintiff asserts only state-law claims of fraud, harassment and slander. Therefore, no alternative basis for federal question jurisdiction presents itself, and the Court is unable to exercise subject matter jurisdiction in this matter.

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

Thomas v. Family Security Insurance Co · filed 2022-12-28

The claims brought by plaintiff arise under state law and so 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable.

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

Wineke v. lawrence · filed 2023-01-04

Nor would the court have jurisdiction over a purely state law claim seeking $20,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a guardianship dispute that does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Hampel v. State of Maryland · filed 2023-01-05

The other option is federal question jurisdiction. However, Plaintiff’s claims pertain to the validity of her guardianship and are not brought under the “Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when resolving the claim does not require applying federal law.

Port of Corpus v. Port of Corpus · filed 2023-01-06

To resolve the claims here, the Texas law of trespass needs to be applied to these facts because the relevant duties and standards are not created by federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the record presents no issue arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Huddleston v. American Modern Property and Casualty Insurance Company (CONSENT) · filed 2023-01-06

Nor has the court’s independent review of the record uncovered any issue that reasonably could be construed as “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over medical malpractice or negligence claims arising only under state law.

Green v. Cascella · filed 2023-01-09

At best the Complaint as to the named Defendants asserts claims of medical malpractice or negligence. Such claims arise under Maryland law and may not be brought in this court, based on federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under the Constitution or a federal statute.

Short v. City of Grand Junction, TN · filed 2023-01-09

Federal question jurisdiction is present when a party asserts a cause of action arising under the United States Constitution or a federal statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... This suit is within the Court’s federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiff asserts federal causes of action under the United States Constitution and federal statute. Therefore, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law unlawful detainer claim when no other claim arises under federal law.

Pazmino v. Calderon · filed 2023-01-10

Yet, Plaintiff brings a single cause of action for unlawful detainer, which is a state law claim. ... Defendant has identified no other claim that raises a question “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 USC § 1331.

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

Tsukerman v. Law Firm of Becker, Hoerner & Ysursa · filed 2023-01-10

The remaining claims asserted in the Complaint are state law claims; this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Gross v. Intratek Computer Inc. · filed 2023-01-10

However, Plaintiff raises exclusively state law claims for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and for violation of N.Y. Labor Labor Law § 190. In the absence of a claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”, subject matter jurisdiction does not lie in this Court.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Bunch v. Fuentes · filed 2023-01-10

Additionally, the proposed amended complaint does not allege any claim arising under federal law so as to confer federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges a state-law quiet-title claim and no cause of action arising under federal law.

Bozorgi v. Sanavi · filed 2023-01-11

Nothing in Plaintiffs’ Complaint indicates that any cause of action arises under federal law; their action appears to be a relatively straightforward state law claim for quiet title. Thus, the Court finds federal question jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a foreclosure dispute governed by state law when no federal claim is shown.

HSBC Bank USA National Association v. Gutierrez · filed 2023-01-12

From its review, the Court cannot find any claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. While the Court is forced to guess at the underlying nature of the dispute because of the procedural defects in the Notice of Removal referenced above, the Court infers that it concerns a foreclosure on Defendant’s property, a subject matter arising under and governed by the laws of the State of California, not federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law medical malpractice, negligence, and related damages claims.

Johnson v. Ochsner Medical Center · filed 2023-01-19

In his Complaint, Plaintiff brings claims for “medical malpractice, medical negligence, loss of wages, loss of residence, pain and suffering, [and] mental anguish,”4 which, as state law claims, are unable to confer federal question jurisdiction on this Court.

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

Mason v. Bayer AG - USA · filed 2023-01-20

Plaintiff does not allege federal question jurisdiction either because his only claim appears to be a state law claim of negligence.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim for unemployment benefits allegedly due solely under state law.

Jones v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2023-01-20

A claim for unemployment benefits allegedly due under Nebraska law does not involve the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, as required to invoke federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Green v. Zuckerberg · filed 2023-01-27

At best, the complaint asserts claims sounding in tort or contract which arise under state law and may not be brought in this court based on federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over negligence and recklessness claims that do not implicate federal law.

Fernandez v. Groundworks Operations, LLC · filed 2023-01-30

No statute is identified in the complaint, though the cause of action alleges negligence and recklessness—state law torts—which do not implicate federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal issue is only a defense and is not substantial to the federal system as a whole.

James v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation · filed 2023-01-31

The federal immigration issue Defendants raise is part of their defense, rather than an issue in James’s claims. Defendants also fail to show that this case raises substantial questions important to “the federal system as a whole.” It is clear that it does not. The Court finds that Defendants have not established that James’s state law claims arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not support removal when the complaint’s causes of action arise exclusively under state law.

Magana v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company · filed 2023-01-31

To begin, it is important to note that removal in this case cannot be based on general federal-question jurisdiction. The causes of action alleged in the Plaintiffs’ Complaint are all grounded exclusively in New Mexico law.

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

Adams v. Cleveland Clinic Hospital · filed 2023-02-08

Plaintiff alleges no claim arising under federal law that establishes federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction for a conversion claim arising under state tort law.

Stearns v. Stearns · filed 2023-01-23

However, his conversion claim sounds in state tort law and does not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over the remaining claims in a complaint when they arise solely under state law.

Tsukerman v. Law Firm of Becker, Hoerner & Ysursa · filed 2023-02-21

This Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over state law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law libel and slander claims.

Villarreal v. CPS · filed 2023-02-24

Libel and slander are state law tort claims that cannot serve as the basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges only state-law claims and no violation of federal law or constitutional rights.

De La Cruz v. De La Cruz · filed 2023-02-27

The facts alleged in the complaint do not suggest that Defendant violated any federal law or any of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Plaintiff’s claims arise under state law. For example, her claim that her ex-husband did not pay her support is a matrimonial matter that ordinarily is raised in a New York State Family Court. The Court therefore lacks federal question jurisdiction of the claims asserted in the complaint.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a case arises under federal law; an application to confirm an arbitration award must show an independent federal-law basis for jurisdiction.

COLLINS v. TEXAS CHICKEN INC · filed 2023-03-02

Second, district courts “have power to decide federal-question cases—suits ‘arising under’ federal law.” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1331). ... Nothing in the Amended Complaint or referenced Report and Award of Arbitrators suggests that the arbitration involved an issue arising under federal law.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, including federal employment discrimination claims.

Ellis v. Goodheart Specialty Meats · filed 2023-03-20

Of Plaintiff’s five claims, her racial discrimination, retaliation, and disability discrimination claims arise under federal law and thereby qualify for federal question jurisdiction.

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

Sall v. George · filed 2023-03-20

Plaintiff's remaining claim of defamation is a state-law claim that does not raise a federal question. ... Thus, § 1331 does not provide a basis for the court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction.

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

MOSLEY v. JENSEN BAGNATO, P.C. · filed 2023-03-27

He is incorrect; these are state law tort claims which do not “arise under” federal law and therefore do not provide a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a properly pleaded complaint asserts a claim arising under federal law.

Lightner v. Lincoln Life Assurance Company of Boston · filed 2023-03-28

Although it certainly could be more straightforwardly articulated, Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges Thrash’s Benefits qualify as an ERISA-governed plan, thereby subjecting it to ERISA’s provisions, including the civil enforcement remedies provided under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). ... Here, Plaintiffs have asserted a claim arising under federal law, hence giving this Court subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted claims allege only violations of state law.

Halloum v. Caliber Home Loans · filed 2023-03-30

Accepting the Complaint’s allegations, the claims asserted do not arise under the laws of the United States to raise federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the plaintiffs raise no claim under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Bamonte v. Charatan · filed 2023-03-31

Here, where Plaintiffs raise no claims under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, “it is unquestioned that the only source of federal subject matter jurisdiction [in this Action] is diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over legal-malpractice and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims that do not involve a federal question.

WHETSTONE v. DEBLASIO · filed 2023-03-31

However, the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint against his former lawyer, Richard Deblasio, make clear that he is pursuing state law claims for legal malpractice and/or breach of fiduciary duty which simply do not involve a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law insurance claims that present no federal cause of action or substantial question of federal law.

Hulon, Patrice v. American Family Insurance Company · filed 2023-04-06

The court plainly lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the case because the only viable claims in Hulon’s complaint are Wisconsin-law claims, not federal ones.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over colorable claims arising under the Constitution or federal law.

WILLSEY v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA · filed 2023-04-10

Construed liberally, Mr. Willsey's complaint makes out a few claims that invoke the Court's jurisdiction. First, he brings two claims under the Court's federal-question jurisdiction: (1) he seeks money damages from the United States and a host of federal agencies1 for violating the First Amendment; (2) he ... brings a negligence claim for money damages against the United States, several federal agencies,2 and multiple federal officials3; and (3) he claims that IU Health, Indiana, and Indiana University "conspired to present false designations of origins" in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125. Dkt. 1 at 1, 10–11.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only civil fraud, without a federal question.

Braidwood v. Coryer · filed 2023-04-14

Civil fraud claims do not arise under federal law and, without more, the Court lacks federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting only a state law wrongful death claim.

Gonzalez v. Okeechobee Correctional Institution · filed 2023-04-18

Additionally, Plaintiff does not allege facts showing federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 because she asserts only a wrongful death claim under Florida state law.

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

Payne v. Duggal · filed 2023-04-20

To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s claims must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Plaintiff does not reference any federal law creating a cause of action against Defendant, and the Court is unaware of any federal cause of action that might be liberally construed from Plaintiff’s complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint pleads only a state-law breach-of-contract claim.

Rajveer, LLC v. Inn on Carmichael, LLC · filed 2023-04-21

The complaint pleads only a cause of action for breach of contract, which is a matter of state, not federal, law. Accordingly, § 1331 does not provide a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction here.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a standalone negligence claim.

(PS) Van den Heuvel v. Costello · filed 2023-04-21

Further, regarding federal question jurisdiction, plaintiff’s 1AC alleges negligence, but negligence alone would not give rise to federal question jurisdiction.

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

Hutson v. Harper · filed 2023-04-21

First, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers what is known as federal question jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under” federal law. ... Without a viable Seventh Amendment claim, Hutson has only alleged state law claims, and federal question jurisdiction is lacking.

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

Conger v. Van Schoten · filed 2023-04-25

The Court understands Plaintiff’s allegations, but finds that Plaintiff’s claims are state law claims, not federal claims, meaning federal question jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; an allegation of injury that states no federal-law claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Youngs v. Orange County Sherrifs Organization · filed 2023-04-26

Plaintiff’s allegation that he suffered an injury, arising from his daughter’s alleged detention, does not state a claim under federal law. The Court therefore cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction over this claim.

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

T&O Investments, LLC v. Rodriguez-Padron Engineering & Consulting, Inc. · filed 2023-05-01

Plaintiff pleads Federal Question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but asserts only state law claims, including negligence and breach of contract, among others.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when the plaintiff alleges no facts suggesting that the claims arise under federal law.

Askins v. Santos · filed 2023-05-02

In Plaintiff’s declaration, he does not allege that he and his sister are of diverse citizenship, nor does he add any details suggesting that his claims arise under federal law. The Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s claims and dismisses the claims without prejudice to any state law action he seeks to pursue in the state courts.

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

Greenwood v. Parrish · filed 2023-05-04

Thus, Greenwood has no relief available against him under § 1983; any claims she may have against Parrish are state law claims and do not trigger federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the complaint references federal law and regulations.

France v. Bradford · filed 2023-05-04

Plaintiff brings three causes of action, all under Nevada state law. Thus, the question is whether Plaintiff’s Complaint, specifically his references to federal law and regulations in pleading Defendants’ alleged conduct, nevertheless confers this Court with federal jurisdiction under the Grable doctrine.3 For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that it does not.

Section 1331 does not give a federal court jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because a related settlement agreement arose partly from a federal bankruptcy proceeding.

Breit MF Vera, LLC v. Keefer · filed 2023-05-08

Just because the settlement agreement was entered into, in part, as a result of a federal bankruptcy proceeding does not make the case a federal case.

State-law nursing home claims arising from COVID-19 health and safety policies do not arise under federal law for purposes of § 1331.

Lewis-Briggs v. Concord Nursing Home, Inc. · filed 2023-05-08

As argued in similar cases both in this district and across the country, Defendant Concord Nursing Home, Inc. here premised removal on three grounds: ... (3) that Plaintiff’s claims “arise under” federal law, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the Grable doctrine. ... For the foregoing reasons, this case is remanded sua sponte to state court because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over wrongful-death, negligence, or medical-malpractice claims arising under state law.

Gardner v. New York Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital · filed 2023-05-08

Plaintiff’s claims do not arise under the Constitution or any federal laws. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff’s claims for wrongful death, negligence, and medical malpractice arise under state law, not federal law.

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

EATON v. PLASSE · filed 2023-05-15

To the extent that Mr. Eaton attempts to raise state law claims, such claims do not give the Court federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

GRIFFITH v. MILLS · filed 2023-05-18

The Court notes that, as currently alleged, the Property Loss Claims do not fall within this Court's subject-matter jurisdiction because they are state-law claims, and there is no diversity of citizenship.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction when a complaint states a cause of action arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.

Weng v. National Science Foundation · filed 2023-05-22

Last, in their objections, Plaintiffs appear to argue that federal question jurisdiction exists; however, Plaintiffs do not state any claims sufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction and their argument fails to establish that their claims present a federal question. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction where a complaint states a cause of action “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

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

Bristow v. Sanchez · filed 2023-05-23

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, I have jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” The complaint asserts only state law claims, so I also lack federal question jurisdiction.

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

Royal v. Jones · filed 2023-05-24

Plaintiff has not alleged a state actor and his claims do not arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” thus, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a legal malpractice claim that does not arise under federal law.

Jones v. Fischer · filed 2023-05-25

To the extent Jones endeavors to state a legal malpractice action, this claim, too, fails for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ... To provide a federal forum for plaintiffs who seek to vindicate federal rights, Congress has conferred on the district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions that arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Exxon Mobil Corp., 545 U.S. at 552; 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... These grounds do not apply here.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the claims reference applicable federal regulations.

Graham v. ELN Enterprises, LLC · filed 2023-05-25

Defendants have not explained how Plaintiff’s claims raise a disputed and substantial federal issue. Though Defendants reference many federal regulations that apply to the CE process, this alone does not confer federal jurisdiction.

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

Carroll v. CarMax Business Service, LLC · filed 2023-05-31

Plaintiff errantly claims that this Court has jurisdiction under the REDA and “North Carolina defamation law.” These claims are matters of state, not federal, law. The Court, therefore, lacks federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on a California statute alone.

SBE, LP v. Lanthier · filed 2023-06-02

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

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising under federal statutes, including ERISA and the LMRA.

Eighth District Electrical Pension Fund v. Teter Industries, Inc. · filed 2023-06-05

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of a federal cause of action and, thus, subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(1) and 29 U.S.C. § 185(a).