28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim that a territorial law is preempted by a federal statute conferring substantive rights.

St. Thomas—St. John Hotel & Tourism Ass'n v. Government of the United States Virgin Islands · filed 2000-06-30

Jurisdiction is established in this case under 28 U.S.C. S 1331. ... The Supreme Court has recognized that such a challenge presents a federal question which the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. S 1331 to resolve.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims for breach of a National Flood Insurance Program policy when relief necessarily depends on resolving a substantial question of federal law.

Studio Frames Ltd. v. Standard Fire Insurance · filed 2004-05-21

We once again decline to decide this question because, in this case, even more clearly than in Battle, we possess subject matter jurisdiction over Studio Frames’ breach of contract claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction when the complaint sufficiently alleges at least one claim arising under federal law.

Lowe v. Viewpoint Bank · filed 2013-09-18

Plaintiff has carried her burden to show that at least some of her claims “arise under federal law”, and the Court therefore has federal question jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a FELA claim even when the employer raises LHWCA exclusivity as a defense.

Muhammad v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. · filed 2019-06-04

This lack-of-jurisdiction conclusion was misplaced, however, as Muhammad’s claim under the FELA indisputably invoked the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction under 45 U.S.C. § 56 (conferring jurisdiction on district courts for FELA claims) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (conferring jurisdiction on district courts for claims arising under the laws of the United States).

A claim under the FLSA arises under federal law for purposes of § 1331 jurisdiction.

Quito v. JT Renovation New York Inc. · filed 2025-07-24

Because Plaintiffs bring claims under the FLSA, a federal statute, the Court has federal question jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim alleging a Fourteenth Amendment violation even when the complaint does not cite § 1983.

Health Net, Inc. v. Wooley · filed 2008-07-08

Although the complaint does not cite § 1983, the allegation of a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment is suffi- cient to raise a federal question. The district court has subject-matter juris- diction over Health Net’s § 1983 claim under § 1331, and the Anti-Injunction Act does not mandate its dismissal.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a § 1983 claim that alleges no facts showing the defendant acted under color of state law.

Campbell v. Stein · filed 2009-03-02

There was no federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because Campbell alleged no facts that Dr. Alexander Stein acted under color of state law, required to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1331 gives a federal court subject matter jurisdiction over claims under the Voting Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they arise out of federal law.

Democratic National Committee v. Republican National Committee · filed 2009-12-01

The DNC’s Complaint in the original action alleged violations of the VRA and asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and its 1987 claims were premised on the same provisions. The Court had subject matter jurisdiction over both litigations because they arose out of federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 treats a failure to allege state action in a § 1983 claim as a failure to state a claim, rather than a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Mehdipour v. Matthews, Jr. · filed 2010-07-13

If, however, jurisdiction is alleged under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the failure to properly allege a “state action” warrants dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), rather than pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint against public defenders who are not state actors subject to suit under § 1983.

Ceasar v. Public Defender Service for Dc · filed 2012-06-11

The complaint does not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction because PDS and its attorneys are not state actors subject to suit under § 1983.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over a § 1983 claim seeking compensation for a federal due process violation.

Z & R Cab, LLC v. Philadelphia Parking Authority · filed 2015-05-28

Because this claim arises under the United States Constitution and federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 grants the District Court subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction over a purported § 1983 complaint that names no individual defendant.

Taylor v. District of Columbia · filed 2015-06-22

The complaint does not name an individual and, thus, provides no basis for exercising jurisdiction under the federal question provision.

Section 1331 gives a federal district court subject matter jurisdiction when the plaintiff pleads claims under federal statutes, including § 1983 and Title IX.

Wilkerson v. University of North Texas ex rel. Board of Regents · filed 2016-11-30

Defendants’ argument that the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction fails. Plaintiff has pleaded a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title IX, which grants the Court subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff asserts claims under federal statutes, which gives the Court subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a purported § 1983 claim that is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Yoder v. Morrow, Tompkins, Trueblood & Lefevre, LLC · filed 2016-12-20

Because there is no diversity jurisdiction in this case, ... the District Court could exercise jurisdiction over her complaint only if this civil action “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Because Yoder’s purported § 1983 claim was “wholly insubstantial and frivolous,” the District Court’s dismissal of her complaint for lack of jurisdiction was proper.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a § 1983 claim alleging arrest without probable cause.

Campbell v. City of Concordia · filed 2016-12-21

After careful review, we conclude that Campbell’s claim that he was arrested without probable cause established a basis for jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction only when the complaint presents a question of federal law; merely invoking § 1983 without alleging a federal-law violation does not establish it.

Bryant v. District of Columbia · filed 2017-07-17

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 $75,0()0. ... Although plaintiff invokes 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he does not assert, and the alleged facts do not support, violations of the Constitution or federal law to state a claim under § 1983.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over an action that includes a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

Zhao v. Keuka College · filed 2017-09-07

However, because the Court granted Plaintiffs motion to amend, adding a cause of action under § 1981, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over Bivens and § 1983 claims because both arise under federal law.

Shelton v. Crookshank · filed 2018-01-24

Because Bivens and § 1983 both arise under federal law, jurisdiction for these claims is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over an asserted § 1983 claim against a private party who is not a state actor.

Lazarre v. Belizaire · filed 2019-01-31

Moreover, no federal question is raised pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. To the extent Plaintiff complains of the violation of his civil rights, the complaint fails to state a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the Defendant is a private party and not a state actor.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a § 1983 claim that pleads no facts showing the defendants acted under color of state law.

Tiner v. Cockrell · filed 2019-03-11

Because Tiner failed to plead any facts demonstrating that the defendants acted under color of state law in depriving him of his share of his father’s estate, he failed to plead and establish subject matter jurisdiction based on the existence of a federal question.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges no discernible federal question, including where its asserted civil-rights claim lacks state action and it suggests no federal statutory violation.

Richter v. Sprint/VMUSA · filed 2019-08-16

Consequently, there is no discernible “federal question” alleged in the Complaint as Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Complaint simply does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting Defendants violated a federal statute.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over claims brought under § 1983, even if those claims ultimately fail on the merits.

Yates v. Davis · filed 2019-08-23

More importantly, Davis conflates the merits of a claim with its source. Plaintiffs sued Davis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 is a federal law. That means plaintiffs asserted claims “arising under the . . . laws . . . of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. And district courts have original jurisdiction to resolve such claims. Id. Put differently, if a claim is ultimately unsuccessful, jurisdiction to resolve it doesn’t vanish.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction when a complaint brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Febres v. Yale New Haven Hospital · filed 2019-10-08

Because the complaint states that the claims therein are brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983— a federal law—this Court necessarily has original jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a purported § 1983 claim against a private person whose conduct is not chargeable to the state.

Cantrell v. Branham · filed 2020-01-15

Therefore, his claim against Branham does not fall within the court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleging civil rights violations fails to allege state action or another basis for a federal claim.

(PS) RuBang v. Brooks · filed 2020-02-07

Moreover, the complaint alleges that the basis for federal question jurisdiction is that the defendants “violated [plaintiff’s] civil rights.” ... The allegations found in the fourth amended complaint, however, fail to allege that any defendant acted under the color of state law. Instead it appears that the defendants are private individuals and a business, not state actors. ... In this regard, the undersigned finds that the fourth amended complaint fails to allege a basis for subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over claims pleaded under § 1983, even if the complaint fails to state a viable claim.

Kelly v. Albany Police Department · filed 2020-04-23

Therefore, even though Plaintiff did not object to the Report- Recommendation, the Court rejects as clearly erroneous Judge Hummel’s finding that Plaintiff has “fail[ed] to demonstrate federal question jurisdiction.”

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

Wagner v. Shasta County · filed 2020-05-20

District courts have federal question jurisdiction over all suits “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The Court has federal-question jurisdiction over Wagner’s first five causes of action.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction over a removed suit whose complaint asserts § 1983 claims for violations of federal constitutional rights.

Stanko v. Jeff Brewer · filed 2021-07-12

Turning to the merits, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motion to remand, as Stanko’s amended complaint specifically asserted claims under section 1983 for violating his federal constitutional rights. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331; 1441(a); Biscanin v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 407 F.3d 905, 906-07 (8th Cir. 2005); Krispin v. May Dep’t Stores Co., 218 F.3d 919, 922 (8th Cir. 2000).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction in the absence of a viable statutory or constitutional claim.

Castillo v. Rice · filed 2008-07-28

In the absence of any viable substantive statutory or constitutional claims, 28 U.S.C § 1331 would not provide the Court subject matter jurisdiction either.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a claim for review of a visa denial under Mandel when the claim arises from constitutional rights.

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL ASS'N v. Chertoff · filed 2008-12-08

To the extent there is a claim for review authorized under Mandel, it is plainly a claim that arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” and is thus within the jurisdiction granted to the district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question; allegations of no constitutional or federal-law violation do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Bell-Boston v. Mazza Gallerie Mall · filed 2009-01-27

The complaint does not allege a violation of either the Constitution or federal law nor does it provide a basis for diversity jurisdiction inasmuch as plaintiff has not demanded any amount of monetary damages.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that alleges no violation of a federal statute or the Constitution.

Smith v. Clark · filed 2009-02-11

Furthermore, the District Court could not entertain federal question jurisdiction over the complaint because it did not allege any violations of a federal statute or the Constitution.

Section 1331 requires a suit to arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Watson v. Land America Austin Title · filed 2009-04-24

Finally, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is not a basis for a viable claim against the defendants because Watson has not shown that his suit arises under “the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, but allegations that do not suggest such a claim do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Dubose v. Pnc Bank Headquarters · filed 2009-07-29

A federal district court has jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, however, the facts alleged do not suggest claims that arise under the Constitution or the laws or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that alleges no violation of the Constitution or federal law.

Thompson v. Altshuler · filed 2009-10-19

The District Court correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Thompson’s complaint, as Thomas did not allege a violation of the Constitution or federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor did he allege any facts that would provide a basis for diversity of citizenship among the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff alleges deprivation of constitutional rights to access the courts, due process, and equal protection.

Ocasio v. Duff · filed 2009-10-28

The Court is satisfied that it has subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 inasmuch as plaintiff alleges that defendant has deprived him of his constitutional rights to access the courts, to due process and to equal protection of the laws.

Section 1331 gives district courts original federal-question jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of federal statutes or the Constitution.

Leitner v. United States · filed 2010-01-18

Because the Court has original federal question subject matter jurisdiction over such claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court concludes that removal is proper under section 1441(b) as well.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts no claim under the Constitution or federal law.

Hamilton v. Hamilton-Grinols · filed 2010-02-01

Hamilton’s complaint suggests no basis for federal question jurisdiction, as he is not suing under the Constitution or any federal laws.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties; a complaint that establishes no such federal basis does not invoke that jurisdiction.

Patterson v. District of Columbia Housing Authority · filed 2010-03-09

Federal district courts have jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and may have jurisdiction over state common law disputes that arise between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ... The complaint does not establish that plaintiff’s cause of action arises under the United States Constitution, federal law, or treaty.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over an industrial accident personal injury claim that does not appear to implicate the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.

Serdar v. Sargent Industries Airite Division · filed 2010-04-20

A federal district court has jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, however, the complaint appears to arise from an industrial accident resulting in personal injury, which does not appear to implicate the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction only when the civil action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Daniel v. Dc Public Housing Authority · filed 2010-04-20

A federal district court has jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, however, the complaint appears to arise from the alleged decisions made by the District of Columbia Housing Authority, which is a department of the government of the District of Columbia, not a federal agency or department. The allegations in the complaint regarding the plaintiff s application for low income public housing do not appear to allege a violation of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 does not give federal district courts jurisdiction over alleged assault and theft by hospital personnel when the claims do not arise under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.

Price v. United Medical Center · filed 2010-05-13

A federal district court has jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... These incidents do not appear to arise under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties, and a complaint that states no such claim does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Colbert v. Catholic Charities · filed 2010-08-19

Federal district courts have jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Plaintiff neither establishes federal question jurisdiction by stating a claim under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, nor establishes that diversity jurisdiction by alleging the parties’ citizenship in different states.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions presenting a federal question under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Colbert v. McDonald's Restaurant · filed 2010-12-29

The district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions presenting a “federal question” under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ... In this case, the appellant failed to establish the district court had either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions presenting a federal question under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.

Colbert v. Burger King · filed 2010-12-30

The district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions presenting a “federal question” under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... In this case, the appellant failed to establish the district court had either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions presenting a federal question under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Colbert v. Catholic Charities · filed 2011-01-03

The district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions presenting a “federal question” under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... In this case, the appellant failed to establish the district court had either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions presenting a federal question under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Colbert v. Safeway · filed 2011-01-03

The district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions presenting a “federal question” under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over civil actions presenting a federal question under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Colbert v. District of Columbia Employees Federal Credit Union · filed 2011-01-25

The district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions presenting a “federal question” under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... In this case, the appellant failed to establish the district court had either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions presenting a federal question under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Colbert v. Greyhound · filed 2011-01-25

The district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions presenting a “federal question” under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... In this case, the appellant failed to establish the district court had either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions presenting a federal question under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties; the plaintiff must establish that basis for jurisdiction.

Colbert v. Legal Aid · filed 2011-02-04

The district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions presenting a “federal question” under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... In this case, the appellant failed to establish the district court had either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.

Martin v. D.C. Jail · filed 2011-05-16

Federal district courts have jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides no original federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Doe v. City of Demopolis · filed 2011-06-30

This Court does not possess original jurisdiction over Count Three. That claim does not purport to arise under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, as would be necessary to trigger federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions presenting a federal question under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; the plaintiff must establish that jurisdiction.

Malone v. George Washington University Hospital · filed 2011-08-01

The district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions presenting a “federal question” under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... In this case, the appellant failed to establish the district court had either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions presenting a federal question under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.

Gover v. President, Representing the Executive Branch · filed 2011-08-03

The district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions presenting a “federal question” under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... In this case, the appellant failed to establish the district court had either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties; allegations of federal violations do not establish jurisdiction without a basis for it.

Galloway v. Martin · filed 2011-11-28

Federal district courts have jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Notwithstanding plaintiffs allegations of violations of her civil rights and federal criminal statutes, plaintiff does not establish, and the Court does not identify, a basis for jurisdiction The Court will dismiss this action for lack of subject matterjurisdiction.

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

Michaels v. Vickers · filed 2012-04-30

The District Court correctly noted that the complaint does not allege a violation of the Constitution or federal law.

Section 1331 alone does not establish federal-question jurisdiction; the case must involve a violation of federal constitutional or statutory law.

Bemba v. Holder · filed 2013-03-11

The federal question jurisdictional statute alone does not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction. For the Court to have federal question jurisdiction, the case must involve violations of federal constitutional or statutory law.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges no violation of the Constitution or federal law.

Alvin Simmons, Jr. v. Simmons · filed 2013-04-25

Simmons did not allege a violation of the Constitution or federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor did he allege any facts that would provide a basis for diversity of citizenship among the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 confers federal district court jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.

Archie v. Booker · filed 2014-04-16

Federal district courts have jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Plaintiff does not raise a constitutional claim, and notwithstanding her demand for damages far in excess of $75,000, she does not establish diversity of citizenship Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A mere suggestion of a constitutional right to property does not establish that a claim arises under federal law for purposes of Section 1331.

Ford v. William C.smith & Company, Inc. · filed 2014-06-30

This complaint does not demonstrate that plaintiffs claims "aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States," 28 U.S.C. § 1331, notwithstanding plaintiffs mere suggestion of a constitutional right to property.

Section 1331 confers original subject-matter jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Thomas v. Snap-On Incorporated · filed 2015-03-02

Contrary to Thomas’s contention, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over his action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (federal subject matter jurisdiction exists over disputes involving citizens of different states and an amount in controversy over $75,000.00).

A complaint that does not allege a claim arising under the Constitution or federal law provides no basis for federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Richard v. Doe · filed 2016-03-15

Richard did not allege that his claim arose under the Constitution or any federal law of the United States and, therefore, his complaint does not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties; a complaint with no apparent federal basis does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Byrd v. Metropolitan Police Department, Dc · filed 2016-06-13

Federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, exists if plaintiff shows that her claim arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. ... Here, plaintiff does not identify a constitutional or statutory basis for her claims, and it is not apparent that this action arises under the United States Constitution or federal law.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties; absent a federal question, it provides no jurisdiction.

Amiri v. Law Office of Olikamma A. Ekekwe · filed 2016-07-26

The district courts have jurisdiction in “federal question” eases, i.e., civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... In this case, because appellant established neither federal-question jurisdiction nor diversity jurisdiction, the district court lacked jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging that a municipal law violates the United States Constitution.

Wells v. City of Wilmington · filed 2017-06-28

Moreover, the complaint alleges that the municipal law at issue violates the United States Constitution and, thus, clearly raises a federal question.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a complaint alleging facts that may support a federal due process claim, even if the complaint does not expressly cite the federal cause of action or constitutional provision.

Pledger v. Russell · filed 2017-07-19

Reading Ms. Pledger’s complaint liberally, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (pro se pleadings are to be reviewed liberally), she stated the basis of a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by alleging facts that might amount to a denial of procedural due process. That sufficed for the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to assert a claim arising under federal law or the Constitution to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Deleon v. Artis, II · filed 2018-11-21

Plaintiff’s complaint does not seem to assert any claims against defendant, let alone any claims that arise under a federal law or the Constitution.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff asserts no claim arising under federal law or the Constitution.

Warner · filed 2018-12-14

Plaintiff does not assert any claims arising under the laws of the United States or the Constitution.

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

Al-Rufus Anderson v. Emory Transplant Clinic · filed 2019-01-07

Nevertheless, because he did not allege that his claim arose under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, and because he did not assert diversity of citizenship or the existence of any amount of money in controversy, the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his complaint and did not abuse its discretion by dismissing it.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the complaint cites constitutional provisions.

Brown v. Progressive Specialty Ins Co. · filed 2019-03-29

And Brown’s mere citation to various constitutional provisions cannot transform his state law claims into causes of action “arising under” the Constitution.

Section 1331 requires a discernible federal statute or constitutional provision supporting the claims to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Martin v. Oldham County Police Department · filed 2019-06-21

In the present case, Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff cites no federal statutes or United States Constitutional provisions in support of his claims, and the Court cannot discern any from the facts alleged. Therefore, the complaint fails to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to identify a cause of action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States to invoke federal-question jurisdiction.

Weedman v. Steff · filed 2019-07-02

Plaintiff does not specify any cause of action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States and fails to invoke this Court’s federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction over a fraud claim that does not arise under a federal statute or the United States Constitution.

Abergel v. New York State Gaming Commission · filed 2019-07-12

Because Plaintiffs claim of fraud does not arise under a federal statute or the United States Constitution, this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only breach of promise and denial of an insurance claim without identifying a federal statute or constitutional provision.

Brown v. Certain Underwriters Mendes & Mount · filed 2019-07-15

“Breach of promise” and “[d]enying my insurance claim” are not bases for a federal court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted constitutional claim concerns conduct by private actors that does not implicate federal constitutional rights.

Schmidt v. Fuiks · filed 2019-07-23

Plaintiff’s assertion of federal question jurisdiction is also deficient. Defendants are not state actors, and so none of their conduct implicates Plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights.

Section 1331 does not support federal-question jurisdiction over a First Amendment claim so devoid of merit that it does not present a federal controversy.

Fermin v. Priest of Saint Mary · filed 2019-07-24

That claim arises under federal law, so it survives a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction unless it is so “completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.” ... But a First Amendment claim against a church and a priest cannot meet that low bar.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties; a complaint stating no constitutional or federal-law claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Souvannasot v. Klein · filed 2019-07-24

The complaint does not state a claim arising under the United States Constitution or federal law and, therefore, the plaintiff does not demonstrate federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when none of the pleaded claims is based on the United States Constitution or federal law.

Barbero v. Wilhoit Property Management, Inc. · filed 2019-08-15

Plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint states subject-matter jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but none of the claims in the proposed second amended complaint are based on the United States Constitution or federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint does not allege that the action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Page v. Central New Mexico Treatment Center · filed 2019-08-23

Nor is there any properly alleged federal question jurisdiction because there are no allegations that this action “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

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

U.S. Bank National Association v. McHugh · filed 2019-08-29

Finally, plaintiff asserts no claims arising “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” as required to invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff raises no federal constitutional or statutory claim.

DOUGLAS v. KAMPER · filed 2019-09-12

There is no basis for the exercise of federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 because Ms. Duglas raises no federal constitutional or statutory claims.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over cases involving violations of federal law or the federal Constitution.

Conn v. Nissen Enterprises · filed 2019-09-16

It can consider and decide cases that involve violations of federal laws or the federal Constitution. 28 U.S.C. §1331.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint’s claims do not arise under federal law or the Constitution.

Taylor v. CMG Leasing · filed 2019-09-19

Reading Taylor’s complaint liberally, his claims do not appear to arise under the laws or Constitution of the United States and the patties do not appear to be diverse. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1332.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint does not allege that the action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Hakeem v. Hertzler · filed 2019-09-20

Nor is there any properly alleged federal question jurisdiction because there are no allegations that this action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 requires allegations that the action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Yaskoweak v. Church of Scientology · filed 2019-09-25

Nor is there any properly alleged federal question jurisdiction because there are no allegations that this action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when the plaintiff shows a case arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Curry v. Employers Preferred Insurance Company · filed 2019-09-30

First, federal question jurisdiction requires the plaintiff to show that the case is one “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a right created by federal law or the Constitution to be an essential element of the claim for federal-question jurisdiction.

Hampton v. Dot · filed 2019-10-09

The complaint alleges that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Doc. No. 1 at 2); however, the complaint does not allege that a right created by the Constitution or laws of the United States is an essential element of Plaintiff’s claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an action that does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Taylor v. Gains · filed 2019-10-28

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

Section 1331 supplies no federal-question jurisdiction when the allegations implicate no constitutional or federal statutory rights.

Bush v. District of Columbia · filed 2019-10-29

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, this court may hear suits alleging that public officials have violated rights secured by the Constitution or federal law. However, none of plaintiff's allegations implicate constitutional or federal statutory rights.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint raises no federal constitutional or statutory claims.

DUGLAS v. SCHULZ · filed 2019-10-31

Notwithstanding her reference to Federalist 85, there is no basis for the exercise of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Ms. Duglas raises no federal constitutional or statutory claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims that arise only under state law and have no federal or constitutional basis.

Grayson v. Williams · filed 2019-11-06

Because Plaintiff’s claims do not arise under a federal law or the Constitution of the United States, the Court lacks federal question subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to plead a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or a federal statute to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Toutges v. McKaig (PLR2) · filed 2019-11-08

Section 1331 governs “federal question jurisdiction, which requires a plaintiff to plead a colorable claim that arises under the United States Constitution or federal statutes enacted by Congress.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Ali v. Cohen · filed 2019-11-12

But even with the benefit of liberal construction, Plaintiff has not alleged a claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States and none is apparent to the Court.

Section 1331 requires facts showing that a claim arises under federal law; a complaint alleging no specific constitutional or federal statutory violation does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Green v. McClain · filed 2019-11-21

Second, Plaintiff fails to allege facts necessary to show that the case is one “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff alleges no specific violation of the Constitution or federal statute, and no federal question jurisdiction is evident from the face of the complaint. Therefore, the court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when an action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Stephens v. Sarah · filed 2019-12-04

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

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the plaintiff invokes the U.S. Constitution to dispute a state-law defense.

Treadway v. Raleigh County Board of Education · filed 2019-12-09

Plaintiff’s argument regarding the application of a state law defense does not bear on whether the action arises under federal law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no violation of the Constitution or other federal law.

Watson v. Olson · filed 2019-12-27

She does not allege a violation of the First Amendment, or any other federal law, meaning federal question jurisdiction is not available.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only breach of contract without identifying a federal law or constitutional violation.

(PS) Smith v. Ilija · filed 2019-12-30

The factual allegations support only a breach of contract claim. ... There is therefore no basis for federal question jurisdiction.

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

Martinez v. Law Offices of John F. Nevares & Associates, P.S.C. · filed 2020-01-10

Subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims cannot be established pursuant to federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. None of the claims arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

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

Manneh v. F.B.I. · filed 2020-01-13

In order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, the plaintiff's claim(s) must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Moreover, the plaintiff has not alleged any facts that would bring his claims within the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to establish a federal question through a claim arising under federal law or the Constitution.

Curry v. Employers Preferred Insurance Company · filed 2020-01-15

Federal question jurisdiction exists if the claims “aris[e] under the Constitution, law, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to establish federal question jurisdiction over any of his alleged causes of action.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when a liberally construed complaint alleges violations of federal law or the Constitution, even if the plaintiff invokes diversity instead.

Stephens v. National City Corporation · filed 2020-01-28

While Plaintiff does not invoke federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for jurisdiction, the complaint alleges violations of various federal laws and the United States Constitution. The Court’s federal question jurisdiction is plain on the face of the complaint. Therefore, in the spirit of liberal construction, the Court finds that it has federal question jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a plaintiff alleges a violation of federal law or the federal Constitution; allegations that identify no such violation do not establish a federal question.

Johnson v. Wells Fargo · filed 2020-02-04

The court has jurisdiction over cases where the plaintiff has alleged that the defendants violated federal laws or the federal Constitution. 28 U.S.C. §1331. ... He does not identify any federal law or federal constitutional provision that he believes the defendants violated.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; allegations that do not implicate federal law or the Constitution do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Barbero v. Davidson · filed 2020-02-10

Plaintiff has not shown that her case implicates any federal statutes, federal treaties, or provisions of the United States Constitution. ... Therefore, plaintiff has not established that this Court has federal subject matter jurisdiction over her case.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction over actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Parker v. Settle · filed 2020-02-10

The instant action clearly does not arise under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. Therefore, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of federal law or the Constitution; a complaint seeking to enforce neither does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Dinga v. Dinga · filed 2020-02-10

Plaintiff is not seeking enforcement of any federal statutory or constitutional rights.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint makes only vague references to racism and conspiracy without implicating a federal statute or constitutional right.

BULLARD v. Miami-Dade County Value Adjustment Board · filed 2020-02-12

Although the Plaintiff makes reference to racism and conspiracy, the court cannot exercise jurisdiction based on such vague references that do not implicate a federal statute or constitutional right.

Section 1331 grants federal question jurisdiction only when an action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Ballard v. Jabbar · filed 2020-02-12

As noted above, the instant action clearly does not arise under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, nor does this case involve constitutional violations that arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Therefore, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 ULS.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires allegations that an action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Vidal v. Classic Jewlers and Loan Pawnshop · filed 2020-02-14

Nor is there any properly alleged federal question jurisdiction because there are no allegations that this action "aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; a case that does not arise under those sources lacks federal-question jurisdiction.

Parker v. Settle · filed 2020-02-24

The instant action clearly does not arise under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. Therefore, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when an action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Patterson v. Bristol West Insurance Company · filed 2020-02-27

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

Section 1331 requires allegations showing a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; a bare assertion of federal-question jurisdiction does not suffice.

Glenn v. Ron · filed 2020-03-09

Although Plaintiff alleges the court has jurisdiction pursuant to federal question, he fails to allege the case is one “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff alleges no specific violation of the Constitution or federal statute, and no federal question jurisdiction is evident from the face of the complaint. ECF No. 1 at 2.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a FEHBA insurer’s reimbursement claim where state law does not significantly conflict with federal interests.

Blue Cross Blue Shield Health Care Plan of Georgia, Inc. v. Gunter · filed 2008-09-05

We do not decide this issue, inasmuch as we hold that, even if McVeigh recognizes exceptions to the general rule of no federal jurisdiction, such exceptions are not applicable here.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the Railway Labor Act supplies only an ordinary pre-emption defense, rather than complete pre-emption.

Moore-Thoms v. Alaska Airlines · filed 2009-01-27

Even assuming that Alaska’s removal petition demon- strates that the RLA provides a complete federal defense to Moore-Thomas’s state wage and hour claim, because the RLA is subject to ordinary rather than complete pre-emption, her complaint does not arise under federal law and is not removable.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to show on its face a cause of action created by federal law or a state law claim with an essential federal-law element.

Boccio v. American Bible Society · filed 2009-07-24

For § 1331 to apply, it must be apparent from the face of the plaintiffs complaint that the alleged cause of action is either a) created by federal law or b) based on state law but has an “essential element” based on federal law that creates a cause of action.

An ordinary federal preemption defense to a state-law claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

No Doubt v. Activision Publishing, Inc. · filed 2010-01-14

Preemption defenses do not give rise to federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and thus do not provide removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on complete preemption when a state-law claim is not completely preempted by federal law.

Mencer v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc. · filed 2010-02-04

This court concludes that plaintiffs § 4123.90 claim is a state-law claim which is not completely preempted by § 301 of the LMRA. Therefore the removal of that claim to this court cannot be based on federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law freight-charge claims merely because the carrier operates in interstate commerce.

ALLIANCE SHIPPERS, INC. v. Starrett · filed 2010-10-07

At oral argument, Alliance confirmed that it is not asserting any claim to recover under any provision of Title 49. Instead, it is asserting claims under Maine law, but claiming federal jurisdiction because its activities are in interstate commerce. ... As a result, I see no basis for federal question jurisdiction under section 1331 or section 1337(a).

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction when the complaint presents a federal question; a state-law conversion claim alone does not.

Hewlett v. Lappin · filed 2010-12-09

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 when the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ... The only potentially cognizable claim the Court can identify is one under state law for conversion of the sweat pants.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction over a claim based on federal law even when the plaintiff uses a state-law settlement agreement to rebut a defense.

Arrow Gear Co. v. Downers Grove Sanitary District · filed 2010-12-10

These cases are inapplicable, however, because Arrow’s suit is based on federal law, namely the contribution provision of CERCLA, and not on any settlement governed by state law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim solely because ERISA conflict preemption may apply.

Quintana v. Lightner · filed 2011-03-21

Significantly for this case, even if the court were to find that Quintana’s state law causes of action against the defendants relate to an ERISA plan within the meaning of § 514(a), conflict preemption is insufficient to create federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over demands for benefits under ERISA plans when ERISA preempts the state-law remedies.

Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad v. Schieffer · filed 2011-08-11

If these are demands for the payment of benefits under ERISA plans, as amended by the Employment Agreement, then to that extent all state law remedies are preempted and the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over portions of DM&E’s complaint.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts a federal cause of action or a state-law claim requiring resolution of a substantial federal question.

Bantom v. Dte Energy Co. · filed 2011-11-23

The complaint does not contain a federal cause of action, and none of the state law causes of action requires resolution of a substantial federal question. The complaint does not make reference to or require the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, nor does it otherwise invoke section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, and therefore it does not trigger complete preemption. There is no federal question jurisdiction, and therefore the Court has no subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims completely preempted by ERISA § 502(a), but an express preemption defense under ERISA § 514(a) does not confer jurisdiction.

Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad v. Schieffer · filed 2012-03-08

In short, complete preemption under § 502(a) provides a basis for federal question jurisdiction; express preemption under § 514(a) does not.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law crop-insurance claims against local agents when the FCIA does not completely preempt those claims and the complaints raise no substantial question of federal law.

Wanamaker v. Lawson · filed 2012-05-14

The Court CONCLUDES that Plaintiffs’ complaints raise no substantial question of federal law and, indeed, these cases merely — and barely— touch on federal law. As such, Plaintiffs’ complaints do not satisfy the requirements for federal question subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when federal preemption is only a defense and the complaint raises no actually disputed and substantial federal issue.

Isufi v. Prometal Construction, Inc. · filed 2013-02-28

Preemption is a defense. The defendants are free to make their arguments about preemption in state court. But that cannot serve as the grounds to remove the case. The well-pleaded allegations in plaintiffs complaint do not raise any “actually disputed and substantial” federal issues.

Section 1331 does not provide substantial-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim unless the claim necessarily raises a federal issue.

Hooten v. Ikard Servi Gas · filed 2013-05-03

In other words, Mr. Hooten’s discrimination claims do not meet the first requirement necessary to establish “substantial-question” jurisdiction: They do not “necessarily raise a federal claim.”

Section 1331 does not confer embedded federal-question jurisdiction over state law claims when they do not necessarily raise an actually disputed and substantial federal issue.

MHA LLC v. HealthFirst, Inc. · filed 2015-11-17

Because this case does not “necessarily raise” a federal issue that is “actually disputed and substantial,” the federal court may not exercise subject matter jurisdiction based on “embedded jurisdiction.” Grable, 545 U.S. at 314.

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

Spence v. Ford Motor Company · filed 2016-02-29

Spence’s complaint alleges federal-question and intellectual- property jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a) (2012), but her claims are all based on state law and do not contain any intellectual-property claims.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim on the face of the complaint; SLUSA does not independently supply federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim.

Rainero v. Archon Corporation · filed 2016-12-21

In summary, the district court here correctly concluded that it lacked federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 because Rainero did not assert a federal claim, and § 77p(d)(1)(A) does not provide an independent basis for federal question jurisdiction over Rainero’s state-law claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim solely because a defense raises a federal question.

League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, et al. v. New Hampshire Secretary of State, et al. NH Democratic Party v. New H · filed 2017-09-03

Even if a defense raised a federal law question, that question would not independently confer subject-matter jurisdiction on this court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a state-law complaint merely references a federal statute in describing the plaintiff’s disability.

Heimann v. Alternative Energy, LLC · filed 2017-12-15

Next, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s single reference to the ADA – “[Plaintiff’s] condition constitutes a ‘disability’ under the Missouri Human Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act” – is insufficient to establish jurisdiction viewed in light of the whole Petition.

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

Asah v. N.J. Dep't of Educ. · filed 2018-07-27

Because Plaintiffs' remaining claims arise solely under state law, and therefore are not claims over which I have original jurisdiction, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state law claim when the complaint alleges no violation of federal law.

Kulick v. Leisure Village Ass'n, Inc. · filed 2018-10-29

To the extent Kulick attempted to plead a state law defamation claim against Leisure Valley Association, Inc., the district court properly dismissed Kulick’s claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Kulick failed to allege any violation of federal law or diversity of citizenship in his complaint.

Section 1331 does not confer substantial federal question jurisdiction over a state law claim when resolving the claim requires no federal issue.

Tex. Med. Res., LLP v. Molina Healthcare of Tex., Inc. · filed 2019-01-02

Having reviewed the parties' briefings, the Court is of the opinion that there are no federal issues necessary to the resolution of Plaintiffs' state law claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because its facts involve federal leave when resolving the claim requires no substantial federal-law question.

Jalili v. H.C. Starck Inc. · filed 2019-02-01

The mere fact that the conduct for which plaintiff alleges she was fired may include her FMLA leave does not imbue plaintiff’s state law claim with any significant federal legal issue over which this court could exercise jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide original jurisdiction over a state-law conversion counterclaim based on a separate property dispute.

Young v. Axis Welding & Machine Works, Inc. · filed 2019-05-03

Thus, the counterclaim does not fall within this Court’s jurisdiction over federal claims under § 1331, nor within the Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, since the amount in controversy falls well below $75,000.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction only when the complaint alleges facts showing that the action arises under federal law; a state-law conversion claim does not suffice.

Bey v. Magnolia Bakery Corp. · filed 2019-05-21

To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiffs claims must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Therefore, Plaintiff has not alleged facts demonstrating that this action arises under federal law.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when a pro se complaint, liberally construed, shows an intent to assert claims arising under federal law despite citing state law.

Royal v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. · filed 2019-05-24

Because it is clear from the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint that she intended to assert claims arising under federal law, the Court finds that it has federal question jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges state-law discrimination unrelated to the federal statutes invoked for jurisdiction.

Pearson v. Heat and Frost Insulators · filed 2019-06-10

Original “federal question” jurisdiction exists for “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... These employment allegations bear no relationship to either of the federal statutes alleged by Pearson to support jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal jurisdiction when the complaint alleges a claim arising under federal law; a state-law libel claim does not qualify.

Schroeder v. Cheyenne Manufacturing · filed 2019-07-17

Federal jurisdiction is also proper if the complaint alleges a claim arising under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The complaint does not allege any facts to state a claim under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide original federal-question jurisdiction over counterclaims brought under state law.

MNM Investments, LLC v. HDM, Inc. · filed 2019-07-30

The parties acknowledge that the counterclaims at issue are brought under state law and that the parties are all residents of Kansas. Therefore, the Court does not have original jurisdiction over the counterclaims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1332.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because a plaintiff labels them federal.

Moran v. Serio · filed 2019-09-12

The label applied to a cause of action does not change the characteristics of the cause of action and convert it into a federal claim.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that do not arise under federal law after the federal claims have been dismissed.

Sgromo v. Imperial Toy LLC · filed 2019-09-13

The Amended Complaint asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Dkt. No. 16 at ¶ 7), which is the section conferring federal question jurisdiction. Since the Court concluded above that Sgromo lacks standing to assert claims of patent infringement against Defendants, and the patent infringement claims were the only claims that involved federal question jurisdiction, there is no continuing basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s claims for violations of the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, tortious interference, unfair competition, or unjust enrichment are each state law claims that do not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when the complaint raises no viable federal question.

Elliott v. Segal · filed 2019-10-15

Here, in the absence of a viable constitutional claim, the Complaint does not raise a federal question.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction merely because a state-law claim may eventually touch upon federal law.

King v. Monsanto Company · filed 2019-10-16

In sum, defendants have not persuaded this Court that federal question jurisdiction exists, here, merely because plaintiff’s failure-to-warn claim may—at some point in the future—touch upon federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because federal law regulates conduct related to the claim.

Carrington Square, LLC v. Steeley · filed 2019-11-05

However, a claim is not based on federal law merely because it is regulated by federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when they present no substantial federal question and are not completely preempted by federal law.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. TINTED BREW, INC. · filed 2019-11-07

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. ... As there is no substantial federal question and no complete preemption, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the State’s state law claims against Tinted Brew.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when they present no substantial federal question and are not completely preempted by federal law.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. VAPECO DISTRIBUTION LLC · filed 2019-11-07

As there is no substantial federal question and no complete preemption, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the State’s state law claims against VapeCo.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because a federal preemption defense is asserted; the claims must be completely preempted or otherwise state a federal claim.

Alan v. Austin Capital Bank, SSB · filed 2019-11-12

The Court therefore concludes that Defendant has failed to establish that Plaintiff's claims for violations of California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act are completely preempted or otherwise state a federal claim that supports the Court’s exercise of federal question jurisdiction over this action.