28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction merely because a court may need to decide whether a federal navigational servitude exists.

Thibodeaux v. Bernhard · filed 2023-06-08

Though the Court may later find it necessary to decide whether a federal navigational servitude exists over Lost Lake, this fact alone does not provide the Court with sufficient basis to find § 1331 federal question jurisdiction over this dispute.

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

Wright v. Shell Gas Station · filed 2023-06-11

Here, the court does not have federal-question jurisdiction because the claims are state-law claims.

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

Auerbach v. Cincinnati Financial Group · filed 2023-06-12

The Complaint does not allege that Plaintiff’s claims arise under federal law or the United States Constitution; to the extent that her allegations may be construed as claims for invasion of privacy, trespass, or conversion, those causes of action arise under state law. Thus, there is no basis for the Court to exercise federal question jurisdiction here.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that can succeed without deciding an issue of federal law.

Carson Hybrid Energy Storage, LLC v. Turlock Irrigation District · filed 2023-06-21

Under these circumstances, Carson could prevail in its one breach of contract count without need for the Court to decide any issues of federal law. In other words, construction of federal law is not “necessary” to Carson’s case.

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

Neill v. Neill · filed 2023-06-21

Federal district courts have “federal question jurisdiction” over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Plaintiff only asserts state law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts state-law claims concerning intellectual property but no claim under federal copyright law.

Lazar v. Gobron · filed 2023-06-26

The court concurs with Gobron and SafeDose’s initial reaction, as the Complaint does not assert claims based on the Copyright Act, but instead based on various state law causes of action such as breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the only plausible claims are state-law tort claims.

MASSIE v. MASSIE · filed 2023-06-27

Even liberally construing the allegations of the Complaint, the Court can discern no plausible basis for a claim based on federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The only plausible claims that this Court can discern are tort claims under state law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim based solely on the filing of a false police report.

Stephen v. Thrifty · filed 2023-06-29

Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants filed a false police report does not provide a basis for this Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when none of the plaintiff’s claims arise under federal law.

Cranford v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2023-07-05

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 when the plaintiff raises only state-law claims.

Boone v. Progressive Home Insurance Co · filed 2023-07-06

There is no basis for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 here, as plaintiff raises only state law claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because federal funding is connected to the dispute.

Beaman v. Valentino · filed 2023-07-10

Here, Plaintiff invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, but he relies on state real property law for relief, not federal law. Although it appears that Plaintiff may have received some federal funding, through a nonprofit agency, for his apartment rental due to his service as a veteran, this is insufficient to show that his right to relief turns on a substantial question of federal law, or that federal law creates his cause of action against the owners of the property.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; allegations about a lease agreement and execution of a judgment do not, by themselves, establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Shi v. Delta Realty Group, LLC · filed 2023-07-10

To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s claims must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Plaintiff does not invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, and his allegations regarding the lease agreement and execution of judgment do not suggest any basis for the exercise of federal question jurisdiction.

State law tort claims do not, on their own, satisfy Section 1331’s federal question jurisdiction requirement.

Cruz v. La Clinica Del Pueblo De Rio Arriba · filed 2023-07-11

(C) Plaintiff's state law tort claims against Defendant Brace do not satisfy the requirements for supplemental jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367), federal question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331), or diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332).

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

Goode v. University City Courts · filed 2023-07-13

The instant action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, so federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of the FTC Act because they present a federal question.

FTC v. Ross · filed 2023-07-19

It seems to us beyond reasonable dispute that the district court possessed subject matter jurisdiction given the FTC’s allegations under 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)—i.e., a federal question. 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 provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff raises only state law claims.

VanHuss v. United Services Automobile Association · filed 2023-07-20

There is no basis for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 here, as plaintiff raises only state law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim that implicates no federal law or right.

McKenzie v. Brown · filed 2023-07-20

In this case, Plaintiff’s complaint does not assert any valid legal basis for this Court to exercise jurisdiction over her claims, as she has neither presented a federal question nor asserted a basis for diversity jurisdiction. ... Although intentional infliction of emotional distress may form the basis for a cause of action under New York State law, it does not implicate any federal law or right.

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

Thompson v. Reed · filed 2023-07-21

The claim does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but instead arises under the laws of Oregon.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff alleges only a state-law personal injury claim.

Timmons v. Ryles · filed 2023-07-21

However, Plaintiffs objections did not address the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff has not shown that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over his claims or the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that his claims do not arise under the Constitution or federal statutes. ... Nevertheless, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the R & R and agrees with the Magistrate Judge's findings.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law wage claims merely because a federal wage definition may arise as a defense.

WOLFE v. STAKE CENTER LOCATING, LLC · filed 2023-07-31

The “regular rate” definition included in § 207(e) is at most a defense or anticipated defense to the state claims asserted. ... It does not create a federal question under § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over a claim adequately alleging that Medicaid fair hearing rights were violated.

Forloine v. Persily · filed 2023-08-01

The Court disagrees. Ms. Forloine has adequately alleged a controversy arising under federal law, namely, her right to a fair hearing under the Medicaid Act. ... The Court finds that this is sufficient to invoke its subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Sam v. BancFirst · filed 2023-08-01

Because the Complaint does not assert any claim arising under federal law, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

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

Bigelow Corporation v. Hounds Town USA, LLC · filed 2023-08-02

Here, the claims in the Amended Complaint are matters of state—not federal—law, and as such, this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims against Elevate.

Federal-question jurisdiction does not arise merely because a state-law complaint cites federal statutes or cases without presenting a substantial federal claim.

Sotelo v. Sombra Cosmetics, Inc. · filed 2023-08-02

That is, a citation to a federal statute and federal case law is also relevant to state law claims and does not necessarily implicate the presence of a substantial federal claim.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over claims arising under the MMWA.

Saget v. Kia America, Inc. · filed 2023-08-03

In its opposition, defendant Kia emphasizes that because “plaintiffs’ complaint includes two causes of action under a federal statute, the MMWA, which undoubtedly arise under federal law, the court has original jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ MMWA claims.” (Doc. No. 12 at 4.) The court agrees.

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

(PC) Haapaniemi v. Department of Motor Vehicles · filed 2023-08-04

Here, as is readily apparent, the Complaint does not allege that Plaintiff’s claims arise under the Constitution or a federal law, statute, or treaty; moreover, the Court is unaware of any such authority applicable to the circumstances alleged. Thus, this Court’s federal question subject matter jurisdiction does not lie.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts only state-law causes of action and none arising under federal law.

Recinos v. Health Insurance Commissioner of Washington State · filed 2023-08-07

Second, there is no federal question jurisdiction. The complaint asserts causes of action based on only Washington state law. See generally Dkt. # 8. The complaint does not assert any causes of action arising out of federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim that does not arise under federal law.

McKenzie v. Downer · filed 2023-08-08

Here, although Plaintiff invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress does not arise under federal law. Plaintiff thus does not demonstrate that the Court can exercise federal question jurisdiction of this action.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to plausibly allege that the action arises under federal law.

WILLIAMS v. PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT · filed 2023-08-08

Because Ms. Williams fails to plausibly plead that the City’s alleged illegal conduct violates a federal law, or that this action otherwise “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, she has failed to satisfy her burden of alleging sufficient grounds for the exercise of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over claims expressly grounded in the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes.

Harrell v. California State University · filed 2023-08-09

A number of these claims are expressly grounded in the United States Constitution and federal statute, including Claim 2 for deprivation of property without due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, see Compl. ¶ 384; Claim 3 for disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, see id. ¶ 403; Claim 4 for retaliation against activity protected by the First Amendment, see id. ¶¶ 408-09; Claim 5 for retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a); and Claim 7 for unlawful arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment, see id. ¶ 429. The Court clearly has federal question jurisdiction over these claims.

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

(PC) Cast v. D'Agostini · filed 2023-08-10

This court lacks jurisdiction over such state law claim. ... Federal courts have jurisdiction only if the claim arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, over where there is diversity of citizenship.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a state-law claim unless complete preemption applies or the claim requires resolution of a substantial federal question.

Kansas Turnpike Authority v. Porter · filed 2023-08-10

Because Defendant has not shown that the Petition involves complete preemption or requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law, she cannot meet her burden to show that jurisdiction is proper in federal court.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims brought under § 1983 or another federal statute.

Gordon 202825 v. Smitter · filed 2023-08-10

To the extent Plaintiff intended to raise a claim against Defendant Smitter under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or another federal statute, the Court has jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim arising under Ohio public records law.

Gibson v. Warden, London Correctional Institution · filed 2023-08-10

Any claim Petitioner has against Mr. Heck for these records under Ohio Revised Code § 149.43 arises under Ohio and not federal law, precluding jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Carranza v. Field Asset Services, Inc. · filed 2023-08-11

His complaint asserts only state law causes of action, so I do not have federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Recinos v. Health Insurance Commissioner of Washington State · filed 2023-08-14

Second, there is no federal question jurisdiction. The Second Amended Complaint asserts causes of action based on only Washington state law.

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

Crawford v. Chevron Corporation · filed 2023-08-14

But Plaintiffs claim no violation of federal law; they claim a violation of Washington law. ... There is thus no federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims alleging only violations of state law or state regulations.

Conaway v. Limbo · filed 2023-08-15

Conaway’s assertion that Officer Limbo’s actions violated Maryland State law and COMAR do not present a federal question for this Court to address.

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

Wallace v. White · filed 2023-08-15

The Complaint asserts state law claims for which the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under the Constitution or federal law; a breach-of-contract claim without a federal basis does not qualify.

Holloway v. Penn Federal Credit Union · filed 2023-08-17

Plaintiff’s claim, which can broadly be construed as a breach of contract claim, does not arise under the Constitution or any federal laws. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the plaintiff can obtain the requested relief without proving a federal-law violation.

Kokhanovski v. TD Bank USA, N.A. · filed 2023-08-21

Thus, because Plaintiff need not prove Defendants violated the FCRA to obtain the relief requested, the complaint does not turn on the construction of a substantial, disputed federal question, and does not confer federal jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a private rent and property conversion claim when no federal law supports the claim and it raises no substantial federal question.

Davis v. Wilson · filed 2023-08-22

Davis has not cited, and the Court cannot provide, a federal law that would support Davis’s conversion claim. ... The Court can conceive of no manner in which a conversion claim related to a rent and property dispute between two private parties could pose such a federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim when the pleadings do not affirmatively show a basis for federal-question jurisdiction.

Holmstrom v. University of Tulsa · filed 2023-08-22

Therefore, based on the current pleadings, this Court has no jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law breach of contract claim, and it must be remanded to the Tulsa County District Court.

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

Williams v. Progressive Insurance Co · filed 2023-08-23

There is no basis for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as plaintiff raises only state law claims.

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

Guidry v. United Services Automobile Association · filed 2023-08-23

There is no basis for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as plaintiff raises only state law claims.

Section 1331 requires a claim against a defendant to arise under federal law, either because federal law creates the cause of action or because relief depends on a substantial federal question.

Harry v. FBI · filed 2023-08-24

There is absolutely no indication that federal law creates a cause of action against Billy G’s, or that his right to relief against Billy G’s depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for a state-law breach of contract claim that establishes no federal statutory or constitutional basis.

Hurt v. GMC Auto Sales · filed 2023-08-28

As currently pled, plaintiff is suing under a state law breach of contract claim which does not establish this Court’s federal question or diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires allegations showing that a claim arises under federal law; invoking federal question jurisdiction alone is insufficient.

Washington v. Paris Production Berlin · filed 2023-08-28

Because the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint do not suggest a claim that arises under federal law, the Court therefore cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction of her claims.

Section 1331 requires facts showing that a claim arises under federal law; allegations showing only state law claims do not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Joseph v. Troutman Sanders LLP · filed 2023-08-30

The facts alleged that the Court is able to understand do not demonstrate that Plaintiff’s claims arise under federal law. Rather, the claims appear to stem from a business matter, and may arise under New York law. The Court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction of these state law claims.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state negligence claim when the federal issue it raises is neither necessary to the claim nor substantial.

Solomon v. Suncoast Credit Union · filed 2023-08-31

But the alleged violation of the FTC Act is neither “necessarily raised” nor “substantial.”

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

PUE v. NEW JERSEY DEPT. OF LABOR · filed 2023-09-01

Therefore, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction pursuant to § 1331.

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

More v. Mayo Hospital · filed 2023-09-01

A claim for medical negligence is an Arizona state-law claim, not a claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States Constitution.

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

Corlew v. United Services Automobile Association · filed 2023-09-05

There is no basis for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 here, as plaintiff raises only state law claims.

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

Beach v. United Services Automobile Association · filed 2023-09-05

There is no basis for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 here, as plaintiff raises only state law claims.

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

Hatten v. United Services Automobile Association · filed 2023-09-06

There is no basis for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as plaintiff raises only state law claims.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges a claim under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.

Boston v. Metabank · filed 2023-09-06

Second, the court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Boston has alleged a claim arising under the EFTA.

Section 1331 requires the claims in the underlying state court proceeding to arise under federal law; an allegation that the state court violated federal law does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Kalincheva v. Valentyna · filed 2023-09-08

As best as the Court can understand this, Kalincheva appears to assert that the Court has jurisdiction because the state court is engaged in racketeering under federal law. But that has no bearing on whether the claims in the underlying state court proceeding arise under federal law. See Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Having reviewed the records from the divorce proceeding, the Court is confident they do not.

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

Logan v. New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal · filed 2023-09-08

First, the Court does not possess subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint, because (1) the Complaint does not assert any claims arising under the “Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (depriving the Court of federal- question jurisdiction), and (2) there does not exist complete “diversity of citizenship” between Plaintiff and all Defendants (and a minimum of $75,000 in controversy) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (depriving the Court of diversity jurisdiction).

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction when the face of the complaint presents no claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Keys v. Farley · filed 2023-09-11

Based on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint, the instant action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, so federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 would not be applicable.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff’s claim arises under federal law, including a claim created by a federal statute.

Clayton v. Does · filed 2023-09-12

28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides that federal question jurisdiction exists when a plaintiff’s claim arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges only defamation by private actors and no federal claim.

Vance v. Sheqan · filed 2023-09-15

The Court merely concludes that Plaintiff does not have a claim providing this Court with federal question jurisdiction.

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

Munoz v. United Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2023-09-18

Plaintiff pleads Federal Question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but asserts only one state law claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law quiet title action that presents no claim arising under federal law or the Constitution.

Lang v. Schmitt · filed 2023-09-18

The quiet title action did not involve any claim arising under federal or the Constitution. ... Consequently, this court has neither federal question jurisdiction nor diversity jurisdiction over this matter.

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.

Hurt v. GMC Auto Sales · filed 2023-09-21

The instant action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, so federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable.

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

Virgo v. Irizarry · filed 2023-09-24

There are no facts in the complaint suggesting a claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no federal claim or substantial question of federal law.

Grajales v. Eli Lilly and Company · filed 2023-09-26

The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not set forth any federal claims or otherwise assert facts suggesting that federal law creates any cause of action he brings or that his right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law. As Plaintiff’s allegations do not suggest a violation of any federal law, he cannot invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff raises only state law claims.

Antoine v. United Services Automobile Association · filed 2023-09-28

There is no basis for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as plaintiff raises only state law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law violations that neither arise under federal law nor invoke the federal Constitution.

People of the State of Michigan v. Lokinski · filed 2023-09-29

Lokinski's state-law violations do not arise under federal law, nor do they invoke the federal constitution. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the same conduct could support a federal claim.

Tianjin River West Real Estate Development Co., LTD v. Harris · filed 2023-10-03

The mere fact that Plaintiff could have, but chose not to, pursue a federal claim based on the same underlying conduct does not create a federal question.

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

Tsukerman v. Law Firm of Becker, Hoerner & Ysursa · filed 2023-10-03

Tsukerman’s remaining claims are state law claims, and 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 a state-law unlawful detainer claim that raises no federal question.

RP Essex Skyline Holdings, LLC v. Gilmore · filed 2023-10-04

Albert does not assert that there is any federal-question basis for jurisdiction, and Plaintiff’s Complaint, which states a single claim for unlawful detainer under California law, does not raise a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a federal right to be an essential element of the claim; a complaint alleging no violation of federal law does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Forte v. AT&T Phones · filed 2023-10-05

Although Plaintiffs used a complaint form for federal civil-rights suits, Plaintiffs do not cite 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or otherwise accuse Defendant of any violation of federal law. Nor do Plaintiffs cite any other federal statutes or United States constitutional provisions in support of their claim, and the Court cannot discern any from the facts alleged. The Complaint, therefore, fails to carry the Plaintiffs’ burden of establishing federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction merely because the alleged misconduct violates federal law.

Ritrovato v. McArthur · filed 2023-10-05

A civil claim does not arise under federal law, for purposes of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, simply because the alleged misconduct is violative of federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that present no federal question.

Upper Echelon Entertainment LLC v. The State of New York · filed 2023-10-05

As set forth in the Court’s August 18, 2023 Text Order, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 28 U.S.C. § 1332 over the state-law claims in the second amended complaint, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a claim arising under federal law; alleging breach of contract and negligence without more does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Scales v. American Web Coders · filed 2023-10-10

To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s claims must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that this Court can consider his claims under its federal question jurisdiction. Rather, he asserts claims of breach of contract and negligence, which are usually brought under state law, not federal law.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a federal law claim; merely invoking federal question jurisdiction does not suffice.

Scales v. Web Design Gator · filed 2023-10-10

Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that this Court can consider his claims under its federal question jurisdiction. Rather, he asserts claims of breach of contract and negligence, which are usually brought under state law, not federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an alleged violation of a state statute.

Wojt v. Trump · filed 2023-10-11

First, Mich. Comp. Laws 705.410a is a Michigan statute and an alleged violation of that state statute cannot confer federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which grants federal courts “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 requires a claim arising from federal law; a manufactured federal issue concerning a nonexistent contract does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Rorrer [Whitfield] v. JW Revocable Living Trust, Attorney-In-Fact for John Joseph Whitfield · filed 2023-10-11

Original jurisdiction exists where a claim arises from federal law (federal question jurisdiction), see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00 and the claim is between citizens of different states, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ... Defendant skips over this fact to argue federal question jurisdiction exists due to manufactured issues concerning an alleged gold contract. Defendant’s argument fails, and therefore, his objection is overruled.

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

McCall v. Molfetta Law LLC · filed 2023-10-13

Instead, they merely allege state-law claims for breach of contract and emotional distress. Dkt. 1 at 4-5. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a conversion claim that does not implicate the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

TAYLOR v. SKEETE · filed 2023-10-16

WHEREAS Plaintiff’s quintessential conversion claim2 plainly does not implicate “the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Stephenson v. Children's Hospital of Wisconsin · filed 2023-10-16

Because the only possible claims the plaintiff can assert arise under state, not federal, law, the court does not have federal question subject- matter jurisdiction under §1331.

Section 1331 does not support federal-question jurisdiction when no claim arises under federal law.

U.S. Bank, National Association as legal title trustee for Truman 2016 SC6 Title Trust v. Taveras · filed 2023-10-17

Nor is there any claim arising under federal law to support jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, but the child-custody claims described here did not establish federal jurisdiction.

Robinson v. Wilson · filed 2023-10-19

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

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

Razzoli v. Richmond University Medical Center · filed 2023-10-25

The Court need not decide whether the plaintiff is bringing medical malpractice or negligence claims because the plaintiff does not establish a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction under either theory. Both claims “arise under state 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 over state-law claims when the federal statutes cited do not supply a federal claim or jurisdictional basis.

Barnes v. H.E. Butt Grocery Company · filed 2023-10-27

It is clear that Plaintiff's claims are not federal claims but exist pursuant to state law. Thus, there is no federal question. Neither statute Barnes cites serves to rectify this problem.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges only state-law claims and identifies no federal law at issue.

Sharif v. Henery · filed 2023-10-31

Because federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable, the Court must determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists.

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

Jackson v. Ford Motor Company · filed 2023-11-01

Therefore, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

FREEMAN v. TD BANK · filed 2023-11-01

Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants violated the United States Constitution or any federal statute or treaty, let alone provide a cause of action. ... Therefore, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state breach-of-contract claim merely because the plaintiff cites federal law in support of it.

Spann v. Bank of America · filed 2023-11-01

So I find that Spann’s contract-based claim does not invoke federal-question jurisdiction either.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a Title VII wrongful-termination claim because it arises under federal law.

Mendy v. Rasier LLC · filed 2023-11-03

In his complaint, Plaintiff sued for wrongful termination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Dkt. No. 1-2 at 5.) Because this is a claim arising under federal law, the Court has federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires at least one claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States for federal-question jurisdiction.

BORGHERO v. GAMBONE · filed 2023-11-03

First, there is nothing in this Complaint that implicates federal law. To establish federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff must assert at least one claim that arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Cassell v. Umoh Firm · filed 2023-11-06

Because Plaintiff does not allege any facts suggesting that he has a claim arising under federal law, the Court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction of this action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges state law claims without facts supporting a federal claim.

Scales v. Ace Hotel NY · filed 2023-11-06

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. ... Because Plaintiff characterizes his claims against Defendant as based on negligence and other state laws, he fails at this stage to show that the Court has federal question jurisdiction of this matter.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when plaintiffs raise only state law claims.

Brittain v. FedNat Insurance Co · filed 2023-11-07

There is no basis for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 here, as plaintiffs raise only state law claims.

Section 1331 requires a federal constitutional, statutory, or treaty issue; state law tort claims alone do not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Cooper v. Randale · filed 2023-11-08

As under 28 U.S.C. §1331, a “federal question” case involves the Constitution or a federal law or treaty. ... Here, plaintiff does not cite a federal constitutional, statutory, or treaty right at issue in this case. The claim of IIED and intrusion upon seclusion is a state law tort claim—not a federal claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because state courts rely on federal authority to interpret the state law.

Rayborn v. Jackson County School District · filed 2023-11-09

Again, the Court is not persuaded that Mississippi courts’ reliance on federal authority to interpret their own state’s statutory law equates to a claim that necessarily falls within the narrow category of cases envisioned by Grable.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a tenant’s allegations about a landlord closing and evicting his business do not arise under federal law.

Alshaary v. c/o Citadel Property Management · filed 2023-11-09

Because Plaintiff has not adequately pleaded federal question or diversity jurisdiction, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this action pursuant to either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and must dismiss the action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an eviction action arising under state law with no federal question.

Reaves v. Airnb-California · filed 2023-11-15

First, there is no federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiff’s action does not arise under a federal statute or constitutional provision.

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

Johnson v. U.S. Bank · filed 2023-11-16

The Complaint does not allege a claim arising under federal law or otherwise allege that the Court possesses federal question jurisdiction over this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

STEELE v. DAUGISTINO · filed 2023-11-17

WHEREAS a careful reading of the Complaint makes clear that Plaintiff is asserting a conversion claim3—a quintessential state-law claim that plainly does not “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over support-payment claims arising solely under state law when the complaint identifies no federal right.

Kelley v. Westchester County Family Court · filed 2023-11-20

Plaintiff invokes this Court’s federal question jurisdiction, but any claims regarding her support payments arise under state law. The complaint otherwise does not suggest that this action concerns Plaintiff’s constitutional rights or rights under any federal law. The Court therefore lacks federal question jurisdiction of her claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff asserts no federal law claims.

Hall-Landers v. New York University · filed 2023-11-22

Because Hall-Landers does not assert any federal law claims, federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not exist.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging a state-law motor vehicle accident claim without a federal constitutional or statutory violation.

Lottig v. Haley · filed 2023-12-01

Accordingly, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when a complaint invokes federal jurisdiction but alleges only state law claims.

Roberts v. St. Josephs Medical Center · filed 2023-12-01

Here, Plaintiff invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction but does not allege facts suggesting that St. Joseph’s violated any federal law. Rather, the facts alleged suggest state law claims of medical malpractice. The Court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction of any state law claim Plaintiff may be asserting.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a negligence claim merely because the defendant was created by a settlement in a federal case; the claim must raise a colorable federal issue.

Galan v. Deepwater Horizon Medical · filed 2023-12-05

The allegations in Galan’s complaint raise no colorable issue of federal or maritime law. Further, it makes no difference that the Administrator was created by the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement, which arose out of a case in the district court brought under §§ 1331 and 1333, and over which the district court has retained jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction only over claims arising under federal law; a Kentucky breach of contract claim does not qualify.

Keeling v. Keen's Truck and Trailer Repair · filed 2023-12-05

This is a state-law claim, arising under the laws of Kentucky. ... In order for federal question jurisdiction to exist, the plaintiff's claim must arise under federal law: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all crvil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction where the plaintiff raises only state law claims.

Guidry v. Underwriters at Lloyds London · filed 2023-12-05

There is no basis for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 here, as plaintiff raises only state law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over allegations that a private party stole property when those allegations suggest no violation of federal law.

Tchaptched v. Mashood · filed 2023-12-05

Plaintiff does not invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, and his allegations that a private party stole his property do not suggest a violation of any federal law.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; a complaint that alleges no federal-law basis does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Addisu v. Oregon Worker Com · filed 2023-12-05

Nor has Plaintiff alleged facts showing that the claim arises under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under federal law; a mere connection to a federal statute does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Tyngsboro Sports II Solar, LLC v. National Grid USA Service Co., Inc. · filed 2023-12-06

But federal-question jurisdiction demands that a litigant show more than a mere relation between its case and a federal statute or actor; the action must arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not give federal district courts jurisdiction over claims arising only under state law.

Martin v. YES Automotive · filed 2023-12-06

A fair and liberal reading of the Complaint’s allegation reveals that Plaintiff only has state law claims against Defendants. 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 a claim under a state's Uniform Commercial Code.

Bryant v. Duke Energy · filed 2023-12-06

Moreover, if Bryant wishes to bring his claim under a state UCC, this would fail to present a federal question.

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

Dyce v. Macy's Inc. and Federated Department Stores Inc. · filed 2023-12-07

Construing Plaintiff’s allegations to “raise the strongest arguments they suggest,” McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d 154, 156 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Bertin v. United States, 478 F.3d 489, 491 (2d Cir. 2007)), the Court finds that she alleges a claim of negligence under state law and has not alleged any facts establishing federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a state due process claim cites federal precedent also used to interpret state law.

Simone v. City of Cleveland · filed 2023-12-07

Because Loudermill is consistently used as support for due process claims under the Ohio Constitution, citation to Loudermill is consistent with the assertion of a state law due process claim and does not necessarily imply a federal law claim.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a sufficiently pleaded claim arising under the FDCPA.

Scott v. Radius Global Solutions · filed 2023-12-19

Federal-question jurisdiction exists when the cause of action arises under federal law. ... Therefore, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient facts to establish her prima facia FDCPA claim, and to warrant federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for a claim based on an English Act of Parliament.

Mims v. Bank of America · filed 2023-12-20

But federal question jurisdiction may be established in civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Cestui Que Vie Act, a 1666 Act of Parliament, is an English Law that plainly does not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

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

Chaney v. Patch · filed 2023-12-21

While Chaney may have been able to bring these state law claims in federal court if Patch was not a resident of Michigan, those are not the facts of this case. Thus, the Court lacks both federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that are inextricably intertwined with a claim for Medicare benefits.

Heino v. U.S. Center for Medicare · filed 2023-12-22

Plaintiff’s claims are thus inextricably intertwined with a claim for Medicare benefits. The Court finds that Aetna properly removed this case to federal court on the ground that Plaintiff’s claims arise under the Act and thus present a federal question.

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

Crosby v. Colleton County Sheriff's Office, The · filed 2023-12-27

The only claims remaining are five claims arising under South Carolina state law. Because the Court has neither federal question nor diversity jurisdiction2 over the state law claims, the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) is the only basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the allegations do not support a federal claim.

Scales v. Lower Eastside People's Federal Credit Union · filed 2024-01-02

Because these allegations do not support a federal claim, the Court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; a state-law defamation claim does not satisfy that requirement.

Cox v. Cox · filed 2024-01-05

A federal question exists when the plaintiff’s claim arises under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Plaintiff’s claim for defamation of character is a state law claim and does not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint states only a California unlawful detainer claim.

Irvine Promenade Apts IV LLC v. Hamilton · filed 2024-01-08

Plaintiff’s Complaint, which states a single claim for unlawful detainer under California law, does not raise a federal question.

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

Williamson v. Underwriters at Lloyds London · filed 2024-01-08

There is no basis for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 here, as plaintiff raises only state law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law tort and contract claims merely because a plaintiff invokes it.

Dolce v. Pezzola · filed 2024-01-08

Plaintiff invokes this Court’s federal question jurisdiction as a basis for the Court exercising jurisdiction, but his claims, which are of tortious conduct and contract disputes, arise under state law. Thus, the Court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction of his state law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only a state-law breach of contract and no federal cause of action.

Alexander v. Hilton Hotels Worldwide · filed 2024-01-09

Plaintiff does not allege any federal cause of action. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to establish federal question jurisdiction.

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

Holmes v. Security Plan Fire Insurance Co · filed 2024-01-19

There is no basis for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 here, as plaintiff raises only state law claims.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a state unfair competition claim based exclusively on violations of federal tax law.

Community Foundation Medical Group v. Community Health Partners, Corporation · filed 2024-01-24

As set forth above, the Court finds that Defendants’ Notice of Removal (Doc. No. 1) was timely and that federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the Second Amended Complaint asserts a claim under California Business & Professions Code § 17200 based exclusively on violations of federal tax law, namely Internal Revenue Code § 501(c)(3) and Internal Revenue Code regulations 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(2).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law; a complaint alleging no violation of federal law does not establish it.

Michigan, State of v. Lewis · filed 2024-01-25

The court has federal question jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Defendant has not properly alleged jurisdiction based upon diversity or a federal question, as the parties do not appear to be of diverse citizenship and the complaint does not allege a violation of federal law.

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

Cora v. Lebron · filed 2024-01-26

Nor does the plaintiff’s slander claim provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

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

Thomas v. Osmer · filed 2024-01-29

However, every identified count of Luke’s Complaint asserts a state law claim, none of which have any relation to federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint, even liberally construed, states no claim arising under the Constitution or federal law.

Cora Sr. v. Feliciano · filed 2024-01-29

The plaintiff’s allegations, even liberally construed, do not state a claim arising under the Constitution or federal law, and therefore do not establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a state-law claim incorporates violations of a federal statute.

Reyes v. Mars, Incorporated · filed 2024-01-31

As a result, Plaintiff’s state law claims do not arise under federal law merely because they incorporate violations of the FDCA as a means of demonstrating a violation of state law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim alleging only an attack by a fellow inmate.

Greer v. Walton · filed 2024-01-31

For this Court to have federal question jurisdiction over these claims, the Plaintiff must allege a claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In this case, Greer alleges Arrion Walton, Jr., attacked him at the Indiana State Prison on September 16, 2023. An attack by a fellow inmate does not violate the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. This complaint does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal jurisdiction when a claim arises under federal law; a wrongful termination complaint that identifies no federal basis does not establish that jurisdiction.

Harper, Kevin v. Superior Health and Linen · filed 2024-02-01

This leaves only § 1331, meaning that plaintiff may proceed in this court if he is seeking relief under federal law. ... Because plaintiff has not shown any basis for the exercise of federal subject matter jurisdiction over his claim, it cannot proceed in federal court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges a state-law claim and cites a state statute.

ROACH v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. · filed 2024-02-01

The Court understands this citation to refer to 18 Pa. C.S. § 3927 (theft by failure to make required disposition of funds received), which is a Pennsylvania statute—not a federal statute. Therefore, even under a liberal construction of the Complaint, there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when federal law neither creates the cause of action nor supplies a substantial question necessary to relief.

C.G. v. Hain Celestial Group Inc. · filed 2024-02-06

As pleaded, these claims do not “establish[] either that federal law creates the cause[s] of action or that [Plaintiff’s] right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” ... The court thus lacks federal question jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims unless federal law creates the cause of action or relief necessarily depends on resolving a substantial federal question.

Crosland v. Baron Silverstein · filed 2024-02-06

The court also lacks federal question jurisdiction predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... As pleaded, these claims do not “establish[] either that federal law creates the cause[s] of action or that [Plaintiff’s] right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the remaining claims plead only state-law causes of action and reveal no federal basis for original jurisdiction.

Blackwell v. Social Security · filed 2024-02-07

The pleadings do not reveal any basis for original subject matter jurisdiction as to the City or Centerra. To the contrary, Blackwell exclusively cites state law causes of action in his complaint.

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

Powell v. Maldonado · filed 2024-02-07

Because plaintiff only alleges state law claims, no federal-question jurisdiction exists. ... Accordingly, the Court does not have federal-question jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims under Section 1331.

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

Mallory O’Shea, Administrator of the Estate of Stanley Sewall, and Diane Sewall, Plaintiffs v. Woodbine Senior Living, L · filed 2024-02-09

Plaintiffs bring only state causes of action. Consequently, the court may not exercise “federal question” subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the well-pleaded complaint does not necessarily raise a federal question.

Caribbean Solar Energy LLC v. Evolution Caribbean Logistics LLC · filed 2024-02-12

A federal claim is removable to a district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331’s grant of federal question jurisdiction. ... Given that Plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint does not perforce raise a federal question, the Court need not analyze the two remaining factors.

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

Matich v. O'Brien · filed 2024-02-14

Plaintiff asserts that subject-matter jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. It does not, because this action does not “arise[] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” §1331; Plaintiff brings only state-law claims.

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

Sowell v. The Huntington Bank · filed 2024-02-16

Since the Plaintiff cannot establish that his claim arises out a federal claim or through diversity of citizenship, the claim does not meet the requirements for subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under federal statutes or the Constitution.

Dates v. Buchanan · filed 2024-02-22

First, Dates’s Complaint raises claims under federal statutes and the federal constitution, the kinds of claims that fall squarely within the plain text of the 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which grants this Court federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that do not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Daniels v. Alvaria, Inc. · filed 2024-02-23

The asserted bases for jurisdiction in the amended complaint, D. 14-1 ¶ 9, do not apply here because Daniels alleges state-law claims that neither arise “under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States” nor seek to redress “any right privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(3).

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims that arise under federal law, including claims alleging violations of the federal Constitution.

Starsail Adventures, LLC v. Iredell County · filed 2024-02-26

Again, Plaintiffs clearly have alleged claims arising out of federal law, specifically the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint pleads no claim arising under federal law.

Westminster Special Needs Housing LP v. Essence Marie Nichols · filed 2024-02-28

Accordingly, the court lacks diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy is insufficient, see, e.g., Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090, and lacks federal question jurisdiction because no claims pleaded in the complaint arise under federal law, see Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392; see also Vaden, 556 U.S. at 70.

Section 1331 supplies no federal-question jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims once the claim presenting the asserted federal question has been voluntarily dismissed.

Triggs v. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association · filed 2024-02-28

Plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal of Nationstar from the action has eliminated any asserted federal question from the case, and the remaining claims against LIGA sound in state law.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; merely identifying a federal issue does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Sardakowski v. State of Texas · filed 2024-03-01

Merely identifying a federal issue is not enough to confer federal jurisdiction; the right being enforced must arise from federal law. ... Liberally construing the allegations in Sardakowski’s complaint and exhibits, supplements, and amended complaint and exhibits, she has not pleaded a viable claim arising under federal law.

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

Ross v. Chandra · filed 2024-03-04

Since it arises under Missouri law, see Missouri Revised Statute § 538.210, this type of claim cannot establish federal question jurisdiction.