28 U.S.C. § 1331

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

O'Bryant · filed 2026-02-11

But, an action for breach of contract arises under Missouri state law, not the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over claims arising solely under D.C. or state law.

Wright · filed 2026-02-20

Since the claims do not arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” the court does not have jurisdiction to resolve them under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and Wright cannot establish that diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

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

Saini · filed 2026-02-20

Nor does the Court have federal question jurisdiction over the state torts arising under Maryland law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a complaint cites a federal statute that the claim does not implicate.

Allen · filed 2026-02-25

In sum, plaintiff hasn’t alleged a viable basis for federal-question jurisdiction because his Complaint doesn’t implicate the only federal statute he cited, 15 U.S.C. § 3901.

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

Coffield · filed 2026-02-27

And the parties have stipulated that none of Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants arise under federal law for purposes of federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See ECF No. 9-1. Instead, the only claims in this case are state-law claims, and the Court is mindful that the parties support remand.

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

DeLancy · filed 2026-02-27

Nor do any of Plaintiff's claims against the remaining Defendants arise under federal law for purposes of federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

ELMILLIGY · filed 2026-03-06

Plaintiff’s Complaint purports this Court has jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 yet asserts causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count One), tortious interference with economic advantage (Count Two), and civil conspiracy (Count Three). ... WHEREAS given that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to identify a federal cause of action and there is no indication as to the monetary value of his state law claims, this Court concludes it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions asserting claims under federal statutes.

Clowney v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2026-03-09

First, Plaintiff’s original complaint asserts claims under two federal statutes: Title VII and the FCRA. Dkt. 1-1 at 4 (Compl.). Those claims suffice to establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have 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 a complaint asserts only state law claims.

WEST · filed 2026-03-13

Because Plaintiff does not bring any claims under federal law, federal question jurisdiction cannot provide this Court with subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Gordon · filed 2026-03-17

The court does not have jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state-law tort claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over a Communications Act claim because it arises under federal law.

Bloosurf, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. · filed 2026-03-19

Bloosurf ’s Communications Act claim arises under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory relief claim concerning only state property law.

Densley · filed 2026-03-24

Moreover, the § 2201 declaratory relief claim does not give rise to federal question jurisdiction.

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

Sloan · filed 2026-03-24

But this claim does not arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. It arises under Indiana law.

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

Kaufmann · filed 2026-03-25

Also, this Court does not have jurisdiction over this claim because it does not arise under federal law or the Constitution.

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

King Brandon Moore Bey v. American Express National Bank · filed 2026-03-26

The court does not have federal question jurisdiction over Count One because breach of contract is a common law doctrine that does not “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges federal constitutional claims, even if it also alleges related state-law claims.

Clarke · filed 2026-03-30

Applying the well- pleaded complaint rule, the Court agrees with the City that Mr. Clarke’s inclusion of claims arising under the state constitution or state tort law that are based on the same operative facts that he relies on to allege deprivations of his federal constitutional rights does not defeat federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a state law claim that pleads no federal cause of action and presents no substantial federal issue.

Neal · filed 2026-03-30

Plaintiff does not plead a federal cause of action. Nor has Defendant identified a substantial issue of federal jurisdiction over a state law claim. Therefore, this case involves no federal question.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when the complaint asserts claims arising under federal law, including § 1983 claims for violations of federal constitutional rights.

Sharp · filed 2026-03-30

Accordingly, the Court properly exercises federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under the Constitution or federal law, but not claims arising solely under state law.

Baldwin · filed 2026-03-31

Plaintiff does not allege jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Plaintiff has made no claim of a violation of the Constitution or other federal laws. Accordingly, this Court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction.

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

Mukaabya · filed 2026-03-31

Plaintiff also fails to identify a federal question concerning her claims against Attorney Hall.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over defamation and malicious harassment claims that have no federal cause of action.

Rodgers · filed 2026-04-06

These are state-law torts for which there is no federal cause of action. ... Thus, the Court may not exercise “federal question” jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Combel · filed 2026-04-07

Plaintiff’s amended complaint makes no claims under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, and thus the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that can be decided without resolving a federal issue.

Acton Academy v. Apogee Summit Colorado LLC · filed 2026-04-08

Accordingly, because plaintiff’s breach of contract claim can be decided on state-law issues, it does not necessarily raise a federal issue.

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

Thompson · filed 2026-04-17

Under § 1331, federal district courts have jurisdiction over cases arising out of federal law, including federal statutes and the United States Constitution.

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

Harling · filed 2026-04-23

Claims that arise under state law cannot be brought in this Court based on federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, including FCRA claims.

Hall · filed 2026-04-30

Because Hall’s FCRA claim arises under a federal law, JPMorgan Chase has invoked federal question jurisdiction, and Hall’s motion to remand on that ground is denied.

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

JAMES · filed 2026-05-13

Claims for malpractice, negligence, and conversion all arise under state—not federal—law.

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

Maynard · filed 2026-05-15

Maynard also fails to establish federal-question jurisdiction because, liberally construed, his complaint only asserts a state-law medical malpractice claim, which does not arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over cases involving federal law, but does not provide jurisdiction over a standalone case involving only state-law claims.

Mims v. Brown · filed 2026-05-28

This court has jurisdiction over cases involving federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or cases between citizens of different states that involve more than $75,000 in damages sought, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This court does not have jurisdiction to hear a case involving exclusively state-law claims between parties from the same state, which appears to be the case for plaintiff, Morris, and Wilson, so it will not sever plaintiff’s state-law claims from the federal ones.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because they concern loans under the CARES Act.

Cooper · filed 2026-05-29

Accordingly, plaintiff’s reliance on the CARES Act as a federal law underlying his state law claims is insufficient to create federal question jurisdiction.

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

American Federation of Government Employees, Afl-Cio v. Trump · filed 2026-06-17

As an initial matter, we agree with the district court that it had jurisdiction over this case. AFGE’s claims plainly arise under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Kimble · filed 2026-06-18

The court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state driver’s-license suspension claim without a pleaded federal basis.

Allen v. State of North Carolina · filed 2026-06-22

Allen has failed to plead a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. He challenges the suspension of his state driver’s license, which is “a quintessential state law question.”

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

Weise · filed 2026-06-23

Because Richmond’s state-law claims do not arise under federal law, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over them.

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

Schuster · filed 2026-06-23

Schuster also cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction because he does 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 over an action to enforce § 4651’s land acquisition guidelines when § 4602 gives the plaintiff no enforceable rights under those guidelines.

Bunker Properties, Inc. v. Kemp · filed 1981-10-16

No purpose would be served by repeating that history here; suffice it to say that this Court agrees with the conclusion the Barn-hart court reached: ... Secondly, if one has no rights under section 301, we conclude that an action against a state agency under section 301 does not ‘arise under’ the Constitution or laws of the United States within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) (1970). Federal question jurisdiction is thus effectively barred.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim when federal law controls the agreement’s interpretation and enforcement.

Eatmon v. Bristol Steel & Iron Works · filed 1985-09-03

Since federal law controls the enforcement and construction of executive order conciliation agreements, resolution of appellees' cause of action, based on their status as third-party beneficiaries of the agreement, will require interpretation and application of federal law. Thus, even though the right and the remedy of appellees' cause of action are created by state law, their cause of action, nonetheless, "arise[s] under federal law" for purposes of section 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim under the River and Harbor Improvements Act because that Act creates no express or implied private right of action.

Gallenthin Realty Development, Inc. v. BP Products of North America, Inc. · filed 2006-01-24

Because no private right of action – either express or implied – is provided by the River and Harbor Improvements Act, the District Court properly concluded that the Act cannot serve as a basis for the exercise of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law wrongful termination claim merely because federal law supplies the public policy allegedly violated.

Eastman v. Marine Mechanical · filed 2006-02-15

Given these concerns, and following the analytical methodology laid down by recent Supreme Court precedent, we hold that a state-law employment action for wrongful termination in violation of federal public policy does not present a substantial federal question over which federal courts may exercise “arising under” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Laurent v. U.S. Trustee · filed 2006-07-14

Furthermore, the district court correctly determined that no federal question jurisdiction existed because Laurent’s claims were based on state common law torts, specifically the torts of fraud, breach of contract, misconduct, and misrepresentation.

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

Ayenu v. Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. · filed 2007-07-31

Because Ayenu’s claims do not arise “under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States,” this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2006).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges a violation of federal law, even if it also includes state-law claims.

Potomac Conference Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Takoma Academy Alumni Ass'n · filed 2014-03-04

Plaintiff correctly states that the court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 based on claims brought under the Lanham Act. ... Plaintiffs allegations support federal question jurisdiction despite the presence of state law claims.

Section 1331(a) does not independently provide federal-question jurisdiction over a contract claim that does not itself arise under federal law.

Heritage Land Co. v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. · filed 1983-10-27(a)

The plaintiff alleges jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). As its claim of a breach of a loan commitment contract does not itself “arise under” the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, jurisdiction must be predicated upon 12 U.S.C. § 1819 (fourth), which provides that all actions to which the FDIC is a party are “deemed” to arise under federal law.

Federal-question jurisdiction does not extend to a state-law claim whose right to relief depends on applying a federal statute that provides no private remedy.

Minnesota v. Pharmacia Corp. · filed 2003-08-20

While the circuit caselaw is not unanimous on the sweep of Merrell Dow, the First Circuit and a number of other courts read Merrell Dow as an instruction to remand state-law claims like Minnesota’s, where the right to relief depends on the application of a federal statute that does not provide a private remedy.

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

Batterham v. Khalsa Resorts, Inc. · filed 2014-10-07

The district court properly dismissed the Batterhams’ action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because there was not complete diversity between the parties at the time the action was commenced and there was no basis for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not authorize a state-law claim without allegations establishing a basis for federal jurisdiction over that claim.

Hunter Killer Productions, Inc. v. AKA Wireless, Inc. · filed 2020-07-17

Yet Plaintiff’s bases for jurisdiction are 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, without any jurisdictional allegations that would authorize the inclusion of this state-law claim.

Section 1331 requires a basis for federal question jurisdiction; a complaint asserting only state law claims does not establish one.

(PS)Murphy v. Allstate Insurance Company · filed 2020-08-28

The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332, confer “federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal question jurisdiction requires that the complaint (1) arise under a federal law or the U. S. Constitution, (2) allege a “case or controversy” within the meaning of Article III, § 2 of the U. S. Constitution, or (3) be authorized by a federal statute that both regulates a specific subject matter and confers federal jurisdiction. ... As a threshold matter, plaintiff’s fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction. He asserts only state law claims but does not allege facts showing that the court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a quiet title claim arising solely under state law merely because the pleading references federal law.

Melody J. Liddell v. Claiming any Legal or Equitable Rig · filed 2022-06-15

Where, as here, an action only asserts state law claims and does not name diverse parties, federal subject matter jurisdiction does not exist. ... Indeed, courts in this district have previously dismissed quiet title actions on the ground that a state law claim for quiet title does not present a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The court finds that, despite the arguments raised by Petitioner in her May 20, 2022, OSC Response, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this quiet title action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a personal injury claim that alleges no claim arising under the Constitution or federal statutes.

Timmons v. Floyd · filed 2023-08-18

The Magistrate Judge noted Plaintiff and Defendant are both citizens of South Carolina and Plaintiff has not alleged a claim arising under the Constitution or federal statutes. ... Nevertheless, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the R & R and agrees with the Magistrate Judge's findings that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction based on a state negligence statute.

Osornio v. Geico · filed 2020-05-21

Plaintiff cites A.R.S. § 28-662 ... as a basis for the Court’s jurisdiction; however, A.R.S. § 28-662 is a state law negligence ... statute and does not provide the Court with federal question jurisdiction.

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

Bradley v. Bradley · filed 2022-07-01

And because Plaintiff only brings claims under Arizona state law, ... federal question jurisdiction does not exist either.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction when a complaint alleges a claim under a federal statute.

Bruno v. U.S. Renal Care, Inc. · filed 2022-07-05

Plaintiff, however, does not address the court’s federal question jurisdiction, which arises from the fact that the Complaint alleged a cause of action under a federal statute, the FCRA.

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

Golian v. N.Y.C. Admin. for Children Servs. · filed 2017-10-16

Federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not lie to adjudicate Golian's state law claims, and Golian does not assert diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction when the operative complaint raises an FDCPA claim.

Gentile v. American Express Company · filed 2022-09-29

Significantly, in that amended pleading, Plaintiff again raised the previously withdrawn claims under the FDCPA. ... Accordingly, the Court agrees with Judge Bloom’s determination that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction in this matter.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that state officials violated state law, even when federal law required the state to enact that law.

Morris v. Danna · filed 1976-04-01

Even though creation of this State law was mandated by Congress (a fact also true in Swann), violation of the State law is a matter of State concern and raises no Federal question. ... There is no jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331(a) covers a claim challenging the application of federal law and regulations to a prisoner’s compensation request.

Berry v. Federal Prison Industries, Inc. · filed 1977-11-17(a)

Under these circumstances, it cannot be denied that the action arises under federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law malicious prosecution claim when a pivotal question of federal law is essential to that claim.

Sweeney v. Abramovitz · filed 1978-03-13

Predicating federal jurisdiction on this type of “arising under” analysis may not be appropriate every time a successful defendant, sued under a federal statute, claims malicious prosecution by his erstwhile plaintiff. But it is entirely appropriate to recognize such jurisdiction here to make sure that a federal forum is available to guard against the possibility that a malicious prosecution action might be used to deter the use of § 1983 and thereby undermine the important rights that statute was enacted to protect.

Section 1331(a) treats a union’s claim that a public transit agency breached an employee protection agreement required by federal law as arising under federal law.

Division 1287, Amalgamated Transit Union, Afl-Cio v. Kansas City Area Transportation Authority · filed 1978-09-21(a)

Although the question is not free from doubt, we now hold that a controversy between a public transit agency and a labor union involving a claim of breach of a § 13(c) agreement is a controversy that arises under the laws of the United States.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state-law wrongful-discharge claim merely because resolving it may require construing a federal statute.

Brown Bros. Home Center, Inc. v. First National Bank · filed 1981-06-09(a)

A central issue in the lawsuit will be whether delayed imposition of sentence following plaintiff’s plea of guilty to burglary in state court is a “conviction” as that term is used in 12 U.S.C. § 1829. Quite obviously, the issue involves a construction of the term “conviction.” For jurisdictional purposes, the question is whether construction of that term in the federal statute raises a “federal question” sufficient to invoke this court’s jurisdiction. I hold that it does not.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a declaratory-judgment claim requires the court to interpret a federal statute.

Passman v. Companhia De Navegacao Maritima Netumar · filed 1982-07-09

Rather, he seeks a declaratory judgment which involves a construction of the LHWCA. Thus, “plaintiff’s complaint discloses a need to interpret a federal law.” Verlinden B. V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 647 F.2d 320, 326 (2d Cir. 1981), cert. granted,-U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 997, 71 L.Ed.2d 291 (1982), and jurisdiction is properly predicated upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331(a) does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law intentional-tort claim merely because the Warsaw Convention affects the suit.

Hill v. United Airlines · filed 1982-10-27(a)

This is a lawsuit for an intentional tort arising under the common law of various states. It does not arise under the “Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States,” and jurisdiction is therefore present because of diversity of citizenship between the respective parties. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331(a) and 1332.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a state-law claim only when the claim necessarily requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

SCOPE IND. v. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom · filed 1983-12-06

Under the “arising under” standards of the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit, whether this action was properly removed depends on whether determination of plaintiffs’ state-created claim of malicious prosecution necessarily requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law. ... For the reasons stated, I conclude that this malicious prosecution action does not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because state law incorporates federal law by reference.

Buethe v. Britt Airlines, Inc. · filed 1984-12-11

The problem with this argument is that a claim does not arise under federal law merely because a state law incorporates federal law by reference.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because state law incorporates federal definitions.

Department of Banking & Finance v. U.S. Trust Corp. · filed 1985-06-05

This action was improvidently removed because the Complaint states a claim under Florida law, and does not allege a cause of action “arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” There is thus no federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as alleged by the Defendants.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over a state-law breach-of-contract claim merely because the contract refers to federal law or the defendant calls the claim federal.

Wolst v. American Airlines, Inc. · filed 1987-06-30

Wolst has chosen a simple breach-of-contract action. ... That is not a federally-based claim at all, and American’s labeling it as such does not make it so.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim unless a federal issue is essential to the plaintiff’s right to relief.

Bally v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n · filed 1988-02-08

Federal jurisdiction exists only where an issue of federal law is essential to plaintiff’s claim; it does not exist where no more can be shown than that a federal context is relevant to that claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a third-party complaint that raises only a state-law contract issue and alleges no cause of action arising under federal law.

O'Halloran v. University of Washington · filed 1988-09-08

The University’s claim is no more than a request that the King County Superior Court deny enforcement of the NCAA membership agreement’s terms because the University has a defense that excuses non-performance. Thus the complaint presents a pure question of state law. The University did not purport to allege a cause of action arising under federal law.

Section 1331 gives a district court subject matter jurisdiction when a complaint alleges a claim arising under a federal statute.

Cherokee Express, Inc. v. Cherokee Express, Inc. · filed 1991-01-24

When there is an allegation, as here, that the plaintiffs claim arises under a federal statute, such as the Interstate Commerce Act, the district court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the catchall federal question provision.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state negligence claim merely because one theory relies on a federal statute that provides no private cause of action.

Coardes v. Chrysler Corp. · filed 1992-03-02

For the reasons set forth above, the Court holds that plaintiffs’ negligence claim does not arise under federal law for purposes of federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim against the Secretary arising under the Medicaid Act.

Banks v. Secretary Of Indiana Family And Social Services Administration · filed 1993-06-15

First, the plaintiffs rely on 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the general federal question statute, and we conclude that their claim against the Secretary is one that arises under the Medicaid Act.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law; a claim concerning the distribution of a decedent’s estate does not establish that jurisdiction.

Perkins v. Social Security · filed 1994-04-11

The law is clear that the district courts have jurisdiction to act in matters involving citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000 and in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. ... Applying these principles and giving to Mr. Perkins the most liberal construction of his pleadings and representations to the court, we can reach no other conclusion but that this court is vested with neither jurisdiction nor venue to act in this matter.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim based on a federal statute when that statute gives the plaintiffs no private right of action.

F. David Seinfeld, Leatrice Seinfeld, Frederick Seinfeld v. K. Frank Austen, Duane L. Burnham, H. Laurance Fuller · filed 1994-12-19

Because plaintiffs could not have sued originally in federal court, plaintiffs’ state law breach of fiduciary duty claim does not “arise under” federal law. As there is no original federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, removal jurisdiction was improperly exercised and the action must be remanded to state court.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action that seeks relief on federal grounds even when it also asserts state-law grounds.

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. MFS Communications Co., Inc. · filed 1995-09-19

Finally, nothing in La Chemise Lacoste suggests that alternative assertions of federal and state causes of action preclude the exercise of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a claim arising under federal law even if the claim is later dismissed.

In Re Ford Motor Co. Ignition Switch Products Liability Litigation · filed 1998-08-27

After plaintiffs amended their complaint, this court continued to have subject matter jurisdiction over the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, bécause plaintiffs had brought a claim “arising under” a federal statute, the Magnuson-Moss Act.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when claims framed under state law are, in substance, federal claims.

Olguin Arroyo v. State Election Board · filed 1998-11-30

The -Court believes that the true essence of Plaintiffs claims are federal, even though they opt to characterize them as state law claims. For this reason, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction over the case at issue.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a federal issue may affect damages but is not central to a state-law claim.

Maggio-Onorato and Associates, Inc. v. NV · filed 2000-06-28

Issues regarding MOA’s compliance with ERISA could eventually play a role in the calculation of its damages. Nonetheless, these issues are not “central to plaintiffs’ basic contentions of breach by defendant^] to plaintiffs of duties owed by defendants] to plaintiffs.” ... In short, this is not the rare case where federal jurisdiction is conferred despite the absence of a cause of action not created by federal law.

A state-law claim with a federal element arises under § 1331 only if the federal right is essential to the claim, interpreting it is necessary, and the federal question is substantial.

Hinojosa v. Perez · filed 2002-02-26

Under Howery, a complaint arises under federal law when it states a cause of action created by state law, and (1) a federal right is an essential element of the state claim, (2) interpretation of the federal right is necessary to resolve the case, and (3) the question of federal law is substantial. ... Analyzing this second prong of the Howery test, it is clear that Plaintiffs claim does not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a state-law negligence claim invokes federal regulations when those regulations provide no private federal remedy and do not completely preempt the claim.

Burton v. Southwood Door Co., Mea, Inc. · filed 2003-07-07

The first, question, then, is whether plaintiffs invocation of federal law as part of his state law negligence/negligence per se claim is sufficient to impart jurisdiction to a federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In the court’s opinion, it is not.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts only state-law claims, even if it cites federal law.

Mason v. McPhillips, Shinbaum & Gill · filed 2011-12-12

Jurisdiction exists only if Mason has raised a federal question, and, as we have already discussed, she has asserted only state law claims.

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

Alec L. v. Jackson · filed 2012-05-31

Thus, it appears that Plaintiffs have not raised a federal question to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when resolving it necessarily requires construing federal law, even if no federal question appears on the face of the complaint.

North Carolina ex rel. North Carolina Department of Administration v. Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. · filed 2013-11-27

While there is no federal question presented on the face of the State’s complaint, a declaration of judgment under state law that the State of North Carolina owns the portions of the Yadkin River bed at issue necessarily turns on construction of federal law. ... As the State has not demonstrated that this Court’s federal question jurisdiction is doubtful, and because the State’s action necessarily requires construction of federal law, removal of this action was appropriate and remand is not required.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts a cause of action under a federal statute.

French v. EMC Mortgage Corporation · filed 2014-04-29

In the present case, Appellants referenced the FDCPA by way of asserting a cause of action under this federal statute. As such, the amended complaint brought a claim “under the . . . laws . . . of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and was properly removed to federal court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that can be resolved without proving a federal-law theory, even if the claim refers to the Constitution.

Baisden v. Boone County Assessor's Office · filed 2017-10-26

Defendants disagree with plaintiff’s analysis, but concede that remand is proper where, as here, a plaintiff’s particular claim can be resolved on theories of state law without proving a theory of federal law, the claim “does not necessarily depend on a question of federal law,” and “does not ‘arise under’ federal law for purposes of § 1331.” ... The court agrees with the parties’ conclusion that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this controversy.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law; allegations of purely private conduct do not establish federal jurisdiction through constitutional rights.

Repici v. Carmichael · filed 2019-05-16

Here, the court cannot discern a claim arising under federal law to provide jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or federal law.

Ford v. Jones · filed 2019-07-19

Thus, plaintiff does not assert any claims arising under the laws of the United States or the Constitution.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over complaints that purport to state claims arising under the Constitution or federal law.

Holtz v. Oneida Airport Hotel Corporation · filed 2020-04-30

A United States district court has jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Here, there is no doubt that the amended complaint purports to state claims that arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States. It thus follows that the case was properly removed.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts no federal claim and its state-law claims do not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Dostie v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-09-08

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the complaint tangentially references federal law; the claim must necessarily raise a federal issue.

Jones v. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC · filed 2020-11-05

Defendant correctly notes that Plaintiffs tangentially reference federal law in their Complaint, but such tangential reference is not sufficient to necessarily raise a federal issue. See Pressl, 842 F.3d at 305. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs’ claims do not satisfy the first prong of the “arising under” requirements, there can be no “arising under” jurisdiction.

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

Spears v. Bess · filed 2021-01-13

There is no federal question because Mr. Spears has not alleged a claim arising under the Constitution or any federal law.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law; state-law claims alone do not establish a federal question.

Maddox v. Zera · filed 2021-05-03

Maddox’s claims do not assert a federal question establishing jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the parties do not meet the diversity requirements for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, and there is no other viable ground for the Court to assert jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the federal provision underlying a claim had no legal effect at the time of the alleged violation.

Cunningham v. Radius Global Solutions LLC · filed 2021-06-03

One statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, authorizes “federal question” jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... Consequently, the Court must dismiss Cunningham’s TCPA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over medical malpractice claims when the complaint raises no claim arising under federal law.

Joseph v. Mount Sinai Queens · filed 2021-06-11

The Court also concludes that it lacks federal question jurisdiction over the above-captioned matters because the Complaints are devoid of claims “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”5 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction over territorial contract and warranty claims merely because the transaction crossed territorial lines.

George v. Puerto Rico Wire Products, Inc. · filed 2021-08-10

In short, because Defendant has failed to carry its burden of establishing that the case arises under federal law, the Court finds that it lacks federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over state law claims merely because the complaint references federal statutes without asserting claims under them.

Poorsina v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2021-09-10

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a civil action to arise under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ... Although the complaint references the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691-1691f, and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2803, Poorsina does not allege any claims under these statutes. ... Therefore, the court lacks federal question jurisdiction and Poorsina may only proceed in federal court if he establishes diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction over claims arising solely under state law; a bare reference to unspecified constitutional rights does not establish federal jurisdiction.

Hernandez v. Adel · filed 2021-10-12

A complaint’s bare reference to unspecified “constitutional rights” is not a free ... pass into federal court; states have constitutions, too. This is a federal court of limited subject-matter jurisdiction. Absent diversity jurisdiction, it cannot adjudicate claims arising purely under Arizona’s constitution and statutes.

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

Romero v. St. Vincent's Services, Inc. · filed 2022-06-10

Here, the complaint does not set forth any basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims whose resolution does not require construing federal law.

Kirst v. Erck · filed 2022-07-21

The Court thus finds that federal question jurisdiction does not exist and therefore does not provide a basis on which to justify the removal of this case.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under federal law; state-law divorce and child-support disputes do not qualify merely because a party has federal employment or veteran status.

Hooker v. Hooker · filed 2022-08-22

The legal challenges Mr. Hooker brought before the Will County Circuit Court do not arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States, as 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over a state law contract claim based on an unsupported assertion of a constitutional violation.

SINGH v. KAPLAN · filed 2022-09-23

Even read liberally, the Complaint presents no federal question to support subject matter jurisdiction in this action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when no federal issue is necessarily raised or actually disputed.

Town of Westborough v. Northland TPLP LLC · filed 2022-10-31

Northland fails to meet its burden that a federal issue is “necessarily raised” or that a federal question is “actually disputed.” ... For all these reasons, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint cites federal law but makes clear that it seeks relief under state law alone.

Harvey v. Sullivan · filed 2022-12-02

Despite his citations to federal law, Harvey’s statements decrying reliance on federal law create an ambiguity that the court must resolve in favor of remand.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over claims arising under the Constitution or federal law; allegations about a landlord’s failure to credit rent payments do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Mays v. Mlivic · filed 2022-12-19

The latter applies where the claim arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff was put on notice by the show cause order that his complaint—which contains allegations about a dispute over rent between Plaintiff and his landlord—did not contain any allegations to show either diversity or federal question jurisdiction. ... Nothing in the response provides any basis for this court to find that it has diversity or federal question jurisdiction over the dispute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint brings its claims under state law rather than federal law.

Canovas v. Miami-Dade County · filed 2023-01-26

Although Plaintiff attached the official notice of right to sue from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, ECF No. [1-2], Plaintiff states specifically that her employment discrimination claims are brought under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Fla. Stat. §§ 760.01, et seqg., rather than under a federal law which similarly prohibits employment discrimination. Plaintiff therefore fails to allege federal question Jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint seeking relief under state law merely references federal law.

BAY, INC. v. BURKE, SR. · filed 2023-03-10

These three references relied upon by Moving Defendant, taken singly or together, do not transform this suit into one raising a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over a state law foreclosure claim that raises no substantial federal question on the face of the complaint.

Country Dreams, LLC v. Mejias · filed 2023-07-10

Upon review, the Court finds that this case is due to be remanded because the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over this action.

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

BOTEO v. KAZ THOROUGHBRED HORSE CENTER, LTD. · filed 2023-07-13

In this case, it is clear there is no federal question jurisdiction. The Complaint rests exclusively on the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law and, thus, raises only state law claims.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, but state-law claims without a substantial federal question do not qualify.

Johnson v. Allick · filed 2023-07-19

Plaintiff’s allegations fail to assert a basis for the Court to exercise federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a claim for violating a voluntary community group’s constitution when no federal law creates the claim or supplies a substantial question on which relief depends.

GBEYI v. KPAYEA III · filed 2023-10-18

Even construing Plaintiff’ s Complaint liberally, there is no basis to find that federal law creates a cause of action for violations of a voluntary community group’s Constitution or that any supposed right to relief under same depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.’

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

Fifth Third Bank v. Greene · filed 2024-01-10

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

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction when a complaint asserts claims arising under federal statutes or the Constitution, even if related state-law claims are also present.

Patterson v. Bryan County Fire and Emergency Services · filed 2024-03-26

Federal question jurisdiction unquestionably exists here, and Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary strain credulity. Plaintiff relies on federal statutes and the United States Constitution as the gravamen of many of her claims.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law; state law claims alone do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Rasheed v. Marchette · filed 2024-04-19

By contrast, federal question jurisdiction requires that the case arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Plaintiff has not met his burden to show that this Court—a federal court— has the authority to hear his state law claims against Defendants.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a claim created by federal law or a state-law claim that necessarily raises a significant federal issue; a suggestion that federal questions may emerge in discovery is insufficient.

Reynolds v. Mercy Investment Services, Inc. · filed 2024-04-23

The Amended Complaint vaguely alleges that “[f]ederal questions of law supporting federal jurisdiction will be further revealed during the course of discovery” (Am. Compl. ¶ 8), but does not identify a single federal cause of action. ... Nor does the Amended Complaint plead a state-law cause of action that “necessarily” raises a federal issue. ... The Amended Complaint thus fails to establish this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over any claims Reynolds may bring on behalf of herself or the putative classes.

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

Gray v. Hawaii Police Department · filed 2024-04-30

In other words, Gray attempts to use a state law claim to establish federal question jurisdiction. This she may not do.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint raises only state-law labor claims and the cited federal statutes are not at issue.

Neilson v. KC Hotels Group, Inc. · filed 2024-06-05

None of the above federal statutes are at issue in this case. Plaintiff’s Complaint stems from California Labor Code violations between employee and employer. A motion for remand is appropriate when a claim does not in fact “arise under” federal law.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims brought under federal law even when the defendant disputes whether that law covers the alleged conduct.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Ikkurty · filed 2024-07-01

There is no question that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. The CFTC brought the pending claims under the Commodity Exchanges Act, giving this Court federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim merely because an ADA violation is an element of the claim.

Estrada v. The Irvine Company, LLC · filed 2024-07-02

Therefore, the court finds the record demonstrates a federal question is not presented on the face of the Complaint alleging the Unruh Cause of Action.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over colorable claims arising under federal law, even when those claims are later dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Shaw v. Dermatology Realm · filed 2024-08-05

There are sufficient grounds for the Court to exercise federal-question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims under HIPAA and 18 U.S.C. §§ 24 and 249.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; a FOIA request directed at a state entity and allegations that identify no federal right do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Russell v. Craig County · filed 2024-10-17

Accordingly, Russell has failed to demonstrate that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter under § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when the well-pleaded complaint includes a federal claim, even if state claims are the main focus and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction.

Anderson v. Hinds County · filed 2025-01-23

The case, however, was clearly removable based on her federal claims, notwithstanding concurrent jurisdiction.

A complaint asserting only California-law claims does not establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Xiangbin Long v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2025-07-25

Nor has Plaintiff established jurisdiction based on a federal question, as the FAC includes only two claims, both based on California law.

A reference to the ADA alone did not give the court federal-question jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s UCRA claim.

Sandoval v. Ace Hardware Corporation · filed 2025-08-28

The Court finds the reference to the ADA does not confer federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s UCRA claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim based on a criminal statute that gives the plaintiff no private right of action.

Parker v. Hinrichs · filed 2024-12-18

Here, the Court finds no basis to conclude from Plaintiff's complaint or his response to the MTD that Plaintiff’s claims assert federal criminal violations that give rise to a private right of action against any Defendant for fraud. The Court has no federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for a civil perjury claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1746, which a private plaintiff cannot bring.

KISSI v. SARKODIE · filed 2024-12-11

This Court does not have the power to individually charge any defendant with perjury, nor can Plaintiff himself bring a civil claim for perjury under 28 U.S.C. § 1746. As such, 28 U.S.C. § 1746 cannot serve as a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies subject matter jurisdiction over suits raising federal questions about compliance with NEPA.

Habitat Education Center, Inc. v. Kimbell · filed 2008-06-05

I have subject matter jurisdiction over the present matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the suits raise federal questions — namely, compliance with NEPA.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a suit to enforce the MMPA when the suit does not challenge a permit decision and the MMPA provides no citizen enforcement action.

Animal Protection & Rescue League v. California · filed 2008-06-17

We lack federal question jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question sufficient to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Sloan v. Truong · filed 2008-08-28

Even liberally construed, Sloan fails to present a federal question sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on this Court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the amended complaint asserts only local D.C. statutory and common-law claims.

Blue v. FREMONT INVESTMENT & LOAN · filed 2008-10-15

Not only is federal question jurisdiction lacking in the Amended Complaint, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”), but such allegations concerning local D.C. statutes are most appropriately decided by the Superior Court for the District of Columbia and not this Court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when none of the pleaded causes of action raises a federal question.

Rotblut v. BEN HUR MOVING AND STORAGE, INC. · filed 2008-11-07

Plaintiffs cannot establish federal question jurisdiction for any of their stated causes of action and thus cannot avail themselves of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to establish federal-question jurisdiction even when the complaint is construed liberally.

Savage v. Fastnacht · filed 2009-02-24

we ... conclude that the district court correctly held that Savage had not met his burden to establish (1) diversity jurisdiction, ... or (2) federal question jurisdiction, even under a liberal construction of the complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction); Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (pro se complaints are to be construed liberally, but they still must allege sufficient facts to support claims advanced).

Section 1331 does not confer subject matter jurisdiction when a complaint neither identifies nor suggests a federal question.

Phillips v. District of Columbia · filed 2009-03-06

The court did not err in dismissing appellant’s complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the complaint did not identify or suggest any federal question, it did not indicate that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, and the dismissal does not foreclose appellant from bringing claims over which the court does in fact have jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer subject matter jurisdiction when the complaint does not identify or suggest a federal question.

Amiri v. Gelman Management Co. · filed 2009-05-06

The court did not err in dismissing appellant’s complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint does not identify or suggest any federal question.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim that a state Medicaid lien reaches settlement proceeds intended for nonmedical expenses in violation of the federal anti-lien provision.

Burtsell v. NH Dept. of Health and Human Services · filed 2009-05-12

Thus, the complaint necessarily involves a claimed violation of the anti-lien provision, justifying federal subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when none of the claims raises a federal question.

G. Keys pc/logis Np v. Pope · filed 2009-06-19

Section 1331, governing federal question jurisdiction, is irrelevant because none of the claims in this case raise a federal question.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to allege facts supporting federal-question jurisdiction.

Pearson v. Brace · filed 2009-07-23

The district court properly dismissed the action because the amended complaint does not allege facts to support federal question or diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction only when the claims for relief present a federal question.

Tatum v. Oberg · filed 2009-09-03

Tatum also asserts that jurisdiction in this action is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, and 28 U.S.C. § 2201. ... Tatum’s claims for relief, however, plainly fail to present a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question for federal district court jurisdiction.

Reed v. Battle · filed 2009-10-30

The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not of diverse citizenship.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Hukic v. Aurora Loan Services · filed 2009-11-20

A federal court also has original jurisdiction over a cause that arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Hukic’s complaint has from the very begin- ning stated a claim under a federal statute, the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681. The federal court had original juris- diction over the FCRA claim.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Brown v. Collins · filed 2010-03-03

The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy is well below the minimum jurisdictional amount.

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

Lorranie Wells v. Franklin Apartments · filed 2010-03-09

The district court properly dismissed Wells’s claims against the City of Santa Monica for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because her complaint does not allege facts to support federal question or diversity jurisdiction against the City.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction only when a federal question is presented.

Theoneste v. Singh-Mann · filed 2010-05-14

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a "federal question" is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction when a complaint presents a federal question.

Hinds v. Bacanmore · filed 2010-05-17

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a "federal question" is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint seeking to enforce a federal consent decree when the court retains jurisdiction to police that decree.

United States v. City of Loveland, Ohio · filed 2010-09-15

Because the district court retains jurisdiction to police its consent decrees, Waste Mgmt. of Ohio, Inc. v. City of Dayton, 132 F.3d 1142, 1144-46 (6th Cir. 1997), we hold that the Board’s complaint presents a federal question.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction only when the complaint presents a federal question.

Stitt v. Prioleau · filed 2010-09-16

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a "federal question" is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ... The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because there is no amount in controversy.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff asserts no basis for a federal claim.

Price v. United Medical Center · filed 2010-10-19

Moreover, assuming that the District of Columbia’s ownership of UMC could give rise to a federal claim in certain circumstances, appellant does not assert that the District of Columbia owned UMC at the time of the events at issue, and he does not suggest any other basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal district court jurisdiction only when a federal question is presented.

Colbert v. Legal Aid · filed 2010-10-25

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a "federal question" is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when the complaint presents a federal question.

Colbert v. McDonald's Restaurant · filed 2010-11-03

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a "federal question" is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ... The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not of diverse citizenship.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over private Medicare Advantage payment claims that do not arise under the Medicare Act or otherwise present a federal question.

Canandaigua Emergency Squad, Inc. v. Rochester Area Health Maintenance Organization, Inc. · filed 2011-01-06

I conclude, therefore, that none of plaintiffs’ claims arise under the Medicare Act, and that none of them presents a federal question. Accordingly, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims, and the complaint must therefore be remanded to state court.

Section 1331 requires a federal question; a complaint alleging local fraud claims without one does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Packer v. Momah · filed 2011-03-16

The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the plaintiff and all of the defendants are located in the District of Columbia.

Section 1331 permits district court jurisdiction when a complaint presents a federal question.

Jackson v. Selective Group of Computer Hackers · filed 2011-04-20

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a "federal question" is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ... The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the plaintiff and some of the defendants reside in the same state. It therefore will be dismissed.

Section 1331 permits federal district court jurisdiction only when the complaint presents a federal question.

Reeves v. Life Stride Incorporated · filed 2011-05-17

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a "federal question" is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ... The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because plaintiff and the defendants are located in the District of Columbia.