28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the claim does not require resolution of a federal question.

Klomp v. Frost · filed 2025-02-11

Because the FBSA does not implicate a federal question necessary to the Plaintiffs’ claims, the Court finds that the FBSA cannot support removal jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because an expert report cites a federal statute as a measure of the standard of care.

Ibarra v. Fort Duncan Medical Center, L.P. · filed 2025-02-11

However, merely referring to a federal statute as a guideline or “measuring rod” does not create federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state FOIA claim or constitutional claims based on a claimed right to records that the Constitution does not provide.

Romeo v. Lammers · filed 2025-02-13

Specifically, federal courts have jurisdiction to hear claims that arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... In effect, this means that there is no federal law at issue here, just state law. ... For this reason, Romeo’s constitutional claims do not establish federal-question jurisdiction either.

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

Caceres v. Walsh · filed 2025-02-14

As to federal question jurisdiction, the Court cannot discern from the pleadings, even giving the deference customarily afforded to pro se litigants, any claim that arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over claims that neither arise from a federal cause of action nor require resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Encarnacion v. Rosenblatt · filed 2025-02-21

Plaintiff’s claims appear to arise from a dispute that she has with her landlord(s) about providing gas, electricity, and other services with respect to her tenancy in an apartment, and about her failure to pay rent; such claims do not appear to involve a federal law cause of action or require resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Thus, inasmuch as Plaintiff invokes the court’s federal question jurisdiction, the Court dismisses her claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Raktabutr v. T-Mobile · filed 2025-02-27

The other option is federal question jurisdiction. However, Plaintiff’s claims regarding the phone contract are not brought under the “Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s claims, which must be filed in state court.

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

Karanja v. Matemu, Esq. · filed 2025-03-03

However, Plaintiff’s claims of legal malpractice and breach of contract are state law claims and are not brought under the “Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s claims, which must be filed in state court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims concerning the handling of state child support obligations that do not arise under federal law.

Lyons v. Maryland Child Support Administration · filed 2025-03-04

However, Plaintiff’s claims regarding erroneous handling of his state child support obligations are not brought under the “Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction merely because a claim involves a federal program; the court must determine whether the claim arises under federal law.

LLOYD v. MANBEL DEVCO I LP · filed 2025-03-04

Lloyd’s suggestion that this Court also has federal question jurisdiction over her ERAP claim(s) because the ERAP is a federal program, see Mot. 3-4, ECF No. 78, is without merit. ... Congress did not create a private cause of action under the ERAP.

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

Baker v. Penney OPCO LLC · filed 2025-03-05

The Magistrate Judge correctly explains that “Plaintiff’s claims, reasonably interpreted as negligence by [Defendant] and either intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress arise under Nevada state law, not federal law.” ... Thus, the Magistrate Judge is correct that the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction.

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

Delgado v. Delgado · filed 2025-03-07

Here, the only claim asserted by plaintiff is for unlawful detainer against defendant. See dkt. 1 at 10. The Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must remand.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Shafik v. Aston Martin Lagonda of North America Inc. · filed 2025-03-12

Because Plaintiff’s only remaining claim is under Connecticut’s Lemon Law, Conn Gen. Stat. § 42-179, et seq.—a state law—I no longer have federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that do not implicate a federal question.

Dhillon Express Inc v. Scott Logistics Corp · filed 2025-03-24

On the civil cover sheet to the complaint, plaintiff has checked “federal question” as the basis for jurisdiction, but plaintiff’s claims for defamation and unfair business practices under California law do not implicate a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over claims sounding solely in state common law.

LIG Group, Inc. v. Choudhary · filed 2025-03-26

Because the claims sound solely in state common law, no federal question jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 supplies original jurisdiction over § 1983 claims, but not over accompanying state-law claims.

Blackwell v. City of Saint Paul · filed 2025-03-27

The Court has original jurisdiction over Blackwell’s § 1983 claims through the operation of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but § 1331 does not supply original jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties; a state tort claim with no discernible federal basis does not qualify.

Greene v. Rite Aid - Culver City · filed 2025-03-27

Plaintiff not only fails to cite any federal authority or allege facts essential to show jurisdiction, but the Court cannot discern a federal claim against Defendant that would allow him to proceed in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as the instant action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint raises no federal law or constitutional issue and does not show that the state law arises under federal law.

OPARAJI v. V4 LAND SURVEYING PLLC · filed 2025-03-29

However, Plaintiff has neither cited to nor raised any federal statute, treatise, or constitutional provision as an issue in this case. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to argue that the Section 2C:20-20 of the New Jersey Code “arises under” federal law for the purposes of federal question jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction based on federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that fail the Grable requirements, even when defendants assert federal defenses.

State of Nevada v. Optum, Inc. · filed 2025-03-30

The Court finds that the instant matter does not meet the Grable requirements for establishing federal question jurisdiction and Defendants’ argument that their federal defenses require this case be litigated in federal court fails.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a state defamation claim that does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Greene v. 430 South Los Angeles Street, LLC · filed 2025-03-31

Plaintiff not only fails to cite any federal authority or allege facts essential to show jurisdiction, but the Court cannot discern a federal claim against defendant that would allow him to proceed in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as the instant action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over a civil action asserting a claim under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Bryant v. NewRez, LLC · filed 2025-04-01

Plaintiff's FDCPA claim arises under federal law.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over federal-law claims but does not itself supply original jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Ybarra v. Ybarra · filed 2025-04-07

Although 28 U.S.C. § 1331 establishes federal court jurisdiction over federal-law claims, this provision cannot supply original jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law tort claims when interpreting a bankruptcy sale order is not central to the dispute.

SNW Operating Company Inc v. Large Operating, LLC · filed 2025-04-08

Plaintiffs’ common-law claims of tortious interference and trespass find no home in federal court—interpretation of the bankruptcy court’s order is not the heart of the instant dispute and fails to operate as a sufficient jurisdictional tow hitch.

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

Cooper-Black v. Jack E. Kirksey Livonia Community Recreation · filed 2025-04-10

Here, none of Counts One, Two, Three, Four, Six, Eight, and Nine involve the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. These are state law claims, not federal law claims. This means that the Court cannot review these claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a claim arising under the federal RICO statute.

O'Neill v. California Physicians' Service · filed 2025-04-11

Because the RICO statute is federal law, Plaintiff’s RICO claim arises under federal law and the Court possesses federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a claim arises under federal law or the Constitution; claims arising only under state law do not qualify.

Goddard v. Flore · filed 2025-04-15

Liberally construing Plaintiff's allegations to raise the strongest arguments they suggest, the Amended Complaint does not suggest any basis for exercising federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff's claims do not arise under the Constitution or any federal laws. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over negligence, product liability, or deceptive-practices claims that do not implicate federal law.

Miller v. Chick-Fil-A Inc · filed 2025-04-16

Plaintiff’s allegations of negligence, product liability, and deceptive acts and practices are the kinds of claims typically brought under state law. But they do not implicate federal law, and do not give this Court federal question jurisdiction over these claims.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, including claims brought under RICO and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

SHAIKH v. GERMADNIG · filed 2025-04-17

In addition, the Court held in its 2023 Opinion that it had original jurisdiction for claims “arising under” federal law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because Plaintiff brought claims under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961, ef seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

McCarley v. AIRBNB, Inc. · filed 2025-04-17

Plaintiff’s alleged causes of actions arise under state law. Plaintiff does not allege the presence of any federal question which would give rise to federal question jurisdiction. Thus, the Court cannot construct an argument for jurisdiction where there is none.

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

(UD) (PS) Omni Vest Corp. LLC v. Harmon · filed 2025-04-21

Here, because the Complaint only sets forth an unlawful detainer claim, which is a matter of state law, no federal question jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under federal law or depend on resolution of a substantial federal question; labeling a claim “federal conspiracy” does not establish jurisdiction.

Johnson v. Geico Insurance (Auto) · filed 2025-04-23

Here, although Plaintiffs list eleven “counts,” including, “federal conspiracy,” Plaintiffs’ claims do not arise under federal law or depend on resolution of questions of federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims for breach of fiduciary duties and legal malpractice.

Davis v. Missouri-Saint Louis County Courthouse · filed 2025-04-24

The remaining claims asserted in the Complaint are state law claims for breach of fiduciary duties and legal malpractice, and this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the complaint contains unsupported references to federal statutes or a federal remedy.

Jordan v. Amazon.com, Inc. · filed 2025-04-28

All three of those considerations support remand. To do otherwise would stretch federal jurisdiction beyond its constitutional, statutory, and systemic limits, requiring a federal court to decide purely state law claims simply because there is an unsupported reference to a federal remedy somewhere in the complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law medical-negligence claim that identifies no federal basis.

Speece v. Prime Care Medical, Inc. · filed 2025-04-29

Speece asserts a claim of medical negligence, but the complaint does not indicate a basis for federal jurisdiction over this state law claim.

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

Zahir v. Mercedes Benz-USA, LLP · filed 2025-04-30

The court notes that the court does not have federal question jurisdiction over this case, as the First Amended Complaint raises twelve state law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under state property or contract law when no claim arises under federal law.

Best v. Heckelsmiller · filed 2025-05-02

Both possible jurisdictional bases are lacking here. First, Plaintiff has not stated any claims arising under federal law. Plaintiff’s allegations appear to relate to property and/or contract law, both issues typically arising under state law.

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

Phillips v. Angel · filed 2025-05-06

Because Phillips’ negligence claim arises under state law, he has not established federal question jurisdiction.

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

Roberts v. Rayonier Forest Resources, LP · filed 2025-05-09

Federal-question jurisdiction was lacking because Roberts’s claim for wrongful timber removal under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-50 arose solely under state law, not federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates no cause of action and the claim presents no substantial dispute over federal law.

AuCopious, LLC v. SPG14, LLC · filed 2025-05-12

In sum, because the meaning or effect of R.S. 2477, or any other federal law, is not actually disputed and substantial to the determination of this action, and because R.S. 2477 does not give rise to an independent cause of action, it is not apparent from the face of the complaint that Plaintiffs’ claim “arises under” federal law.

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

Quinlan v. Puls · filed 2025-05-14

No federal question of law is presented by these claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and thus the Court has original jurisdiction over the claims only if the parties are of diverse citizenship from one another and more than $75,000 is at stake in this proceeding.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims based on ADA violations when the state law provides a damages remedy Congress did not authorize under the ADA.

Mossburg v. Home Depot, U.S.A, Inc. · filed 2025-05-15

Because federal courts do not have federal question jurisdiction over state law claims that incorporate federal statutes but that provide inconsistent remedies than those selected by Congress, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint alleges no facts supporting a claim arising under federal law.

Sposato v. Serrano · filed 2025-05-21

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. ... The claims asserted in Plaintiff’s complaint – negligence, legal malpractice, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty, arise under state law.

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

Crawford v. Peterson · filed 2025-05-27

Since Plaintiff has not alleged a claim arising under federal law, there is no federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law malpractice claim merely because the attorneys allegedly misunderstood or ignored federal law.

Piedrabuena v. Jaffe & Asher LLP · filed 2025-05-27

Therefore, there is no substantial question of federal law in this case simply because Defendants allegedly misunderstood, incorrectly interpreted, or otherwise ignored the dictates of the Federal Arbitration Act during their representation of Plaintiff.

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

Rose v. Stanley · filed 2025-05-27

However, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over state law claims, and may only exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims if the plaintiff has asserted viable federal claims, which Plaintiff has failed to do.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges facts sounding in state law and suggests no federal claim.

Cruzado v. Combs · filed 2025-05-27

Plaintiff does not invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, and the facts alleged sound in state law and do not suggest any obvious federal claim. Plaintiff thus does not show that the Court has federal question jurisdiction of this matter.

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

White v. Bailey · filed 2025-05-28

Because Plaintiff has only pled state law claims, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law malpractice and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims that do not arise under federal law.

Timmons v. Schreiber · filed 2025-06-02

Because these claims do not arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States[,]” this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over these claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment claims that involve no federal issue.

Valdastri v. Valdastri · filed 2025-06-02

Although Plaintiff also seems to invoke the Court’s federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Doc. 6 ¶¶ 8–12), this case does not involve any federal issues. Rather, Plaintiff brings state-law fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment claims. (Doc. 6). So no federal question exists.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting only an Arizona-law special detainer claim for unpaid rent.

Pacific Development Capital Incorporated v. Keefer · filed 2025-06-02

Thus, federal question jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint fails to plead a plausible claim arising under federal law.

Clark v. Hundington Bank · filed 2025-06-03

Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to invoke this court’s jurisdiction for a claim that arises under federal law.

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

Alvarez v. Morris Shea Bridge Company · filed 2025-06-05

Plaintiff does not allege any violation arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States upon which relief in this civil action may be premised.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a state law licensing claim that presents no federal question.

Ramani v. Warner Music Group Corp · filed 2025-06-05

These allegations suggest that Plaintiff is asserting a state law claim regarding his licensing agreement. The Court lacks federal question jurisdiction overPlaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over an ERISA claim when ERISA creates the right of action and supplies the substantive rules of decision.

Karkare v. Int'l Ass'n of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing · filed 2025-06-09

In any event, Karkare’s complaint also pleaded federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and we see no reason to doubt that the ERISA claim asserted here “arises under” federal law, since ERISA creates the section 502(a)(l)(B) private right of action and provides substantive rules of decision, and Congress has not otherwise divested federal courts of their adjudicatory authority.

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

Clark v. Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania · filed 2025-06-09

Nor did she plead federal question jurisdiction. Her complaint solely alleged a state-law medical-malpractice claim.

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

Thierry v. Albertson's Safeway, John Colgrove · filed 2025-06-09

Plaintiff’s complaint raises four claims, alleging violations of Cal. Civ. Code § 1714, Cal. Civ. Code § 2338, Cal. Ins. Code § 790.03, Cal. Bus. & Prof Code § 6106. These are state law claims. They do not give rise to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under federal law; invoking federal provisions that do not apply to the alleged facts does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Parkes v. NYU Langone Health · filed 2025-06-09

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 thus fails to state a viable claim under both 22 U.S.C. § 2702 or 21 C.F.R. § 50.25, and the allegations in the complaint do not suggest that she can state any other claims arising under federal law.

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

Lammers v. County of Phelps NE · filed 2025-06-10

This Court's ability to entertain Plaintiff’s claims arising under Nebraska tort law cannot be predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (original jurisdiction) or 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction), but instead must depend on 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), which provides that “in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the complaint states no federal-law claim.

Barbour v. Banda · filed 2025-06-10

Where Mr. Barbour fails to state a claim under federal law and fails to establish diversity jurisdiction, the court lacks jurisdiction over his state law claim.

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

Sola Real Estate Fund I LLC v. Smith · filed 2025-06-11

Here, the only claim asserted by plaintiff is for unlawful detainer against defendants. See dkt. 1 at 7. The Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must remand.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the pleaded facts show only a state-law claim and no federal-law claim.

Sparta v. Gilbert · filed 2025-06-11

Because Sparta does not assert facts showing that he has a valid claim under federal law, the case does not present a federal question for purposes of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that alleges no violation of the Constitution or federal law and contains no facts supporting one.

Lee v. State of Nevada · filed 2025-06-12

Here, Plaintiff alleges no violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States against Purrfect Auto. ECF No. 1-1. Indeed, there are no facts from which the Court could liberally construe such a claim. Thus, Plaintiff fails to establish a basis for the Court to exercise federal question jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint raises only state property law claims against private parties.

Pate v. Garden District Properties, LLC · filed 2025-06-16

Plaintiff's Complaint raises state property law claims against private citizens. Accordingly, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an intervenor's claims that arise entirely under state law.

PMC Casualty Corp v. Virginia Surety Company Inc. · filed 2025-06-19

Nor can PayLink argue this Court has federal-question jurisdiction over its claims. All of the claims PayLink intends to raise are based in state law, meaning none of the claims advanced in intervention arise under federal law.

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

Best v. Rebeyee · filed 2025-06-20

Such a claim does not arise under federal law. Thus, the Court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction of Plaintiff's claim against Defendant.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts only a state-law claim, even if the plaintiff says the case arises under federal law and invokes § 1983.

Ortiz v. Skilonger · filed 2025-06-26

Although Ortiz states that this case arises under federal law and that he is suing pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (see Doc. 1 at 4), he does not assert any claims for violation of federal law. His only claim for relief is a state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

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

Grant v. Steele · filed 2025-06-26

Here, Plaintiff asserts only state-law claims, and the facts alleged do not suggest that she can state any claims arising under federal law.

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

Colbert v. Robertson · filed 2025-07-01

Plaintiff only claims slander and fraud, which are state-law claims. ... Thus, federal subject matter jurisdiction cannot be based on § 1331.

Section 1331’s initial jurisdictional showing is met when malpractice allegations necessarily require examination of decisions made under the Bankruptcy Code.

Robbins v. Martin · filed 2025-07-02

While plaintiff may lodge an objection, the Court finds that defendants have met their initial burden to demonstrate the presence of federal jurisdiction. The allegations in the Complaint necessarily require the Court to examine decisions made under the bankruptcy code.

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

Ketchum v. Lakeview Loan Servicing LLC · filed 2025-07-14

First, notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ bald assertion, this case does not present a federal question or a civil rights question. The Complaint alleges common law fraud, which is a state law claim.

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

Waisanen v. Credit Collections Bureau · filed 2025-07-17

Because these claims do not arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over these claims.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over TVPA claims because the TVPA creates a federal cause of action.

Boniface v. Viliena · filed 2025-07-21

Here, the TVPA provides an express federal cause of action, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 note § 2(a), so TVPA claims "arise[] under" federal law, § 1331. Federal courts therefore have federal question subject-matter jurisdiction over TVPA claims.

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

Sumter v. Vandegraft · filed 2025-07-21

It appears that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim, as Plaintiff alleges a personal injury claim under Illinois law. See 735 ILCS 5/13-202; 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on the lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no claim arising under federal law; a HIPAA allegation cannot supply jurisdiction because HIPAA has no private right of action.

McNeal v. The Hartford Insurance Company · filed 2025-07-21

Because there is no private right of action under HIPAA, and the amended complaint does not otherwise suggest that Plaintiff’s claims arise under federal law, the Court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.

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

Solorzano v. Appleby · filed 2025-07-24

Here, subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331 or § 1332 does not exist. Although Plaintiff states he is invoking the Court’s jurisdiction under § 1331, see Compl. ¶ 4, Plaintiff does not identify, nor can the Court discern, a claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over insurance claims for breach of contract and violation of a Missouri statute when neither claim arises under federal law.

Four Brothers Investments LLC v. Acuity Insurance Company · filed 2025-07-24

Nothing in the Complaint suggests in the slightest that either claim arises under federal law.

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

Tate v. Culver & Cain Production · filed 2025-07-25

However, her state law claims of theft, fraud, breach of contract and unconscionability provide no basis for federal question jurisdiction. Nothing in the “Statement of Claim” refers to a violation of a federal statute or Constitutional provision.

Section 1331 does not give federal district courts original jurisdiction over claims based purely on state law.

MANZ v. SUPERCENTER · filed 2025-07-31

Here, because Plaintiff’s unfair trade practices, breach of contract, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of duty of care are based purely on state law, they are not claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction.

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

ARSENIS v. HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2025-07-31

These claims, however, arise from New Jersey tort law and thus do not arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Weeks v. SCC SPV I, LLC · filed 2025-08-04

The Complaint does not allege that the court has federal question jurisdiction, and the court does not see how it could: the Complaint’s two claims—for breach of contract and conversion (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 18–35)—do 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 when a property-damage claim arises solely under state law.

Oudorn v. Tucker · filed 2025-08-04

Here, Plaintiff’s allegations, i.e. Defendant caused property damage to her property, do not suggest a viable federal cause of action and instead her claims arise solely under state law. The Court therefore lacks federal question jurisdiction in this action.

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

Spotted Bear v. Poor Bear · filed 2025-08-06

Because the tort claims would arise under state law, Spotted Bear has not shown federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law personal-injury claim that raises no substantial, actually disputed federal question.

Ewa v. Vachris · filed 2025-08-06

The plaintiff’s cause of action for personal injury arises under state, not federal, law, and the amended complaint does not raise any substantial or actually disputed federal questions.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint fails to state a claim arising under federal law.

Bennett v. Robinhood Financial LLC · filed 2025-08-07

As a result, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim of racial discrimination and thus no federal question exists.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a dispute concerning the validity of a real-property sale contract that does not arise under federal law.

Scott v. Kallimi · filed 2025-08-14

However, Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendants concern the validity of a contract for the sale of the real property at issue, which does not arise under federal law.

An ADA claim and an Unruh Act claim based on the same alleged ADA violations arise under federal law for purposes of § 1331.

Perez v. ZF Investments, Inc. · filed 2025-08-15

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’s claims clearly arise under federal law. The first cause of action asserts that the Property fails to comply with ADA standards. (FAC ¶¶ 41–58). And the second cause of action alleges that the ADA violations also violate the Unruh Act. (Id. ¶¶ 59–67).

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

McMillan v. NANA Corporation · filed 2025-08-18

Civil assault, battery, and negligence claims do not arise under U.S. Constitution or a federal statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims for legal malpractice, negligence, or fraud.

Nwoga v. Silverman, Thompson, Slukin and White · filed 2025-08-19

However, despite Plaintiff’s assertion of a federal question, none exists in this case. Legal malpractice, negligence, and fraud suits are questions of state law, not federal, and do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over civil RICO claims because they arise under federal law.

Xlink Resource Group, LLC v. Expo Petroleum Oil and Gas, LLC · filed 2025-08-20

Plaintiff brought this case under 18 U.S.C. § 1962, the Civil RICO statute (See Dkt. #61). The Court obviously has subject matter jurisdiction as these claims arise under federal law.

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

Ogidi-Ghigbaje v. Riseboro Housing · filed 2025-08-21

Plaintiff’s claims, which are for alleged violations of New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51, and New York Penal Law § 250.05, do not provide any basis for the exercise of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the complaint mentions a separate federal lawsuit unrelated to the claims’ elements.

Walton v. Stroffolino · filed 2025-08-25

For all these reasons, this Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, making Defendants’ removal improper.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the federal issue is neither necessarily raised nor substantial.

Arizona, State of v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC · filed 2025-08-26

The Court therefore finds the federal issue here is not necessarily raised. ... The Court therefore finds the federal issue is not substantial.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim only when the claim necessarily raises an actually disputed, substantial federal issue that can be resolved in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance.

Greco v. O'Donnell · filed 2025-08-26

State law claims give rise to federal question jurisdiction only when: “‘a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting [Congress's] federal-state balance.’” ... Plaintiff fails the first requirement of this test.

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

Board of Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers' Local 9 Pension Trust v. Moosh Inc. · filed 2025-09-09

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

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

Brame v. Hubbard Auto Center of Scottsdale · filed 2025-09-10

These broadly stated claims do not assert a federal question and create no subject matter jurisdiction for this Court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when state-law claims merely reference federal law without requiring its interpretation or raising a federal issue.

Prytania Media LLC v. Netease, Inc. · filed 2025-09-11

Here, plaintiffs’ claims reference federal law but does not require interpretation or raise federal issues to confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction over a discrimination claim construed as arising under Title VII.

Ngam v. Kludt · filed 2025-09-12

Thus, because Title VII claims arise under federal law, this Court has federal question jurisdiction over Ngam’s discrimination claim.

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

Modero v. Norada Equity, Inc. · filed 2025-09-12

Mere references to federal law do not transform state-law claims into federal law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a challenge to a civil traffic citation that is purely a matter of state law.

Johnson-El · filed 2025-09-12

Central here, as to subject-matter jurisdiction, it found that federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is lacking, because the underlying civil traffic citation that Johnson-El challenges “is purely a matter of state law,” id. at 4, and that diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)() is lacking, because the parties all appear to be citizens of New York, id. at 4-5. The Court adopts this well-reasoned analysis, which is facially sound.

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

Spitters v. Spitters · filed 2025-09-16

Mr. Spitters’ complaint does not provide a clear basis for federal-question jurisdiction. All of his claims appear to be tort claims arising under state law. ... Mr. Spitters does not allege any violation of a federal statute, and his complaint does not otherwise appear to implicate federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges only state law claims and does not suggest that the claims arise under federal law.

Hilton · filed 2025-09-17

Accordingly, because the amended complaint does not suggest that Plaintiffs’ claims arise under federal law, the Court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on federal statutory claims raised in response to a state-court proceeding.

Blyden v. Watkins · filed 2025-09-24

Additionally, assertions of federal statutory claims in response to the state court proceeding, to the extent Watkins attempts to assert such claims, are insufficient to invoke the federal court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state tort or breach-of-contract claims that raise no federal issue.

Jackson v. Herbert · filed 2025-09-25

Both tort claims and breach of contract claims arise under state, not federal, law, and are not a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts subject matter jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of federal statutes.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Lee · filed 2025-09-30

Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction to hear disputes “arising under” federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, the complaint accuses Lee and Chunga of violating two federal statutes: the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 112–121 (alleging violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a), 77e(c), 77q(a), & 78j(b)). The claims thus arise under federal law, and this Court has subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law.

Lefevra · filed 2025-10-24

Federal district courts have original subject matter jurisdiction over cases where a plaintiff (1) brings a claim arising under federal law; or (2) brings a claim under state law against a defendant who is domiciled in another state, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Mr. Lefevra’s action against Doucette does not fit into either category.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a federal issue is only an alternative theory supporting a state-law claim.

Totten · filed 2025-10-24

The mere invocation of the U.S. Constitution as part of the claim at best asserts an alternative theory of liability, which is not enough to trigger this Court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over ordinary negligence claims that raise questions of state law.

SAC · filed 2025-10-27

These are quintessential negligence claims, and such claims typically raise questions of state—not federal—law and do not support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, including claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Trust · filed 2025-10-27

The instant Complaint asserts claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 (“FCRA”), for alleged inaccurate credit reporting involving the contract and vehicle at issue. See Compl., ¶¶ 18-19. This claim falls within the original jurisdiction of the federal district courts.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over garden-variety state-law claims.

Towner · filed 2025-10-28

The remaining causes of action are garden-variety state-law claims, none of which are sufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331.

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

Sun · filed 2025-10-29

Because Plaintiff is domiciled in North Carolina, and she alleges claims against numerous North Carolina citizens— none of which involve a federal question—she has not cured the deficiency that resulted in her original Complaint being dismissed. Because the Court does not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims, it will deny her Motions and the matter will remain closed.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law tort claim when the complaint states no federal claim.

Herr · filed 2025-10-30

Tort claims arise under state law, not federal law. Federal courts cannot consider and decide lawsuits alleging violations of state law unless the plaintiffs live in a different state from every defendant (and the amount of claimed damages exceeds $75,000), or unless the state-law claims relate to a federal claim. See 28 U.S.C. §1331 (federal question jurisdiction); §1332 (diversity jurisdiction). ... The complaint does not state any federal claims; as the court has determined, the plaintiffs do not appear to have stated a claim for violation of the automatic stay (even if that were this court’s decision to make, which it is not), so the court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. The court has no jurisdiction to consider a tort claim (or any other state law claims) against Halloin.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over claims under the FLSA.

Thomas · filed 2025-11-05

Because the FLSA is a federal statute, the Court has federal question jurisdiction over Thomas’s FLSA claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law slip-and-fall claim merely because the complaint invokes constitutional rights.

Anderson · filed 2025-11-05

As Plaintiff has not raised an issue arising under federal law, his claim against Defendants does not satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Cain · filed 2025-11-06

A federal court may generally adjudicate a claim that arises under federal law, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or if all of the requirements for diversity of citizenship are met, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has established neither federal question nor diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not assert any claims arising out of federal law; instead, Plaintiff’s tort claims for fraud and conversion arise exclusively out of state law.

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

Gilbert v. Henry Ford Hospital · filed 2025-11-06

Gilbert cites no federal statute, treatise, or provision of the U.S. Constitution upon which her claims are based. ... At bottom, there is no federal- question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986.

City of Springfield, Ohio v. The Blood Tribe · filed 2025-11-13

In this case, the Court finds it nonsensical to suggest that Plaintiffs have failed to invoke a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that asserts only state-law claims and no federal cause of action.

Alvarez · filed 2025-11-13

However, the complaint asserts no federal cause of action. ... Thus, there is no basis to invoke this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when a claim arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Knight v. Bell · filed 2025-11-14

The Complaint does not present a claim arising under “the Constitution [or] laws . . . of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor establish diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties; a claim based on church bylaws does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Harrison · filed 2025-11-17

There does not appear to be federal question jurisdiction either. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a case arising under the United States Constitution or federal laws or treaties is a federal question case. Plaintiff’s claim is based on an alleged breach of fiduciary duty under the by-laws of the Church.

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

ELMILLIGY · filed 2025-11-24

WHEREAS Plaintiff’s remaining cause of action alleges negligence by Defendant CVS for breaching its duty of care, which is a state-law tort claim that does not arise under the Constitution or federal law.2 Therefore, no federal question jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only tortious conduct and no claim implicating federal law.

Emrit · filed 2025-11-24

Plaintiff’s Complaint only alleges tortious conduct by Defendants, (Compl., Dkt. 1, at ECF 10–12), and therefore does not satisfy the requirements for federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Ordonez v. USAA, No. 11-CV-5286 (HB), 2013 WL 837599, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2013) (concluding that, because a plaintiff “brings only state tort claims and does not bring any cause of action implicating federal law,” the court lacked federal question jurisdiction).

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims that assert causes of action created by federal law.

WILLIAMS v. SIERRA DONOR SERVICES, et al. · filed 2025-11-25

In both claims, plaintiff asserts a cause of action that is created by federal law and, therefore, the court has jurisdiction over both claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no federal basis for claims that arise from state law.

Talhame · filed 2025-12-04

However, she fails to identify any federal law, treatise, or constitutional provision that give rise to her claims. Her allegation that she was wrongfully evicted from her apartment appears to fundamentally arise from state law. Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Reid · filed 2025-12-09

Here, any potential innocent (or fraudulent) misrepresentation claim would be based on state law, not federal law, and it would therefore not trigger “federal question jurisdiction.”

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

Eldridge · filed 2025-12-10

Plaintiffs’ claim—that the City’s ordinance enforcement violates the Garden Act—does not arise under federal law and thus cannot be heard under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over Title VII and ADA retaliation claims because federal law creates those claims.

Zarco · filed 2025-12-11

One of the statutory bases for subject matter jurisdiction is federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, Plaintiff alleges claims of retaliation under Title VII and the ADA. These claims are both created by federal law. Thus, the court has federal subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, including claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Zajradhara · filed 2025-12-17

As to Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, the Court has original subject-matter jurisdiction—specifically, federal-question jurisdiction—over the claim because Plaintiff’s claim “aris[es] under the . . . laws . . . of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Odle · filed 2025-12-31

Odle also cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction because his claims arising under South Dakota state law do not arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; when the asserted federal claim has no basis, federal-question jurisdiction is lacking.

Thompson · filed 2025-12-31

As there is no claim arising under federal law, this Court does not have federal subject-matter jurisdiction, and Count 1 is dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law breach-of-settlement claim that requires no resolution of a substantial federal question.

Palekaiko Beachboys Club, Inc. v. City · filed 2026-01-02

The breach-of-settlement claim is purely a question of state law and does not require the resolution of any questions of federal law, let alone substantial ones.

Section 1331 requires at least one claim arising under federal law; a complaint asserting only a state-law claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Jermain Din Washington, Jr. v. Honeycomb Programs Inc. · filed 2026-01-07

FEHA is a California state law, and federal question jurisdiction exists only where at least one claim in the complaint arises under federal law.

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

Segerson · filed 2026-01-08

Plaintiffs allege only state law claims. State law claims do not involve the Constitution or a federal law or treaty. Therefore, the Court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of a federal question.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff brings a claim created by federal law, even if the complaint also includes state-law claims.

Ramos · filed 2026-01-13

As Defendants emphasize in their opposition, Plaintiffs’ argument is unavailing because “[f]ederal question jurisdiction exists where a plaintiff states a cause of action created by federal law.” ... Because Plaintiff brings a claim under the FMLA—a federal law—Defendants’ removal of this action to this federal court was proper.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a suit asserting a violation of the Constitution or federal law.

Hearne v. Smylie · filed 1964-01-10

And since Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L. Ed. 939 (1946) — at least — it appears to have been settled that the mere assertion by a plaintiff of any claim of violation of any provision of the Constitution or laws of the United States is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. Plaintiffs' action then plainly falls within the general "federal-question" jurisdiction of this Court [28 U. S.C. § 1331] and, State action being challenged [cf. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961)], Federal jurisdiction conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) is properly invoked under the Civil Rights Act [see 42 U.S.C. § 1983].

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim created by state law merely because resolving it may require interpreting federal statutes.

Guardianship of Prieto v. City of Palm Springs · filed 1971-06-28

Nor can plaintiff bootstrap himself on the Federal question jurisdiction permitted in 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The gravamen of plaintiff’s claim is the interference with a reasonable expectancy. Plaintiff’s claim is created by State not Federal law. Although the status of the City’s zoning ordinance as it affects plaintiff’s property may require some interpretation of the grants of jurisdiction in Federal statutes, State courts are totally competent to make those interpretations.

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

James · filed 2026-01-14

As Plaintiff’s state-law claims do not “arise” under a federal law, these claims cannot confer jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Shears · filed 2026-01-15

Plaintiff only alleges violations of state law and the Court therefore lacks federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.

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

Mendoza · filed 2026-01-15

Judge Baldwin explained that Mr. Mendoza’s legal malpractice claim arises under state law. (Id.) As a result, there is no federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Id.) Additionally, because both parties are citizens of Nevada and the amount in controversy is only $12,500.00, there is no diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Id.) The Court agrees with the magistrate judge's reasoning and adopts her R&R in full.

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

Walker · filed 2026-01-16

Plaintiff only claims a violation of Michigan law. A federal claim is not plausibly alleged even when construing the pleading liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Thus, federal subject matter jurisdiction cannot be based on § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over breach-of-contract and negligence claims that present no federal question.

Dubensky · filed 2026-01-20

Breach of contract and negligence claims are not federal questions. The Court therefore does not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Livingston v. Karl Storz Endoscopy-America · filed 2026-01-22

The Court therefore has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only state-law claims without a federal ground for jurisdiction.

LATIA NOAH; JUSTIN GOTTFRIED; JUSTIN GOTTFRIED, as next friend to the Estate and Statutory Beneficiaries of Sgt. Steven · filed 2026-01-23

Here, Plaintiff brings state law claims and does not provide any grounds for the Court to exercise federal question or diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a complaint alleging violations of federal law.

Micheaux · filed 2026-01-27

So, the court—based on plaintiffs’ own Amended Complaint—had federal-question jurisdiction over this dispute.

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

Love · filed 2026-01-27

Ms. Love’s state law negligence claim under “RCW 11.110.050” does not establish federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (establishing “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”).

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

Schuster · filed 2026-01-28

The Schusters also cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction because they do not identify any claims arising “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 alleges only state-law claims.

Johnson v. Wale Apparatus Co. · filed 2026-01-30

And Plaintiff alleges only state law claims, so the Court may not exercise federal question jurisdiction either.

Section 1331 does not require federal claims to predominate over state claims for federal-question jurisdiction to exist.

Seeley · filed 2026-02-02

Federal question jurisdiction does not weigh the federal causes of action against the state causes of action or ask which predominates.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts a claim created by federal law.

Williams v. CertainTeed LLC · filed 2026-02-02

Furthermore, the Complaint properly conferred federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s Complaint asserted a claim under Title VII, which is a federal law that created Plaintiff’s cause of action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint’s allegations support no claim arising under federal law.

Zitterkopf · filed 2026-02-06

Here, even when liberally construed, the Complaint does not clearly or distinctly establish the federal court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the factual allegations therein do not support any claim against any defendant arising under federal law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint includes claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Pigee · filed 2026-02-09

Defendant has removed to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because the Complaint includes claims under the FCRA, and that statute expressly grants this Court jurisdiction to hear such claims. ... Defendant properly asserts federal question and supplemental jurisdiction, and the Court finds them applicable to support removal.

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

Fornara · filed 2026-02-10

Without any federal, constitutional or other claims arising under federal law, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction.