28 U.S.C. § 1331

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

Clarke v. Budget Suites of America LLC N · filed 2024-03-04

Federal district courts “have original [subject matter] jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, Plaintiff’s Complaint presents issues of state law only.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a claim brought under federal law, including 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

McCurry v. Wright (TV1) · filed 2024-03-05

Instead, this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because plaintiffs have raised a federal question by suing under federal law, namely 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; a state-law slander claim without an identified federal cause of action does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Mungamuri v. Garnant · filed 2024-03-05

Plaintiff does not identify any federal law or constitutional provision that provides for a cause of action for slander or for any other of the claims in Plaintiff’s complaint. Federal question jurisdiction is therefore lacking and there is no basis to determine from the complaint that there exists complete diversity of citizenship.

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

Dozier v. Dozier · filed 2024-03-06

Plaintiff’s claim does not arise under the Constitution or any federal laws. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide original jurisdiction over claims arising solely under state common law.

McArthur v. Property Management · filed 2024-03-08

Common law tort claims arise under state law, so they cannot alone constitute a basis for this Court’s original jurisdiction over McArthur’s claims.

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

Garcia v. Henderson · filed 2024-03-13

This claim is a state tort law claim and does not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over allegations that sound only in state tort or contract law.

MAILEY v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY · filed 2024-03-15

These allegations sound in state-law tort and breach-of-contract principles and not federal statutory or constitutional law. The Court is unable to discern any plausible basis for a federal claim from the facts alleged. Thus, Mailey has not sufficiently alleged that the Court has federal-question jurisdiction.

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

Ivy v. United Services Automobile Association · filed 2024-03-20

There is no basis for federal question jurisdiction in this case because Ivy raises only state-law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts only state-law rights, even if its municipal-liability theory resembles a federal claim.

SMART v. TOWNSHIP OF TOMS RIVER · filed 2024-03-26

Therefore, absent any reference in the Complaint to the United States Constitution or Section 1983, there is no basis to conclude that the Complaint raises a claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over claims created by federal law.

Thompson v. PennyMac Loan Services LLC · filed 2024-03-31

Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint clearly asserts multiple claims that arise under federal law. ... These causes of action are created by, and therefore “arise under,” federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Coronado v. Mayorkas · filed 2024-04-02

Accordingly, there is no legal basis for Plaintiff’s claims of false imprisonment, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress because these claims do not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States and therefore do not convey federal question jurisdiction on this Court, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and, as noted above, Plaintiff has not asserted diversity jurisdiction.

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

Appleton v. Methodist NL Hospital · filed 2024-04-02

Appleton’s allegations fail to establish that she is suing under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. It appears she may be trying to sue the hospital for various torts she believed the paramedic, nurse, and security guards committed against her, but tort claims fall under state law, not “laws of the United States”—that is, federal law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when a claim arises under the Constitution or federal law.

Plumlee v. Drew · filed 2024-04-04

Plaintiff has not stated a claim that specifically arises under the constitution or federal law, so there is no federal question jurisdiction.

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

Smith v. Cordoza · filed 2024-04-08

To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to asserts claims for breach of contract or fraud, those claims sound in state law, not federal law. Thus, Plaintiff's complaint does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

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

Dillard v. Lovell · filed 2024-04-10

Beginning with federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s claims do not state causes of action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts claims under federal law.

Cooke v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. · filed 2024-04-12

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, Defendant is entitled to remove the cases to this court because the complaints assert claims under federal law and state law claims subject to the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction.

A reference to federal law in a complaint seeking only state-law relief does not itself establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Total Restoration Group, LLC v. Commonwealth of Kentucky · filed 2024-04-18

Although the Plaintiff references federal law in their Complaint, this alone is not enough for this Court to assert federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint seeks only state-law relief and alleges no violation of federal law or the Constitution.

Wheeler v. Astral Hotels Las Vegas Inc. · filed 2024-04-22

The Court further finds Plaintiff seeks relief solely under state law. Id. at 6-11. Plaintiff alleges no facts, even liberally construed, establishing a violation of federal law or the United States Constitution. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to establish federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint, even liberally construed, suggests no claim arising under federal law.

Chapman v. Angel · filed 2024-04-24

Plaintiff neither asserts nor argues that a federal question exists, and the Complaint—construed liberally—tfails to suggest the existence of a claim arising out of federal law.

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

(UD)(PS) 1322 O St Investors LP v. Odrunia · filed 2024-04-25

First, plaintiff asserts only a claim for unlawful detainer, which is a matter of state law. See id. Thus, the court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law unlawful-detainer action that does not itself present a federal question.

AEA Investment Properties, LLC v. Torres · filed 2024-04-26

The Court finds that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction because the underlying action is an unlawful detainer proceeding.

Section 1331 requires a claim based on federal law; allegations that accounts were closed, without more, do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Wilson v. Blackley · filed 2024-04-29

Here, plaintiff’s allegations that defendants closed her accounts do not, without more, implicate federal law.

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

Brister v. Shanks · filed 2024-04-30

Because the complaint alleges only claims arising under state law, this federal court does not have federal question jurisdiction.

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

Walker v. Catholic Diocese of Peoria Revenue · filed 2024-05-01

Here, the Complaint provides no basis for federal question jurisdiction as it only alleges violations of the Illinois Cemetery Oversight Act (225 ILCS 411/5-15). See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges only state-law malpractice and identifies no applicable federal basis.

Crozier v. Valley Health Team, Inc. · filed 2024-05-02

Because Plaintiff fails to cite any particular federal statute or constitutional provision applicable to the allegations in his complaint, he has failed to establish this Court’s jurisdiction. To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert a claim for negligence or medical malpractice, any such claim sounds in state law, not federal law.

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

PUE v. NEW JERSEY DEPT. OF LABOR · filed 2024-05-03

The Court construed Plaintiff's complaints against Tufano to be, at most, legal malpractice claims, which are governed by state law. (Mem. Op. at 13 (citing Gilles, 783 A.2d at 759-60).) Therefore, the Court did not have federal question jurisdiction pursuant to § 1331. (Mem. Op. at 12-13.) The facts as alleged in Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint do not change this analysis.

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

Prout v. Costco · filed 2024-05-08

Plaintiff has not established federal question jurisdiction in this case. So far as the Court can tell, the Complaint contains only a state-law negligence claim against Costco.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint identifies no cause of action arising under federal law.

Allen v. Clark · filed 2024-05-09

Mr. Allen’s complaint presents no cause of action arising under federal law that could allow this court to exercise jurisdiction.

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

ROSE v. MARION COUNTY H.D.C. COMMISSIONER · filed 2024-05-10

Negligence is a state- law claim that does not implicate this Court's federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law breach-of-contract claim merely because federal regulations relate to it.

Lamb v. Smith and Wamsley PLLC · filed 2024-05-13

Even where, for example, federal regulations may be related to the claim, the claim ultimately remains based on state common law and do not present a federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law easement claims when establishing the right does not require construing federal law, even if federal regulations may affect the remedy.

Czerner v. Smith · filed 2024-05-15

Although the state court may consider federal regulations in fashioning a remedy, federal law is not a necessary element of any of her causes of action. Therefore, “because federal law does not create [Plaintiff’s] cause of action and because ‘vindication of [her] rights under state law’ does not ‘turn[] on some construction of federal law,’ general federal-question jurisdiction under section 1331 will not lie.” Drain, 191 F.3d at 559 (quoting Merrell Dow, 478 U.S. at 808).

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

CNI Express, LLC v. BMO Harris Bank NA · filed 2024-05-15

Federal question jurisdiction is therefore unavailable.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the alleged facts do not show that the claims arise under federal law.

Dickerson v. Dickerson · filed 2024-05-22

The Court, however, cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction of these state law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims based solely on Pennsylvania criminal statutes.

HARDAWAY v. HARDAWAY · filed 2024-05-22

These are laws set by the Pennsylvania General Assembly in Pennsylvania’s Crimes Code and do not confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law breach of contract and fiduciary-duty claims.

Johnson v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC · filed 2024-05-29

The remaining counts in Plaintiff’s proposed amended pleading (breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duties) are state-law claims. Thus, they do not provide this Court with subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over state law claims that do not arise under federal law.

Ruiz v. HJ Family Corp. · filed 2024-06-03

Rather, Plaintiff’s alleged claims of discrimination on the basis of his gender and assault may arise under New York law. The Court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction of these state law claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over these state-law contract claims merely because they invoke federal workplace drug-testing rules.

Pomier v. BrandSafway, LLC DO NOT DOCKET. Case has been remanded to 239th District Court, Brazoria County. · filed 2024-06-06

Judge Edison filed a memorandum and recommendation on May 20, 2024, recommending sua sponte that this case be remanded to state court for lack of federal-question jurisdiction. ... The defendants’ objections are overruled. The court accepts Judge Edison’s memorandum and recommendation and adopts it as the opinion of the court.

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

Patel v. Hero, LLC · filed 2024-06-07

None of the Plaintiffs claims arise under federal law. Thus, we do not have federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim based solely on state-law sexual assault allegations.

Webb v. Harold · filed 2024-06-10

Here, Plaintiff does not allege any facts demonstrating a viable federal claim. Her allegations of sexual assault arise under state law, and thus, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a breach-of-contract claim arising under state law when the alleged facts do not implicate federal law.

Jones v. Caillec · filed 2024-06-10

Here, Plaintiff does not allege any facts demonstrating a viable federal claim. His allegations of breach of contract arise under state law. The facts alleged also do not suggest that American Express’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s letter would implicate any federal laws or regulations governing banking institutions or credit lenders. The Court therefore does not have federal question jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s claim.

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

Washington v. Malzberg · filed 2024-06-10

Her allegations of medical neglect and malpractice arise under state law, and thus, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over theft or property-damage claims that arise only under state law.

Robinson v. Ramlagan · filed 2024-06-10

His claims relating to the theft or destruction of property arise under state law and, thus, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s claim.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction merely because a claim requires interpretation of a federal statute.

Pritchard v. FTM, LLC · filed 2024-06-14

This argument misreads Grable, which does not stand for the proposition that a claim requiring interpretation of a federal statute suffices to confer subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not give a federal district court federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising solely under state law.

Woods v. McDowell Transport, LLC · filed 2024-06-18

A fair and liberal reading of the Complaint’s allegation reveals that Plaintiffs only have 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 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim seeking to hold individuals liable under the TCPA.

SCHUMACHER v. BETTA · filed 2024-06-21

Here, Plaintiff correctly establishes that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiff seeks to hold Betta and Horn individually liable under 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., or the TCPA.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the accompanying federal claims have been dismissed.

Williams v. Sevilla · filed 2024-06-24

And without federal question or diversity jurisdiction over this claim, the Court has no jurisdiction to decide it.

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

Irankunda v. King Law Firm · filed 2024-06-24

Irankunda’s complaint alleges only state law causes of action. ... 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 state-law claims when the removing defendant supplies no facts showing that they implicate federal law.

Capital One, N.A. v. Bloom · filed 2024-06-25

Accordingly, Defendant has failed to establish that the court has federal question jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint’s allegations support only state-law medical malpractice claims, despite a checked box indicating federal claims.

WHITE v. FITZGERALD MERCY HOSPITAL · filed 2024-06-25

Although White indicated, by checking the appropriate location on the Court’s form complaint, that he intends to raise federal claims against the Defendants, nothing in his Amended Complaint suggests an appropriate basis for this Court to exercise federal question jurisdiction over this case.

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

Patushi v. Digital Federal Credit Union · filed 2024-06-26

Nor is there federal question jurisdiction. The complaint alleges solely state law claims of breach of contract and negligence. It does not allege any federal law claims.

Section 1331 requires a claim based on federal law; allegations arising only under state law do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Booker v. Delerosa · filed 2024-06-27

Plaintiff’s allegations of identity theft, grand larceny, and defamation arise under state law. The complaint is devoid of any indication that plaintiff seeks relief for claims based on federal law. Plaintiff therefore fails to assert a basis for the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction over claims based solely on state law that raise no federal question.

Williams-Goode v. Williams · filed 2024-06-28

Therefore, there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction here.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law breach of trust or fiduciary duty claims.

Archibald v. Capital One Financial Corporation · filed 2024-07-02

Therefore, because Plaintiff Archibald’s § 1983 claim is meritless and her two additional state law claims do not confer federal question jurisdiction, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to address Plaintiff Archibald’s claims in her proposed amended complaint.

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

Smith v. New Direction, LLC · filed 2024-07-03

As such, she must establish that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction through federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Smith’s breach of contract claim does not present a federal question, and she does not allege diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act because they arise under federal law.

Valenzuela v. Best-Line Shades, Inc. · filed 2024-07-08

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal courts have jurisdiction over claims arising from federal law. Here, subject-matter jurisdiction is proper because Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint alleges a claim under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims resting solely on state-law breach-of-contract principles.

Foster v. United Services Automobile Association · filed 2024-07-10

Because Mr. Foster’s claims rest solely on state-law breach-of- contract principles, federal question jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over an FLSA claim because it arises under federal law.

Carrick v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. · filed 2024-07-10

The parties agree that this Court has federal question jurisdiction over Carrick’s thirteenth claim under the FLSA because it arises under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Because this Court has jurisdiction over that claim, Carrick’s motion is denied to the extent she seeks remand of her FLSA claim.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only over claims arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

GRIFFIN v. PHILADELPHIA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION · filed 2024-07-11

The Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over these claims, as nothing in the Complaint (ECF No. 1) suggests that they arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 does not give a federal court original jurisdiction over a state-law medical malpractice claim merely because it accompanies a federal claim.

Campbell v. Temesgen · filed 2024-07-12

Because such claims are not federal claims, this Court does not have original subject matter jurisdiction over them.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim arising under state U.C.C. law without a federal statute or a substantial federal issue.

PINCKNEY v. SOMERSET PROBATION C.S. ENFORCEMENT · filed 2024-07-12

Because this is a state law action, the Court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction merely because pleaded state-law claims resemble federal claims the plaintiffs could have brought.

Doe v. Effingham Health Systems Foundation, Inc. · filed 2024-07-17

Because Plaintiffs did not allege any federal claims, simply asserting that their claims are substantively comparable to claims under federal law is insufficient for removal.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state-law claim when exercising federal jurisdiction would disturb the congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

State Ethics Commission v. TNMP, Inc. · filed 2024-07-19

The Court finds that an exercise of federal jurisdiction here would disturb the congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities. The campaign finance related challenges arise under state law—not federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over defamation and negligence claims that allege no violation of federal law.

Panarello v. Northwell Health · filed 2024-07-25

Even construed in the most favorable light to Panarello, the Complaint fails to allege any violations of federal law. Indeed, Panarello’s only claims, for defamation and negligence, are purely state law claims that do not raise a federal question.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction when the complaint pleads a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or federal law.

Parker v. Clearpath Lending · filed 2024-07-26

A plaintiff properly invokes federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when she pleads a colorable claim “arising under” the Federal Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under federal law; a plaintiff who identifies no federal law for her claims does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Maxwell v. Synchrony Financial · filed 2024-07-26

Plaintiff has not identified a federal law under which her claims arise as required by § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction merely because an action seeks to enforce a state court judgment.

Philips v. Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Inc. · filed 2024-08-02

The Plaintiff has not shown how the enforcement of a state court judgment arises under federal law.

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

Johnson v. Manjani · filed 2024-08-02

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges state law claims of negligence. Thus, no federal question is present to establish jurisdiction through a federal question.

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

iBall Instruments LLC v. Butler · filed 2024-08-02

Here, the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), and Counts 6 and 7 do not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that invokes federal jurisdiction but alleges only state-law medical malpractice claims.

Jacob v. Harlem Hospital Center · filed 2024-08-06

Here, although Plaintiff invokes federal question jurisdiction, his allegations do not suggest a viable claim under federal law. Plaintiff’s allegations instead suggest that he is attempting to bring claims for medical malpractice. Such claims arise under state law, not federal law. Accordingly, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction of this action.

Section 1331 provides no basis for federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges only non-federal claims.

Seco v. Homestead Apartments · filed 2024-08-07

Likewise, because Ms. Seco’s complaint alleges only non-federal claims, id. at 10–14, she fails to provide a basis for the Court to exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which grants district courts “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when none of the claims arise under federal law.

Halliday v. Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. · filed 2024-08-09

None of Plaintiff's claims arise under federal law. Thus, there is no federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Harkins v. Citizens Bank · filed 2024-08-12

But any slander claim is grounded in state law and, thus, the Court can only exercise jurisdiction in this action based on diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action or the right to relief necessarily depends on a substantial question of federal law.

Miolan v. Milmar Food Group, LLC · filed 2024-08-15

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. A case arises under federal law if the complaint “establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Kain, 485 F.3d 730, 734-35 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 690 (2006)). Plaintiff has not invoked the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, and her slip-and-fall allegations against a private employer do not suggest any obvious claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state contract claim enforcing an IDEA settlement when deciding the claim does not require applying the IDEA.

J.M. v. Comal Independent School District · filed 2024-08-15

Rather, the breach of contract claim simply asks the court to call balls and strikes with reference to the July 22, 2022, settlement agreement. But in such a circumstance, federal courts lack federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges only state-law violations and identifies no federal statute or constitutional provision as the basis for relief.

Holland v. Jarome · filed 2024-08-16

Although Plaintiff claims to present a federal question, the Complaint only identifies a Delaware state civil tort statute and a Delaware state criminal statute, and no federal statute or Constitutional provision, as the basis for Plaintiff's alleged rights violations. (D.I. 2.) Having reviewed the Complaint and all of Plaintiff’s subsequent filings, the Court does not find any basis for a federal civil claim for violations of the United States Constitution or federal statutes. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Natale v. Barstool Sports, INC · filed 2024-08-19

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“§ 1331”), a federal district court may exercise jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law. ... However, w ithin the complaint, Natale has not identified, nor can the Court discern, any claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no cause of action arising under federal law or the Constitution.

Stading v. Pesall · filed 2024-08-20

Stading’s complaint does not allege a cause of action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 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 when the complaint asserts only state-law causes of action and no qualifying embedded federal question.

Huffman v. Patriot Coal Corp. · filed 2024-08-21

The court finds that the face of plaintiff’s complaint does not assert causes of action based on federal law.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to show that the claims arise under federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Gaines v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceutical · filed 2024-08-25

Despite Plaintiff’s having had multiple opportunities to amend his pleadings, he does not identify any federal law that is the basis for his claims against Defendant AstraZeneca. Plaintiff thus does not meet his burden of showing that the Court has federal question jurisdiction of this matter.

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

Hollywood Imports v. Korte · filed 2024-08-30

Plaintiff alleges a single claim of negligence, which is a state law claim. (Doc. 1, p. 4). Thus, there is no federal question.

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

Stanford v. Brandon Nursing and Rehabilation Center, LLC · filed 2024-09-03

Because Plaintiff sues based on state common-law causes of action (i.e. “negligence,” “medical malpractice,” and “malice[] and/or gross negligence”), [Docket 34], this civil action does not “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims based on these hospital regulations because they provide no basis for a federal claim.

Kampfer v. Fadale · filed 2024-09-04

The Court finds that the regulations do not provide a basis for jurisdiction for the same reasons as stated in Judge McAvoy’s opinion.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a claim under a state’s UCC does not qualify.

Thomas v. Edison · filed 2024-09-05

Federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when a claim arising under federal law is presented on the face of a plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint. ... Accordingly, any claim plaintiff seeks to assert arises under the UCC as adopted by the State of Ohio, which is a state-law claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over assault and battery claims without facts suggesting a claim arising under federal law.

Dante v. Ralphs Supermarket · filed 2024-09-11

Such claims generally arise under state law and Plaintiff has not alleged facts suggesting a viable claim arising under federal law. The Court therefore does not have federal question jurisdiction of this action.

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

Britton v. PHH Mortgage Corporation · filed 2024-09-12

Plaintiffs’ references to federal law are insufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction where no federal cause of action is asserted.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law unlawful detainer claim merely because the removing defendant invokes the PTFA’s 90-day notice provision.

Easton Investment II, LP v. Gervais · filed 2024-09-12

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges one claim for unlawful detainer under state law. ... “Federal courts have consistently rejected attempts to premise federal subject matter jurisdiction on the 90-day notice provision provided in the [PTFA],” like Defendant attempts here. ... Accordingly, there is no federal question jurisdiction presented by Plaintiff’s action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges only state-law claims, even if it identifies “federal question” as the basis for jurisdiction.

Thomas v. Waianae Coast Comprehensive · filed 2024-09-17

These allegations appear to raise claims only under state law, even though Plaintiff checked the box on the Complaint stating “federal question” as the basis for jurisdiction. See id. at pg. 4; id. at pg. 6 (alleging malpractice and negligence). Notably, Plaintiff left the section of the complaint blank that directed Plaintiff to “[l]ist the specific federal statutes, federal treaties, and/or provisions of the United States Constitution that are at issue in this case.” See id. at 4. Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not established jurisdiction based on a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a cause of action to arise under federal law for federal-question jurisdiction.

Jones v. Holm · filed 2024-09-30

Jones’s allegations of robbery, burglary, and kidnapping do not arise under federal law and thus do not support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that neither arise under federal law nor require resolution of a substantial, disputed federal question.

Okorie v. Forrest General Hospital · filed 2024-09-30

None of Dr. Okorie’s claims have any substantial, disputed question of federal law as necessary elements. Likewise, none of Dr. Okorie’s claims actually arise under federal law or even allege any facts sufficient to establish a colorable issue of federal law. As a result, the Court cannot conclude that federal question jurisdiction exists.

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

Lacambacal v. Vasquez · filed 2024-09-30

Because Plaintiff has not identified a federal law under which his claims arise, he has not established this Court’s federal question jurisdiction over his case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a New York common law tortious-interference claim.

Ramsarran v. Siu · filed 2024-09-30

However, it is well-settled that a tortious interference claim, as a common law cause of action under New York state law, cannot confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law breach-of-contract and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims.

Whitfield v. Navy Federal Credit Union · filed 2024-10-01

As such claims do not raise a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331,1 the Court would have original jurisdiction only if the parties are completely diverse in citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over defamation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy claims that raise only state-law questions.

Employee 1 v. University Legal services/disability Rights Dc · filed 2024-10-02

Federal question jurisdiction arises when civil actions raise claims “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. But defamation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy claims are all state law claims. ... His complaint therefore does not raise a federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because it involves a federal issue.

Mayer v. Glassman · filed 2024-10-04

The presence of a federal issue in a state law claim alone does not compel federal question jurisdiction. ... The Court therefore agrees with Plaintiff that this case is a dispute over contractual and fiduciary rights and belongs in state court.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over claims brought under a federal statute.

Jones v. Morris + D'Angelo · filed 2024-10-04

The Court has federal question jurisdiction over Claims 3 and 4 for violations of the FLSA, because those claims are brought under a federal statute.

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

Rogers v. Carter · filed 2024-10-07

Plaintiff has not invoked the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, and the allegations of the complaint do not obviously suggest any claim arising under federal law.

Federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim requires a federal issue that is necessary to resolve an element of the claim.

State of Connecticut v. RZ Smoke, Inc. · filed 2024-10-16

Because the elements of the State’s CUTPA claims do not require resolution of the question of federal law—whether the Products are truly “hemp”—that issue is not “necessarily raised” by the State’s complaint.

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

Henderson v. Ellis · filed 2024-10-21

Plaintiff’s remaining civil claims arise under Oregon state law and cannot, therefore, invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint presents only state-law claims and no substantial question of federal law.

Meshberger v. Wright · filed 2024-10-23

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 when the complaint identifies no federal law giving rise to its claims and asserts only state-law claims.

Brown v. Spikes · filed 2024-10-23

However, the Plaintiff does not identify any federal law in his Complaint which would give rise to his claims. The Plaintiff asserts claims of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, and negligence, all of which arise under North Carolina law. As such, the Plaintiff has failed assert a plausible basis for the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331.

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

EVERAGE v. CENTURION HEALTH OF INDIANA, LLC · filed 2024-10-24

And Mr. Everage wishes to sue Dr. Madsen under Indiana law, so there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction.

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

Lewis v. KIA · filed 2024-10-25

Here, Plaintiff does not invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, and the complaint, construed liberally, does not allege facts suggesting any viable claim arising under federal law. Plaintiff’s allegations instead suggest that she is attempting to assert state law claims for fraud, negligence, and products liability. The Court therefore lacks federal question jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint lists only state statutes and fails to show that its claims arise under federal law.

Alcaraz v. Helton · filed 2024-10-25

Indeed, by listing only state statutes in the section of her amended complaint devoted to asserting federal-question jurisdiction, she cannot demonstrate that her claims arise under federal law. Therefore, the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state negligence claim merely because it alleges failure to comply with a federal statute or regulations.

Smith v. Sansone Group, LLC · filed 2024-10-30

This Court likewise finds that Count II does not invoke a substantial question of federal law by alleging that Defendants negligently failed to comply with a federal statute and regulations.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law intentional infliction of emotional distress claim that raises no federal question.

Mckenzie v. Brown · filed 2024-10-31

Both the prior action and the instant action allege intentional infliction of emotional distress, which is a potential state-law claim that does not invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the claims have no discernible basis in federal law.

Gorel v. Payan · filed 2024-11-08

Gorel’s November 1 response does not point to any federal-law basis for his claims, and the court is unable to discern any from his complaint. So, the court lacks federal-question jurisdiction over this case.

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

Thornton v. Department of Corrections · filed 2024-11-14

Because these claims arise under state law, Thornton has not alleged federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint’s allegations do not suggest a viable claim under federal law.

Rogers v. NYU Hospitals Doctors · filed 2024-11-14

Here, Plaintiff does not invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction and his allegations, liberally construed, do not suggest a viable claim under any federal law.3 The Court therefore lacks federal question jurisdiction of this action.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of federal law.

Abercrombie v. Carolina Speech and Hearing, Inc. · filed 2024-11-15

The Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims alleging violations of federal law.

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

Rodgers v. B&H Photo · filed 2024-11-15

The claims asserted in the complaint arise under state law. Thus, the Court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction of the claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim for libel, which is a state-law claim.

Wohlrabe v. Brown · filed 2024-11-18

Given that established precedent forecloses a federal claim for libel, this action must be dismissed. ... No set of facts would give the Court jurisdiction over the claim for which Wohlrabe seeks relief, so it would be futile to allow him an opportunity to file an amended complaint.

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

Hinkle v. OSU Hospital · filed 2024-11-21

Medical malpractice claims are governed by state tort law, so they do not raise a federal question.

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

Lamb v. Smith and Wamsley PLLC · filed 2024-11-21

These bases are based on state law and do not present a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the federal statute invoked does not apply to the alleged conduct.

FREEMAN v. ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON HOSPITAL · filed 2024-11-21

Because the Complaint contains no factual allegations implicating NASA or its employees, there is no federal statute upon which this Court may base its federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the only remaining claim arises under state law.

Wendy S. Serpas Lazo v. Mercedes-Benz, LLC · filed 2024-11-21

Plaintiffs’ only remaining claim arise from state negligence law over which this Court has no jurisdiction. As such, federal question jurisdiction does not exist.

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

Bordelon v. Singh · filed 2024-11-25

Generally, federal subject matter jurisdiction exists due to the presence of a federal question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or complete diversity between the parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff does not allege a federal question and has only alleged a state law claim of legal malpractice, see Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 258 (2013) (legal malpractice claim “indisputably” arises from state, not federal, law).

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

Bennett v. Scouting America Aloha Council 104 · filed 2024-11-26

Thus, Plaintiff’s allegations appear to raise claims only under state law. Plaintiff also appears to allege the Court possesses diversity jurisdiction, rather than jurisdiction based on a federal question. See Complaint at pgs. 1, 3. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not established jurisdiction based on a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the pleaded facts support only medical malpractice or other state-law claims.

White v. Oak Street Health · filed 2024-11-27

It does not reflect a colorable claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 did not provide federal-question jurisdiction over the pleaded state-law claims in this action.

Tvelia v. Barnwell County · filed 2024-12-04

On July 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand to state court, arguing this Court lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1332. ... A review of the Report indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.

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

HENSON v. CALVARY CHRISTIAN SCHOOL · filed 2024-12-05

To the extent that the pleading Mr. Henson seeks to have the Court allow can be construed to frame a claim for battery or any other tortious conduct against Defendants, such causes of action are based on state law; thus, there is no basis for this court to exercise federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Current v. New Orleans Housing Authority · filed 2024-12-09

Current’s complaint does not establish that federal law creates her cause of action or that her right to relief depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law, and therefore the Court must remand the case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over defamation and negligence claims governed solely by state law.

Panarello v. Northwell Health · filed 2024-12-09

Indeed, defamation and negligence are purely state law claims that do not raise a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint, liberally construed, alleges only state-law claims.

Meshberger v. Wright · filed 2024-12-10

The Court agrees with Defendant that, liberally construed, Plaintiff’s complaint states only state-law claims for unjust enrichment or a claim on account.

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

Booker v. Dept of Social Services · filed 2024-12-10

The complaint therefore fails to state a federal question over which the Court has subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law medical-negligence claim when the complaint presents no claim arising under federal law.

Speece v. Prime Care Medical, Inc. · filed 2024-12-10

However, without an accompanying claim presenting a question of federal law, the complaint does not indicate a basis for federal jurisdiction over a state law claim.

Section 1331 requires a claim under federal law; allegations that a seller failed to deliver prepaid materials do not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Lacey v. Sure Shot Books Publishers LLC · filed 2024-12-10

By order dated May 28, 2024, the Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, for the following reasons: (1) federal question jurisdiction was lacking under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant failed to send written materials for which he had paid did not implicate a claim under federal law; ... Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 4, 2024, (ECF 17), but it does not remedy the deficiencies set forth in the order of dismissal.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law breach-of-contract claim based on the UCC.

Wilson v. Abound Credit Union · filed 2024-12-12

State law doesn’t confer federal-question jurisdiction; nor does the UCC.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the only federal-law claim is dismissed.

Vernon v. South Oxford Management · filed 2024-12-12

Dismissal of the Title VII claim against all Defendants deprives this court of subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining claims. This matter is before the court under federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Bruno v. Dr. Squatch, LLC · filed 2024-12-19

Indeed, it was not: no federal question was presented because Guzman asserted only state law claims on behalf of himself and a California class, and there was no jurisdiction under CAFA due to a lack of minimal diversity as both Guzman and Dr. Squatch are citizens of California.

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

Menefee v. Metropolitan Wayne County International Airport · filed 2024-12-20

Indeed, liberally construing the substance of Menefee’s Complaint, it appears he is bringing a state contract or tort claim against Defendants—both state-law claims. See generally id. at PageID.5–8. Thus, there is no federal-question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint identifies no federal law as the basis for its claims and instead invokes municipal and state law.

Gamble v. Hansen · filed 2025-01-02

In this case, the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. Gamble’s claims because he has not established that this action arises under federal law or that the parties in this action are citizens of different states. As to bringing a claim under federal law, Mr. Gamble does not cite to or mention any federal law under which his action is brought. Instead, it appears Mr. Gamble brings this suit under municipal code and a state statute.

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

Powell v. Maldonado · filed 2025-01-02

Because plaintiff’s remaining claims “arise[] under state law,” id. at 5–6, his amended complaint fails to establish federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331.

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

Arrington v. Dortch · filed 2025-01-02

Negligence is a state law cause of action and does not present a federal question which the Court has jurisdiction to hear.

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

Maney v. Demonic Rasict Discrimination · filed 2025-01-03

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

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over claims brought under federal statutes.

Evans v. Bronxworks, Inc. · filed 2025-01-03

Because Plaintiff brings claims under these federal statutes, the federal court has jurisdiction.

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

Renwick v. Dill · filed 2025-01-07

But there is likewise no basis for invoking federal question jurisdiction apparent from Plaintiff’s Complaint, as it appears that Plaintiff is alleging only state law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the alleged facts present only state law claims.

164 Saint Johns Group LLC v. People and Abandoned Properties House of Worship · filed 2025-01-07

Plaintiff references 28 U.S.C. § 1331, ECF No. 1 at 3, but fails to present a federal question; the facts alleged in the Notice suggest only state law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed when no other jurisdictional basis is asserted.

AMRES CORPORATION v. NEXTRES LLC · filed 2025-01-09

As a result of this Court’s decision to dismiss Counts I and II, the Court is divested of its federal question jurisdiction in the present case and there is no diversity jurisdiction asserted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Because there is no jurisdictional basis for the remaining claims in this case, the Court dismisses the remaining counts, Count III and IV without prejudice.

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

Evans v. Jones · filed 2025-01-13

Negligence is a claim arising under state law, not federal law. As such, Plaintiff’s claim for negligence does not provide a basis for federal question subject matter jurisdiction in this court.

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

Smart Properties & Logistics LLC v. Levy · filed 2025-01-14

Ohio law creates these causes of action; therefore, they arise under State law—not federal law. Smart Properties & Logistics could not have brought these claims in initially in federal court, which would lack the power to hear and decide these claims. Accordingly, Mr. Levy may not remove the lawsuit on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted § 1983 claim lacks a state actor and the remaining claims arise under state law.

Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Devore · filed 2025-01-27

Thus, Defendant has no relief available against it under § 1983; any claims she may have against Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC are state law claims and do not trigger federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Narang v. Narang · filed 2025-01-29

There is no federal question in this case because fraud is a state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that allege no violation of federal law or a constitutional right.

Kassab v. UC San Diego Health · filed 2025-01-29

As Plaintiff’s claims are rooted in state law and Plaintiff does not allege violation of a constitutional right or of federal law, the Complaint does not entitle Plaintiff to the Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the complaint mentions a federal agency or refers generally to federal law.

Maurino v. City of Rio Rancho Fire and Rescue · filed 2025-02-04

Her passing references to her administrative charge “cross filed” with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and to a “violation of Federal and State law” in her Wage Acts claim are not enough to trigger federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law; a state-law quantum meruit claim does not qualify.

Ovalle v. Wagner · filed 2025-02-04

This Court has federal-question jurisdiction over cases that arise under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Here, because Plaintiff's quantum meruit claim is one of state law, the Court does not have jurisdiction over the claim after dismissing Plaintiff's federal claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint raising only state building or occupancy code issues.

Duymayan v. Westland Real Estate Group · filed 2025-02-06

Federal district courts “have original [subject matter] jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, Plaintiff’s pending Complaint present issues of state law only; that is, an unidentified building or occupancy code.

Section 1331 requires a plausible claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States for federal-question jurisdiction.

Williams v. United States · filed 2025-02-07

Plaintiff has not plausibly invoked “the Constitution [or] laws . . .of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the pleaded claims arise only under state law and the facts reveal no federal claim.

Waheed v. Ballon Stoll Bader and Nadler PC · filed 2025-02-07

Plaintiff refers to federal question jurisdiction as a basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction of this action but Plaintiff’s causes of action all arise under state law. Plaintiff brings state law claims for legal malpractice and various torts. She has not asserted any claims arising under federal law, and the facts alleged do not give rise to any obvious federal claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not shown that the Court has federal question jurisdiction of this action.

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

Vigil v. Brar · filed 2025-02-10

The Court also lacks subject matter jurisdiction as Plaintiff's sole claim falls under state law.

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

Meier v. Davis · filed 2025-02-11

First, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 grants federal courts jurisdiction “of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... Therefore, plaintiffs do not facially allege any claim based on federal question jurisdiction.