28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when no federal claims remain in the case.

Lans v. Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, LLP. · filed 2011-05-23

No federal claims remain in this case. Therefore, this Court no longer has federal subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federally created right or immunity to be an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim for federal-question jurisdiction.

Durham v. McDonald's Restaurants of Oklahoma, Inc. · filed 2011-05-24

To establish federal question jurisdiction, a federally created right or immunity must be an essential element of a plaintiff's cause of action.

Section 1331 gives a federal district court jurisdiction only when the petition presents a federal question.

Trevino v. Texas Vital Statistics · filed 2011-05-26

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. ... Because the petition presents neither a federal question nor a basis for diversity jurisdiction, the case will be dismissed.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over an Equal Credit Opportunity Act claim regardless of whether the parties are diverse.

Abulkhair v. Citibank and Associates · filed 2011-06-28

The District Court correctly denied that motion because, regardless of whether the parties are diverse, Abulkhair’s complaint raises a federal question under the ECOA and supplemental jurisdiction existed over his related breach of contract claim.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when viable federal claims appear on the face of the complaint, even if its jurisdictional section invokes diversity.

Gargiulo v. Baystate Health, Inc. · filed 2011-07-15

Plaintiffs complaint also raises claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), both of which support federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the court is disinclined to promote form over substance in order to address the present dispute. Not only could the complaint be easily amended but, in the court’s view, it is sufficient that viable federal claims are apparent on the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims between two domestic companies when the CISG does not apply to those claims.

Gibraltar Trading Corp. v. PMC Specialties Group, Inc. · filed 2011-08-16

The only possible basis for subject matter jurisdiction here is federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as it is undisputed that the parties are not diverse. ... Even if the Ohio Court’s ruling decision did not have preclusive effect, this Court similarly would conclude that the CISG does not apply to the claims between Gibraltar and PMC.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a complaint cites it when the allegations provide no basis for a federal claim.

Trammell v. Lillies Love & Care Daycare Center · filed 2011-10-14

Trammell’s appeal has no arguable basis in law because the District Court lacked jurisdiction over his complaint. Although the complaint cites 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1343, we perceive no basis for a federal claim. Trammell’s claims clearly arise out of a family dispute, as opposed to a violation of his civil rights.

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

Reeves v. Verizon Corporate Office · filed 2011-10-17

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

Cosby v. Lewis · filed 2011-12-16

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 both parties reside in the District.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges no facts supporting a federal question.

Robinson v. State of Washington Department of Corrections · filed 2012-01-03

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

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

Julius v. Norva · filed 2012-01-25

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 requires a complaint to present a federal question for federal-question jurisdiction.

Julius v. Leak · filed 2012-01-25

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

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

Julius v. Coachman · filed 2012-01-25

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 does not supply jurisdiction when the plaintiff has no clear right to relief.

Mostofi v. Napolitano · filed 2012-01-27

The four statutes which plaintiff relies upon — the general federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, and the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 702 — do not give rise to jurisdiction where, as here, “plaintiff has no clear right to relief.”

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

Cosby v. Mitch Snyder Place · filed 2012-02-24

The instant complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not of diverse citizenship and plaintiff does not seek monetary relief.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over federal age and national origin discrimination claims.

Leo v. Garmin International, Inc. · filed 2012-02-28

Last, Mr. Leo argued under Rule 60(b)(4), that the judgment was void because the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his age and national origin discrimination claims. This argument obviously lacks merit. See 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 alleges no viable basis for a federal question.

Smith Ex Rel. Van Alsen v. Infirmary · filed 2012-03-28

We conclude that the district court properly dismissed the complaint, because diversity jurisdiction is lacking, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), and Ms. Smith alleged no viable basis for federal-question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (threadbare recitals of elements of cause of action supported by mere conclusory statements are not entitled to assumption of truth); Hull v. Fallon, 188 F.3d 939, 942 (8th Cir. 1999) (requirements for federal question jurisdiction).

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

Brown v. Woodley House, Incorporated. · filed 2012-03-29

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 district court jurisdiction only when a federal question is presented.

Schweigert v. Ernst · filed 2012-04-11

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

Cosby v. Johnson · filed 2012-05-16

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 instant complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not of diverse citizenship and plaintiff does not seek monetary relief.

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

Collington V.department of Human Resources · filed 2012-05-31

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

Julius v. Ward · filed 2012-06-11

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 federal district courts jurisdiction when a complaint presents a federal question.

McKinzie v. Double Tree Suites · filed 2012-06-19

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 requires a showing of federal-question jurisdiction; without that showing, jurisdiction is lacking.

Malone v. George Washington University Hospital · filed 2012-07-03

The district court properly determined appellant had failed to demonstrate either federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or diversity jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction; § 1346(b) does not.

Kortlander v. United States · filed 2012-08-16

Federal question jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2006), not under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) (2006), which is part of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a removed action when the state-court petition alleges at least one federal claim.

Oliver v. Lewis · filed 2012-08-31

Federal-question removal jurisdiction is present in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the plaintiffs’ state-court petition alleges at least one federal claim.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over claims requiring interpretation of flood insurance policies issued under the National Flood Insurance Program.

McGair v. American Bankers Insurance · filed 2012-09-04

Instead, we conclude that federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. No circuit has found that a claim such as the McGairs' fails to present a federal question. Interpretation of insurance policies issued pursuant to the NFIP is a matter of federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question; a complaint seeking payment of parking tickets does not present one.

Blackwell v. Green · filed 2012-09-17

The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a pleaded federal statutory claim even when a settlement agreement may supply an affirmative defense to that claim.

Rural Wtr Dist No 2 Creek Cnty v. City of Glenpool · filed 2012-10-30

Defendants’ assertion does not relate to our subject matter jurisdiction, but instead relates to an affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s § 1926(b) claim.

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

Bell-Boston v. Nixon · filed 2012-11-16

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.

Section 1331 requires a litigant to demonstrate federal-question jurisdiction.

Bell-Boston v. Pittman · filed 2013-05-01

The district court properly determined appellant failed to demonstrate either federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or diversity jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 requires a party invoking federal-question jurisdiction to demonstrate that it exists.

Bell-Boston v. Nixon · filed 2013-05-01

The district court properly determined appellant had failed to demonstrate either federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or diversity jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction to district courts, not bankruptcy courts.

Goldsmith v. Massad (In re Fiorillo) · filed 2013-06-03

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 resides in ...the district courts.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a civil action only when it presents a federal question.

Mitchell v. Media Com · filed 2013-07-01

After careful consideration, see A.J. v. UNUM, 696 F.3d 788, 789 (8th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (de novo review of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) dismissals), we conclude dismissal was proper, given that the parties are not completely diverse and Mitchell failed to present a federal question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal courts have jurisdiction over civil actions presenting federal question); OnePoint Solutions, LLC v. Borchert, 486 F.3d 342, 346 (8th Cir. 2007) (diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) requires complete diversity among litigants); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (complaint must state “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation”; conclusory statements of law are insufficient to support claim).

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over an entire civil action, including post-trial motions concerning the trial, verdict, and judgment, and that jurisdiction does not end when jury deliberations end.

Bryan v. Erie County Office of Children & Youth · filed 2014-05-20

The presence of a federal question confers jurisdiction to a district court for an entire “civil action.” Id. As part of its original jurisdiction over an action, a district court must consider the parties’ post-trial motions concerning the trial, the verdict, and the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, 54, 59, 62. A district court’s jurisdiction does not terminate at the moment the jury’s deliberations do.

Section 1331 requires a substantial, actually disputed federal question on the face of the well-pleaded complaint whose resolution is necessary to the claim.

De La Rosa v. Reliable, Inc. · filed 2015-06-27

The federal-question jurisdiction statute, however, requires that a substantial, actually disputed question of federal law b¿ present on the face of the. well-pleaded complaint, and that its resolution be necessary to the disposition of, the claim over which jurisdiction is being asserted.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a challenge to a state NPDES permitting decision when federal review would upset the congressionally approved division of responsibility between state and federal courts.

Rose Acre Farms, Inc. v. North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources · filed 2015-07-30

Here, the court declines to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over Rose Acre’s claim because doing so would upset the congressionallyapproved balance of responsibilities between federal and state courts with respect to the CWA’s NPDES permitting scheme.

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

Shallow v. New York State Office of Temporary & Disability Assistance · filed 2015-12-02

Appellant’s complaint failed to establish any basis for federal court jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims for which the plaintiff fails to establish a federal jurisdictional basis.

Caldarone v. Abercrombie · filed 2016-03-03

The district court properly dismissed Caldarone’s claims against defendants Clay and Chapman because Caldarone failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction over his claims against them.

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

Derrington v. D.C. D.O.C. · filed 2016-04-06

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 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff fails to allege any federal claim.

Nordblad v. Deutsche Bank National Trust C · filed 2016-06-22

The district court properly dismissed Nordblad’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Nordblad failed to allege any federal claim and both Nordblad and at least one defendant are citizens of California.

Section 1331 gives a court jurisdiction over a case asserting federal claims, including jurisdiction to decide a motion to dismiss the complaint.

Johnson v. Lew · filed 2016-08-10

But because Johnson asserts federal claims in his complaint, the Court has jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and that jurisdiction of course extends to a motion to dismiss the complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff disavows the only potential federal claim.

Krebs v. Williams · filed 2016-11-21

And Krebs has disavowed asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. So Krebs has no claim supporting federal-question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Thus, the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Krebs’s case and properly dismissed his Complaint.

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

Emrit v. Heck · filed 2017-01-12

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 federal district courts jurisdiction when a complaint presents a federal question.

Artis v. Harris Teeter, Inc. · filed 2017-03-10

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 requires allegations sufficient to show a federal claim for federal-question jurisdiction.

Sollenne Family Trust v. Cmg Mortgage, Inc. · filed 2017-05-31

The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to show that there is a federal claim or that there is complete diversity between the parties.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction when a federal claim clears the low substantiality threshold, even if the claim ultimately fails to state a basis for relief.

Shing v. MD Developmental Disabilities Administration · filed 2017-09-29

We conclude that Plaintiffs’ filings were sufficient to clear this low bar and invoke the district court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2012).

Section 1331 requires a federal question to support federal district court jurisdiction.

Russell v. Mueller · filed 2017-12-26

The district court properly dismissed Russell’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Russell failed to allege a federal question or jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.

A request for injunctive relief alone does not raise a federal question under § 1331.

Julian v. McDonald Keohane Funeral Home Inc · filed 2018-01-23

Even if the allegations of the Complaint are accepted as true, no federal question is raised pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Injunctive relief is a remedy and not a cause of action.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction over federal claims and supports denial of remand when those claims are present.

Douglass v. Usaa Casualty Insurance, Inc. · filed 2017-12-21

The district court properly denied Douglass’s motion to remand because the district court had federal question jurisdiction over Douglass’s federal claims and supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claim that was part of the same case or 5 16-56451 controversy.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a federal claim.

Evans v. Exel Inc · filed 2018-04-23

We reject Evans’ contention that the district court lacked jurisdiction over his federal claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2012), and perceive no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to grant Exel’s motions for extensions of time, see Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174, 203 (4th Cir. 2006) (reviewing grant of motion for extension of time under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) for abuse of discretion).

Section 1331 gives district courts subject-matter jurisdiction over a Lanham Act claim because it presents a federal question.

Rockin Artwork, LLC v. Bravado Int'l Group Merch. · filed 2018-06-19

The district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over Rockin’s Lanham Act claim because it presented a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the district court had supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Krohe v. Steinhardt · filed 2018-06-21

The district court properly dismissed Krohe’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Krohe failed to allege a federal question or jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.

Section 1331 requires a cogent federal question; allegations that fail to raise one do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

MacHie v. Rosenberg · filed 2018-08-20

Plaintiff fails to raise a cogent federal question or establish that any constitutionally protected interest was violated.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint and does not confer jurisdiction when none exists.

Jaramillo v. Frewing · filed 2018-08-28

As explained below, because neither federal question nor diversity jurisdiction exists, I recommend concluding that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that Plaintiffs' Complaint should be dismissed.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based solely on a party’s ethnicity.

Johnson v. Children Youth and Families · filed 2018-10-19

Despite Johnson’s assertion that there was federal jurisdiction based on her “Indian status,” the District Court properly concluded that a party’s ethnicity is not a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Fletcher v. Metro Pcs, LLC · filed 2018-11-19

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. ... Plaintiff fails to raise any federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a request for a legal name change, even though a prison official’s refusal to honor a changed name may implicate federal rights.

Meyers v. Segal · filed 2018-12-18

Even if the allegations of the complaint are accepted as true, no federal question is raised pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. Although federal rights may be implicated when prison officials refuse to honor a prisoner’s name change, see e.g. Ali v. Dixon, 912 F.2d 86, 90 (4th Cir. 1990) (First Amendment protects an inmate's right to legal recognition of an adopted religious name), this federal court does not have the power to legally change plaintiff’s name.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the pleadings merely suggest a federal question without raising one.

Dettle v. Treasure Island Resort & Casino · filed 2019-01-18

Thus, because Plaintiff has not raised a federal question in her pleadings, there is no subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a colorable federal claim even when the complaint does not name the governing law, if the plaintiff identifies that law in response to a jurisdictional challenge.

Schmidt v. Waterstone Bank SSB · filed 2019-02-26

Here, we conclude that Schmidt invoked federal-question jurisdiction. Contrary to the Bank’s and the district court’s suggestions, Schmidt was not required to plead a legal theory in his complaint. ... Schmidt fulfilled that obligation by pointing to the Fair Housing Act—which he also mentioned in his complaint—as the basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a federal district court original jurisdiction when the plaintiff alleges violations of federal securities laws.

Burnip v. Credit Acceptance Corporation · filed 2019-03-11

Because Burnip alleged violations of federal securities laws, this court has original jurisdiction over the matter, making removal to federal court proper.

Section 1331 requires a proposed amended complaint to allege sufficient facts to establish federal-question jurisdiction, even when the complaint is construed liberally.

Walker v. Shafer · filed 2019-03-26

Plaintiff has not met his burden to establish (1) diversity jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (diversity requirements); OnePoint Solutions, LLC v. Borchert, 486 F.3d 342, 346 (8th Cir. 2007) (complete diversity rule); Jones v. Gale, 470 F.3d 1261, 1265 (8th Cir. 2006) (plaintiff has burden to establish subject matter jurisdiction); or (2) federal question jurisdiction, even under a liberal construction of the proposed amended 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 permits federal jurisdiction when the complaint presents a federal question; a complaint invoking none lacks that basis for jurisdiction.

Garrett v. Bbva Compass Bank · filed 2019-05-17

Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available when a “federal question” is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Section 1331 provides district-court jurisdiction when a complaint presents a federal question; a complaint that identifies none may be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Tucker v. Bbva Compass Bank · filed 2019-05-22

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 when a “federal question” is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ... Plaintiff has not identified a federal question, see id. at 4, and he has not satisfied his burden “of pleading the citizenship of each and every party to the action.” Novak v. Capital Mgmt. & Dev. Corp., 452 F.3d 902, 906 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint’s asserted federal claims present no federal controversy.

Karen C. Yeh Ho v. Sabocik · filed 2019-05-24

Despite Yeh Ho’s allegations of harm to federal rights, nothing in the complaint indicates that the matter in controversy “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim to attorney’s fees based on an alleged oral agreement to divide a federal settlement.

Maliarakis v. New York City Department Of Education · filed 2019-05-28

His claim neither satisfies the requirements for diversity jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (requiring diverse parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000), nor arises under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint’s only asserted federal claim is not colorable.

Loved Ones In Home Care, LLC v. Toor · filed 2019-06-27

Second, the essential allegations contained in the Amended Complaint are insufficient to show that the case is one “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Specifically, the Amended Complaint, as discussed below, fails to state a § 1983 claim (the only federal claim), and thus does not state a claim cognizable under this court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a property dispute turns entirely on state abandonment law.

Rasmussen, Gilbert v. Sawyer County, Wisconsin · filed 2019-07-31

The case does not turn an any issue of federal law, so there is no federal question on which to base jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a petition to determine the Smithsonian’s obligations under 20 U.S.C. § 55.

Petition of the United States on Behalf and for the Benefit of Smithsonian Institution · filed 2019-07-31

The Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this case involves determining the extent of the Smithsonian’s obligation to comply with the conditions of Dr. Drake’s will under 20 U.S.C. § 55.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint’s allegations do not present a federal question.

Bartlinski v. Township of Brick · filed 2019-08-02

It is apparent from Bartlinski’s largely incoherent complaint, as well as his subsequent filings in both the District Court and on appeal, that his allegations do not form a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a federal-law action concerning property in Indian country.

United States v. Springer · filed 2019-08-20

Accordingly, this Court had federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and was not “powerless to enter [judgment].”

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims alleging a federal question; claims alleging none must be dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Kelly v. State Dep't of Transp. · filed 2019-08-27

The district court properly dismissed Kelly’s non-support claims against defendants Washington Federation of State Employees Labor Union (“WFSELU”) and Tole for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction because Kelly failed to allege a federal question or jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a complaint alleging failure to provide a complete IEP when that allegation raises a question under the IDEA.

Drain v. Orangeburg Consolidated School District Four · filed 2019-09-16

Drain’s Complaint has raised a federal question over which the court has jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff fails to state a federal claim.

Weishampel v. Circle of Children · filed 2019-09-19

Because plaintiff has failed to state a federal claim, the Court concludes that there is no basis for subject matter jurisdiction based on a federal question.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over a civil action whose complaint asserts a claim under Regulation X of RESPA.

Meppelink v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB · filed 2019-09-23

Under 28 U.S.C. 1331, district courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” The Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint makes a claim under Regulation X of RESPA, which is a “law” of the United States. This Court has federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege a cognizable federal claim for federal-question jurisdiction.

Diaz v. Mendez · filed 2019-09-25

And, Plaintiff fails to allege a cognizable federal claim such that this Court would have original jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint presents no discernible basis for a federal claim.

LAWRENCE v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION · filed 2019-09-30

Further, there is no basis for the Court to exercise diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, nor any readily apparent basis for federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies subject matter jurisdiction independent of complete diversity, so adding a nondiverse defendant does not defeat jurisdiction when a federal question remains.

North Atlantic Security Company v. Blache · filed 2019-10-01

Since subject matter jurisdiction is also based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331, jurisdiction is not dependent upon complete diversity of the parties.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint with no cognizable federal claim.

C. P. v. Doe · filed 2019-10-01

Without a cognizable federal claim, this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s Complaint and thereby also lacks supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s asserted state law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts no viable federal claims.

Stewart bey v. Parkview Hospital Inc · filed 2019-10-16

Accordingly, there are no viable federal claims asserted in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and no jurisdiction under § 1331.

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

Thomas v. State of North Carolina · filed 2019-10-29

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. ... Plaintiff fails to raise any federal question.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction for federal claims, but claims raising only D.C. law do not independently qualify.

Dorsey v. District of Columbia · filed 2019-10-30

When this case was removed from Superior Court upon consent of all Defendants it included claims against the District of Columbia and MPD officers that qualified the case for federal-question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The claims against Mr. Jones were also removed based on the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over related questions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However, now that the federal claims have been dismissed, the only remaining claims lack the requisite connection to federal court. Mr. Dorsey’s claims of legal malpractice and ineffective assistance of counsel both raise questions of D.C. law, not federal law, and were properly brought in Superior Court.

Section 1331 requires a cognizable federal claim for federal-question jurisdiction.

Diaz v. FIU/Florida International University · filed 2019-10-31

Plaintiff fails to allege (1) a specific federal statute conferring jurisdiction, (2) a cognizable federal claim such that this Court would have federal question jurisdiction, or (3) diversity of citizenship between the parties such that this Court would have diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question apparent from the well-pleaded complaint, even when a pro se complaint is liberally construed.

Lane v. Burkhart · filed 2019-11-06

The first type of jurisdiction relies upon the presence of a federal question. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... But even with the benefit of liberal construction, Plaintiff has not alleged a federal question and none is apparent on the face of the Complaint.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint states no cognizable federal claim.

Jones v. Jones · filed 2019-11-07

As discussed above, the Complaint does not raise any federal claims. Hence, there is no federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to plead facts presenting a federal question; failure to raise one warrants dismissal.

Clark v. United States · filed 2019-11-13

Furthermore, 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. A party seeking relief in the district court must at least plead facts that bring the suit within the court's jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to plead such facts warrants dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Plaintiff fails to raise any federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the only federal claim in the action has been dismissed with prejudice.

GREEN TREE SERVICING LLC v. CARGILLE · filed 2019-11-19

At the outset, because the FDCPA claim—the only federal cause of action in this matter— has been dismissed with prejudice, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction at removal when the complaint brings a claim under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.

Abhyankar v. JPMorgan Chase & Co · filed 2019-11-19

However, because the Complaint brought a claim under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1693h, the Court had federal question jurisdiction at the time of removal. The Court is therefore satisfied that there is subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no plausible basis for a federal claim.

Wilson v. Wilmington Housing Authority · filed 2019-11-22

The Complaint alleges jurisdiction by reason of a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The allegations, however, do not support a valid theory of liability even though Plaintiff uses the words “retaliation” and “harassment.” The allegations fall woefully short of alleging a plausible basis for a federal claim. Because there is no federal jurisdiction, the Court considers whether there is jurisdiction by reason of diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 requires facts supporting a federal-law claim; merely invoking federal-question jurisdiction does not establish it.

Garrett v. Western Union · filed 2019-12-03

Mere invocation of federal-question jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal-law claim, does not create federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts federal claims without factual allegations to support them.

Williams v. Shanklin-Owens · filed 2019-12-06

Ms. Williams asserts some claims arising under federal law, including unlawful employment discrimination, but the complaint contains no factual allegations to support them—for example, there are no factual allegations to suggest an employment relationship, an adverse employment action, or membership in a protected class. ... The complaint thus asserts no valid claims arising under federal law, and there is no diversity of citizenship between the parties. Therefore, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint.

Section 1331 requires a complaint invoking federal-question jurisdiction to identify a federal claim.

JOHNSON v. ADESA · filed 2019-12-09

Mr. Johnson’s complaint alleges federal-question jurisdiction, but it does not identify any federal claim.

Section 1331 requires a cognizable federal claim to invoke federal-question jurisdiction.

(PS) Starr v. Gonzalez · filed 2020-01-09

Therefore, plaintiff’s complaint does not state a cognizable federal claim sufficient to invoke the court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide arising-under jurisdiction over a claim based on multiple theories when only one theory would raise a federal issue.

Becker v. Nissan · filed 2020-01-09

When a claim is based on multiple theories, and only one would raise a federal issue, “arising under” jurisdiction under § 1331 is not present.

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

DE LA ROSA v. NATIONAL RETAIL SYSTEMS · filed 2020-01-09

The existence of a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is not pled in the Complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff fails to properly bring the asserted Section 1983 claim.

Fuller v. UMC Medical University Medical Facility · filed 2020-01-15

However, because the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to properly bring a claim under Section 1983 (see discussion below), federal question jurisdiction does not exist at this time.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the complaint; a defendant cannot create federal-question jurisdiction by raising one in a notice of removal.

EQR-4111 South Via Marina, LP v. Sampson · filed 2020-01-17

Defendant cannot confer jurisdiction upon the Court by attempting to attach a federal question to his Notice of Removal. Accordingly, Defendant’s removal is improper for lack of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint necessarily asserts a federal claim, even if the complaint does not identify that claim expressly.

Camarata v. McDonald's Corporation · filed 2020-03-02

Whether well- or artfully-pled, Camarata’s complaint either asserts an ACPA claim or it asserts no claim at all. It necessarily raises a federal question, and McDonald’s removal was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction when federal claims appear on the face of the complaint.

Tibbs v. Bryan · filed 2020-03-04

Given Plaintiff’s clear assertion of federal claims in his original complaint, claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction, Defendant properly removed this case to federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the case could have been filed in federal court in the first instance.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based solely on a regulation that defines a status but grants no enforceable right to benefits.

Meder v. City and County of San Francisco, Human Service Agency · filed 2020-03-06

Moreover, even if Rooker-Feldman did not apply, there does not appear to be federal question jurisdiction in this case. Plaintiffs rely solely upon 20 C.F.R. § 416.1618 for federal question jurisdiction; this regulation, however, merely defines when an individual is permanently residing in the United States under color of law. (See Compl. at 2.) It does not, on its own, appear to grant any enforceable rights with respect to benefits.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a territorial-law claim that can be supported entirely by territorial law.

Hecht v. Canegata · filed 2020-05-21

Because the Plaintiffs’ only cause of action that implicates federal law could be supported entirely by territorial law, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the Amended Complaint.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction for a Bivens claim; calling the same claim a federal-question action does not change whether it can proceed.

BLACK v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA · filed 2020-09-30

Put differently, the Bivens claim previously adjudicated was already grounded in the courts’ federal question jurisdiction. Attempting, as Plaintiff does, to recast it as federal question claim rather than as a Bivens claim makes no difference to its viability. They are one and the same.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over wholly frivolous claims.

(PS)EL v. Kelly · filed 2021-01-21

However, the Supreme Court has held that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider claims that are “so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.” ... The undersigned finds plaintiff’s complaint wholly frivolous.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over federal statutory claims even when the defendant challenges the viability of those claims under Rule 12.

Laccinole v. Global Payments Check Services, LLC · filed 2021-07-02

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint asserts federal statutory claims for relief, and Defendant’s Rule 12 challenges to the viability of those claims does not deprive this Court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a § 1983 excessive force claim despite an amended complaint describing the conduct as intentional battery and not naming a particular federal right.

ARUANNO v. CALDWELL · filed 2022-02-16

The SAC may use the phrasing “intentional battery,” and may not directly state a violation of a particular federal right, but it nonetheless asserts that the claims are brought “pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, inasmuch as this action arises under the laws of the United States according to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.” SAC 94, ECF No. 92. ... Accordingly, the Court is satisfied it has subject matter jurisdiction over Aruanno’s present claims.

Federal-question jurisdiction extends to a claim that a private actor conspired or colluded with government actors to deprive someone of constitutional rights.

Nalls v. State of Ohio · filed 2022-03-08

As the Magistrate Judge has already held, however, the Court does have jurisdiction over a claim that a private actor has conspired or colluded with government actors.

Section 1331 requires a federal question; state-law tort claims and federal criminal provisions that provide no civil liability do not establish one.

(PS) Butler v. Dozier · filed 2022-04-19

The basic federal jurisdiction statutes are 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, which confer “federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. ... Here, the complaint asserts that the court has federal question jurisdiction over this action. However, the claims referenced in support of this assertion are either state law tort causes of action (negligence, breach of contract, honest services fraud) or violations of federal criminal statutes.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a properly pleaded § 1983 claim alleging that a state actor violated a federal right.

Hardaway v. Haynes · filed 2022-04-21

Properly pleaded, a Section 1983 suit creates federal-question jurisdiction. ... The Court finds that they do.

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

Longino v. Martinez · filed 2022-08-11

Since the Complaint seemingly relies upon “the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States[,]” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court would have had subject matter jurisdiction over the Complaint if it had been filed in this forum first; therefore, removal was appropriate, see Gonzalez, 2018 WL 4292018, at *1.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a purported § 1983 claim when the complaint alleges neither that the defendant is a state actor nor that the defendant’s conduct is chargeable to the state.

Bovo v. Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office · filed 2022-09-19

Despite a plaintiff’s own framing of a claim as purportedly arising under § 1983, a court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the claim if the pleading does not allege that the defendant is a state actor or that the defendant’s conduct is otherwise chargeable to the state. ... The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing the Court’s jurisdiction over the remaining claims pursuant to § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that defendants lacked standing to bring a state foreclosure action when the complaint establishes no federal-law basis.

Lee v. JP Morgan Bank National Association · filed 2022-10-26

In sum, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim about Defendants’ alleged lack of standing to commence a foreclosure action in state court.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges violations of federal constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Reaves v. Dickens · filed 2023-02-21

Hence, it was properly removed under this Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Id. ... For the reasons stated by the magistrate judge, the Report, ECF No. 142, is ACCEPTED, and Plaintiff’s motion to remand, ECF No. 134, is DENIED.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff asserts federal constitutional or statutory claims.

Bradley v. Bradley · filed 2023-03-20

First, as to subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court may exercise subject-matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff has asserted several federal claims against Defendants, including violations of federal constitutional rights and conspiracy to interfere with civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint minimally states Title VII discrimination or retaliation claims.

Davis v. City of Springfield · filed 2023-08-02

Thus, the court concludes that it has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s amended complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over a defamation claim against private reporters when the complaint alleges no federal law claim.

Valdez-Cruz v. Peddie · filed 2023-08-30

Thus, the Court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction of Plaintiff's defamation claims.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a pleaded DTSA claim supported by allegations connecting the trade secrets to interstate commerce.

JTH TAX LLC v. FOSTER · filed 2023-09-12

Liberty’s Complaint, however, does support federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) based on its DTSA claim and its supporting allegations regarding the nationwide extent of Liberty’s business and its confidential information and trade secrets.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts subject matter jurisdiction over a § 1983 claim alleging constitutional violations.

Epps v. Bohrer · filed 2024-02-26

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this federal question. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied insofar as it is based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-created claim when resolving it necessarily requires deciding a substantial federal question.

Ralston Outdoor Advertising Ltd v. City of Dallas · filed 2024-03-20

Ralston’s new pleading requires the Court to rule on the constitutional question to resolve the case, therefore, giving the Court federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over complaints asserting Title VII and § 1981 claims.

Phillips v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. · filed 2024-03-20

It cannot be disputed that Ms. Phillips’ complaint—which asserted claims under Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000e) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981—established federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over ADA claims that appear on the face of a complaint and are created by federal law.

Miser v. Freight Logistics, Inc. · filed 2024-03-25

Thus, the court has federal subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s ADA claims.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over § 1983 claims because they arise under federal law.

Jipson v. Workman · filed 2024-06-21

Case law makes it clear that § 1983 claims arise under federal law and district courts have jurisdiction to hear them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an eviction complaint that asserts no claim arising under federal law.

Regency West Enterprises, LP v. Salgado · filed 2024-07-03

Here, federal-question jurisdiction is lacking because the Complaint does not state a claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a § 1983 claim arising under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Diggs v. Dupree · filed 2024-07-16

Furthermore, because Diggs’s claim arises under the Fourteenth Amendment and § 1983, the Court has federal question jurisdiction over the claim.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a complaint pleads a Title VII claim, even if the plaintiff reserves the right to amend after receiving an EEOC right-to-sue letter.

Freeman v. Pivotal Concepts Inc · filed 2024-08-15

Freeman’s complaint asserts a violation of Title VII. ... Freeman’s qualifying language did not disclaim that assertion. Rather, it simply reserved the right to assert the cause of action upon the issuance of the right-to-sue letter. ... 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) give federal courts jurisdiction over Title VII cases.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when asserted federal claims serve solely to obtain a federal forum for a state custody dispute.

Morgan v. Morgan-Parker · filed 2024-09-30

Although Morgan alleges violations of federal laws as the bases for federal question jurisdiction, a review of the complaint reveals that no federal question exists here. ... Here, although Morgan alleges violations of federal statutes and constitutional amendments, the Court finds that he asserts these violations solely to obtain federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when alleged federal violations are asserted solely to obtain federal jurisdiction over a state custody dispute.

Morgan v. 21st Judicial District Court Clerks · filed 2024-09-30

Here, although Morgan alleges violations of federal statutes and constitutional amendments, the Court finds that he asserts these violations solely to obtain federal jurisdiction.

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

Cohan v. Carmel Management Group LLC · filed 2024-10-04

“District courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the ADA. Doc. 20. Accordingly, the Court finds that subject matter jurisdiction is present for the ADA claim.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction over claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Sherman v. Kruse · filed 2024-11-01

As will be discussed, because Plaintiff has brought claims under federal law—namely, 42 U.S.C. § 1983—the Court finds that Plaintiff has established federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on § 1983 claims brought solely against immune defendants when no other viable federal claim remains.

MCLEOD v. FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PA · filed 2024-12-31

Although the Third Amended Complaint does not list federal question jurisdiction as a basis for federal court jurisdiction, the Court, nevertheless, assesses whether § 1331(a)(1) can confer subject matter jurisdiction. ... As there are no other § 1983 allegations against any other defendants, § 1983 cannot confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over an FLSA employer claim even when the defendant disputes its merits.

Schmidt, Ronald v. Hands On CDL Driving School, LLC · filed 2025-01-22

While Gilbertson disputes the merits of plaintiff’s assertion, plaintiff’s claim still arises under the FLSA, and is sufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over § 1983 claims alleging violations of federal constitutional rights.

Kukaj v. Town of Eastchester · filed 2025-01-23

Federal question jurisdiction exists here as Plaintiff pleads violations of his First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment nights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over Section 1983 claims alleging constitutional violations.

Sadigh v. United States · filed 2025-03-07

Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims alleging constitutional violations present a federal question, triggering this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over an FCRA claim.

Eweka v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company · filed 2025-03-10

This Court also has federal question jurisdiction over count five—the FCRA claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over a purported Section 1983 claim that alleges no action under color of state law and fails to state a federal claim.

Benson v. Christianson · filed 2025-04-06

Federal question jurisdiction exists when a plaintiff’s claim arises “under the Constitution, law, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Here, however, all four Defendants are private individuals or entities, Dkt. No. 1 at 2, and Ms. Benson has not alleged that they are acting under color of state law, see Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). ... The Court therefore does not have federal question jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims to recover Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance death benefits because they arise under federal law.

Phillips v. Prudential Insurance Company of America · filed 2025-06-16

Although the Eleventh Circuit has not addressed whether claims to recover Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance death benefits arise under federal law, other courts have held ... that they do. This Court agrees, ... The Court will therefore deny defendant Tonya Phillips’ motion to dismiss, which brings us to the next step.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a Bivens claim alleging a violation of a constitutional right.

Maina v. Garcia · filed 2025-07-02

Because the Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s only claim in his First Amended Complaint, a Bivens claim alleging a civil violation of a constitutional right, the Court will deny the Motion to Remand.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint’s asserted § 1983 claim alleges no action under color of state law.

Reynolds v. Mika Properties LLC · filed 2025-07-15

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to establish federal question jurisdiction because there is no basis to conclude that any Defendant was acting under color of state law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the federal claims as alleged fail as a matter of law.

Farag v. Hanna · filed 2025-08-19

While Farag’s complaint purports to assert several federal claims, those claims as alleged fail as a matter of law and therefore do not suffice as a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a substantial FLSA claim even if the plaintiff may fail to establish the FLSA’s enterprise coverage requirement.

Hiralda Corona v. El Crucero Restaurant Corp. · filed 2025-10-30

However, whether Plaintiffs can establish enterprise coverage is an element of Plaintiff's claim and is not determinative of the Court’s jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the federal claims pleaded in the Amended Complaint “arise under” the laws of the United States, and the court has subject matter jurisdiction over all the claims in suit — either federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331 or supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on a Dodd-Frank claim that the plaintiff cannot state as a matter of law.

Washington v. Prime Lending · filed 2025-10-31

Plaintiff, therefore, cannot, as a matter of law, state a claim for relief against Defendant for violations of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Dodd-Frank Act, accordingly, does not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction here.

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

Bryant · filed 2025-11-14

Here, the Court has original jurisdiction over the Counts I, II, IV, and VII because they all seek relief under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction where the asserted ADA claims fail to state a viable federal cause of action.

Robles v. State of New Jersey, et al. · filed 2025-12-22

Upon closer review, it is apparent that Plaintiff's federal ADA claims do not support federal question jurisdiction, and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's federal claims against Pinto.

Section 1331(a) gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a pleaded Fourteenth Amendment claim that a state-authorized utility took property without providing just compensation.

Ballard Fish & Oyster Company, Inc. v. Glaser Construction Company, Inc., and Commonwealth Natural Gas Corporation · filed 1970-04-15(a)

Because Commonwealth made no provision for paying Ballard just compensation — either by contract or by instituting condemnation proceedings —Ballard’s claim raises a federal question, and the district court has jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction when a complaint raises federal claims.

Stratton · filed 2026-03-23

Accordingly, where Plaintiff’s Complaint raises multiple federal claims, the court is satisfied that Plaintiff has demonstrated this court’s subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives a district court original jurisdiction over a federal RICO claim even when most claims in the complaint arise under state law.

Hiligh v. Duncan & Hopkins, P.C. · filed 2026-04-28

As both parties recognize, the Court has original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Since the Court has original jurisdiction over the RICO Act claim, it also has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining D.C. law claims “so long as those claims constitute ‘other claims that . . . form part of the same case or controversy.” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 165 (1997) (alteration in original) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts constitutional claims under § 1983, even if it does not expressly cite § 1983.

Young · filed 2026-05-15

Such claims, even when § 1983 is not expressly referenced in the Complaint, present federal questions that permit removal.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over an ERISA benefits dispute when the claimant seeks benefits due under an ERISA plan, but not when the benefits are due only under an independent contract.

Dakota, MN & Eastern R.R. v. Schieffer · filed 2013-03-28

Rather, subject matter jurisdiction turns on whether Schieffer is seeking to recover “benefits due to him under the terms of” one or more ERISA plans, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), rather than under an independent contract that is not an ERISA plan.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Arce v. Turnbull · filed 2021-12-08

The district court plainly had subject matter jurisdiction over Arce’s original complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pursuant to 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(a) permits federal-question jurisdiction over a § 1983 claim alleging Social Security Act violations when the $10,000 amount in controversy requirement is met.

Yapalater v. Bates · filed 1980-07-30(a)

Jurisdiction of the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for violations of the Social Security Act is properly founded upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), as “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over arbitration claims when the underlying dispute implicates federal law.

Tamiami Partners v. Miccosukee · filed 1999-06-07

We hold, therefore, that the first three counts of Tamiami’s complaint state a federal question insofar as they relate to the Tribe’s rejection of gaming license applications.