28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action or a well-pleaded complaint necessarily depends on a substantial question of federal law; state-law claims without a federal issue do not qualify.

Limtung v. PayPal Holdings, Inc. · filed 2019-11-20

Moreover, although Limtung also invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, his case does not present an issue of federal law. (Compl. at 5.) See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A case arises under federal question jurisdiction where federal law creates the plaintiff's cause of action or where “the well-pleaded complaint necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; allegations concerning a property dispute under state law do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Liu v. Stephenson Development, LLC · filed 2019-12-13

Furthermore, plaintiff does not currently assert any federal questions. ... While plaintiff may have a claim under state property law, he does not raise a claim under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over state-law claims that turn on a factual ownership question rather than the construction of a substantial, disputed federal question.

St. Rose Coronado 613, LLC v. Valley Electric Association, Inc. · filed 2019-12-13

That does not turn on the construction of a substantial, disputed federal question, at least as presently pleaded.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff disclaims federal claims in an ambiguous complaint and pursues only state-law claims.

(PC) Tate v. Nakashyan · filed 2019-12-17

The Court recommends that Plaintiff’s motion for remand be granted because Plaintiff has indicated that he is not pursuing any federal causes of action.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law; claims raising only state law do not qualify.

Fuller v. Clark County · filed 2020-01-22

Because Fuller is attempting to raise state law claims between citizens of the same state, I lack jurisdiction over this case and dismiss it without prejudice but without leave to amend in federal court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint contains only a state-law claim and no question of federal law.

Sawl v. Stryker Corporation · filed 2020-01-23

Thus, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 plainly does not grant this Court jurisdiction over the instant action because the Amended Complaint contains no question of federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges only state-law causes of action and cites federal statutes without pleading claims and supporting facts under them.

Smith v. Seene · filed 2020-01-29

Yet, the complaint does not assert any causes of action with supporting facts under these federal statutes. ... Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the Court federal question jurisdiction, the Court must dismiss the complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint invokes federal statutes but its factual allegations support only a state-law claim and relief does not depend on federal law.

Pritchett v. Omni House, Inc. · filed 2020-01-31

Pritchett’s claim does not stem from federal law but is grounded in a state law claim for breach of a lease agreement.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the complaint; a bare citation to federal debt collection law does not establish federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law ejectment action.

Quail Valley Apartments Investors, LP v. Brown · filed 2020-02-06

Further, Plaintiff’s bare citation to federal debt collection law does not demonstrate the existence of a federal question.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts a federal cause of action or a state-law claim that necessarily raises an actually disputed, substantial federal issue suitable for federal resolution.

Brooke Forest Community Association, Inc. v. Norris · filed 2020-02-19

The Court remands this case because there is no basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction over Brook Forest’s claims. Brook Forest’s original petition does not assert any federal cause of action. It asserts only state-law claims under the Texas Property Code. Resolving Brook Forest’s claims will not necessarily entail the resolution of a disputed, substantial federal issue.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims remaining after the federal claim is dismissed.

Dozier v. Douglas Autotech Corporation · filed 2020-03-06

Since Plaintiff’s remaining claims were filed pursuant to state law, the Court no longer has federal question jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 permits federal jurisdiction over state law claims when they necessarily raise an actually disputed, substantial federal issue that a federal court can resolve without disrupting the congressionally approved federal-state balance.

Wullschleger v. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. · filed 2020-03-13

Based on the allegations in the complaint and relief sought, we find a federal issue surrounding the state law claims is “(1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 258 (2013). When all four of these requirements are met, federal jurisdiction is proper.

Section 1331 generally requires a federal question on the face of the complaint, but a state-law claim can qualify if it necessarily raises an actually disputed, substantial federal issue that can be resolved in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.

McNeil v. Duncan · filed 2020-03-31

Those claims arise under D.C. law and thus do not, at least at first blush, fall within 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Under this narrow exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule, federal jurisdiction is available “if a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 258 (2013).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a general reference to federal due process raises no substantial federal question integral to the complaint.

Morgan v. Blairs Bail Bonds, Inc. · filed 2020-04-16

The Court does not believe that the federal question the defendants put forth in the plaintiff’s fourth claim for relief is substantial and forms an integral part of the complaint.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law public-nuisance claim that raises no substantial federal issue and is not completely preempted by federal law.

City of Oakland v. Bp P.L.C. · filed 2020-05-26

In sum, because neither exception to the well-pleaded- complaint rule applies to the Cities’ original complaints, the district court erred in holding that it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 at the time of removal.

Section 1331 does not support federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the removing party fails to establish that an embedded federal issue meets the Grable factors.

TORRES v. CITY OF TRENTON · filed 2020-05-27

The City fails to meet its burden to establish the Court's federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff's excessive force claims because the City fails to discuss the Grable factors.

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

Sumter · filed 2025-10-16

This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case, as Plaintiff alleges a personal injury claim under Illinois law. See 735 ILCS 5/13-202; 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over suits seeking declaratory and prospective injunctive relief against state officials on federal preemption grounds.

Med-Trans Corp. v. Benton · filed 2008-09-26

Amici curiae's most recent suggestion, in brief filed September 12, 2008, that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction is clearly erroneous. Plaintiff requests both declaratory and prospective injunctive relief, and this case is therefore within the purview of Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 103 S.Ct. 2890, 77 L.Ed.2d 490 (1983), where the Supreme Court found a lawsuit requesting both declaratory and injunctive relief on preemption grounds sufficient to support subject matter jurisdiction: ... thus presents a federal question which the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to resolve.”

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that presents a federal question on its face or falls within the complete-preemption doctrine.

Ammedie v. Sallie Mae, Inc. · filed 2012-07-31

Because complete preemption does not exist, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction based on federal question jurisdiction when it granted Sallie Mae’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion for Ammedie’s failure to respond and ordered the clerk to dismiss the action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on an ERISA conflict-preemption defense.

Manley v. UnitedHealth Group Inc. · filed 2019-08-06

Defendants are free to assert a conflict preemption defense under § 514 of ERISA in state court, but conflict preemption does not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over an NLRB action seeking a declaration that territorial regulation is preempted by federal labor law.

National Labor Relations Board v. GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS · filed 2021-10-27

However, the Court does not agree that the Complaint merely presents a federal defense. ... In any event, whether dicta or not, this Court finds the analysis persuasive and therefore adopts it here. Accordingly, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter based on federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint stating a federal cause of action.

Robert K. v. Cobb County School District · filed 2008-05-28

Cobb County’s contention that there was no federal question jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claim also fails. Plaintiffs’ complaint stated a claim under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B). That is sufficient to vest the district court with jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claim cannot state a viable cause of action.

Meier v. Musburger · filed 2008-12-08

As we shall see, the complaint fails to state a claim under RICO — indeed it demonstrates that there can be no viable RICO claim — and thus, there is no jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, independent of a statute specifying a potential remedy.

Heitmann v. City of Chicago · filed 2009-03-25

But juris- diction depends not on §217, which just specifies one potential remedy, but on 28 U.S.C. §1331, for plaintiffs’ claim arises under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded complaint to establish either a federal cause of action or a right to relief that necessarily depends on resolving a substantial federal question.

Lau v. Department of Education · filed 2009-12-29

“Federal question jurisdiction extends only in those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes ‘either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on a resolution of a substantial question of federal law.’” ... Nothing in Plaintiff’s Complaint remotely demonstrates that the ultimate ruling of his case depends on resolution of any federal law, including Title VII and the FMLA.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the face of the complaint shows that federal law created the cause of action.

Rokhvarg v. Department of Community Affairs · filed 2010-02-02

For purposes of federal question jurisdiction, a claim arises under federal law if it is apparent from the face of the complaint that the cause of action was created by federal law. ... In addition, the District Court correctly determined that Rokhvarg’s complaint did not advance a cognizable claim under federal law, thus precluding the District Court from exercising federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint asserts a federal cause of action or requires resolution of a substantial federal-law question.

Weil v. Process Equipment Co. · filed 2012-06-05

This Court has original jurisdiction if the Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded complaint establishes that either federal law creates the cause of action, or that Plaintiffs’ right to relief involves the resolution or interpretation of a substantial question of federal law. ... The Court is convinced that Plaintiffs have sufficiently explained their choice of words in their Amended Complaint, and as such holds that they are not using “artful pleading” to escape federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts subject matter jurisdiction over an arguable federal claim even if the plaintiff ultimately lacks a valid cause of action.

International Union, Security, Police & Fire Professionals of America v. Faye · filed 2016-07-15

Here, as in Lexmark, the plaintiff’s claim is at least “arguable,” regardless of whether it is “valid.” Our inquiry thus goes to the merits, not jurisdiction, which exists under the general federal question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal question jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action or the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolving a substantial federal question.

Elmore S. Welch, Jr. v. Atmore Community Hospital · filed 2017-08-18

For a district court to have federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the plaintiff’s complaint must establish “either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction when a complaint includes a cause of action arising under federal law.

Carlo Carrion v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc. · filed 2018-01-19

The district court properly denied Carrion’s motion to remand this action to state court because Carrion’s complaint “contains a cause of action that is within the original jurisdiction of the district court.” Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1042 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law); id. § 1367(a) (district courts have supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims); id. § 1441(a) (providing for removal of civil action to district court where action invokes district court’s original jurisdiction).

Section 1331 does not itself create a cause of action; a complaint must present a federal question to support jurisdiction.

Dinkins v. Region Ten CSB · filed 2018-01-26

Notwithstanding the fact that § 1331 is not a cause of action, neither of Plaintiff's referenced "claims" present a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a bona fide federal cause of action; an insubstantial federal claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Coulter v. Blaze Tatananni · filed 2018-06-12

The District Court correctly concluded that Coulter advanced no bona fide federal cause of action, for purposes of securing jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the federal statutes cited in a complaint supply no cause of action for its claims.

Kornafel v. Del Chevrolet · filed 2018-08-15

We discern no other basis for jurisdiction in the District Court. Kornafel cited some federal statutes in his complaint, but none of them provides a cause of action for the claims of his complaint.3 Thus, the District Court did not have federal question...jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when the only cited federal criminal statute provides no civil cause of action and the complaint alleges no state action to support a Section 1983 claim.

Uppole v. Graham · filed 2019-04-23

There is no basis for diversity jurisdiction,1 and the only reference to federal law in Plaintiff’s Complaint is to a federal criminal statute that provides no civil cause of action. Plaintiff has also not alleged that either Defendant was a state actor or acting under color of state law, suggesting that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 likewise does not provide a basis for jurisdiction in this case.2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a discernible federal claim to establish federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint identifies no cause of action under federal law.

Holmes v. Carpenter Training Center · filed 2019-04-25

As to federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the complaint does not identify a cause of action under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff invoking federal question jurisdiction to identify a cause of action arising under federal law.

Pine v. T Mobile Corporate HQ · filed 2019-07-03

As Plaintiff does not identify any cause of action arising under federal law, he fails to satisfy his burden of showing that the Court can exercise federal question jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when a properly pleaded complaint alleges a cause of action created by federal law.

Kholodnov v. Sandlin · filed 2019-08-07

This statutory provision is the source of federal-question jurisdiction, which allows federal courts to hear cases in which federal law creates the cause of action. See Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. Drain, 237 F.3d 366, 369 (4th Cir. 2001). A court has jurisdiction as long as “a federal question appears on the face of a plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Id. at 370. Here, Plaintiff alleges a violation of federal copyright laws. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338. Therefore, the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint states no cause of action arising under federal law.

Miles v. Phillips · filed 2019-09-05

Federal question jurisdiction does not exist in this case, because the plaintiff does not state a cause of action arising under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no cause of action under federal law.

Fehderau v. Catholic Health Initiatives · filed 2019-09-23

In addition, he did not allege a cause of action under federal law. Therefore, the Complaint’s allegations fail to establish that jurisdiction exists under section 1331 or section 1332 and the court will dismiss this action without prejudice.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint alleges a federal cause of action.

Del Sesto v. Prospect CharterCARE, LLC · filed 2019-10-09

A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 so long as “the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint. . . exhibit[s], within its four corners, either an explicit federal cause of action or a state-law cause of action that contains an embedded question of federal law that is both substantial and disputed.” ... Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges four claims which arise under ERISA - a federal statute.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to establish a federal cause of action or a right to relief that depends on a substantial question of federal law.

Cardiovascular Surgery of Alexandria v. Kerry · filed 2019-11-05

Thus, Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to establish that federal law creates a cause of action or that their right to relief depends on a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint contains no viable federal cause of action.

(PS) Yegorov v. Becerra · filed 2019-11-19

Because plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any viable federal cause of action and because both plaintiff and defendant are alleged to be California citizens, there is no basis for federal jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or § 1332.

Section 1331 requires a proper federal question cause of action for federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Tangwall v. Buscher · filed 2019-11-26

Without a proper federal question cause of action, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss the action.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a Section 1983 claim is not defeated by a dispute over whether a defendant is a state actor; that issue concerns the cause of action.

Pope v. Fahy · filed 2019-12-10

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... That argument, however, contests whether plaintiff has a cause of action under Section 1983; it therefore does not implicate the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction and is properly brought under Rule 12(b)(6).

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when a complaint states no Bivens cause of action and identifies no other federal question.

Kinsley v. Doe · filed 2019-12-12

Plaintiff has not asserted that any of the parties involved in the underlying alleged incident are federal officials. (See generally Dkt. No. 4.) Therefore, he has not asserted a cause of action arising under Bivens. Plaintiff does not identify any other theory of federal question jurisdiction. (See generally id.) Consequently, Plaintiff has not pled facts establishing the Court’s federal question jurisdiction over this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action or relief necessarily depends on resolving a substantial federal question; a complaint that pleads no facts giving rise to a federal claim does not establish that jurisdiction.

Hobbs v. Livingston · filed 2020-02-21

To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s claims must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A case arises under federal law if the complaint “establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Kain, 485 F.3d 730, 734-35 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 690 (2006)). Plaintiff does not invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, and the complaint does not plead facts that give rise to a federal claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the alleged facts do not suggest a cause of action arising under federal law.

Harris v. Mount Sinai St. Lukes · filed 2020-02-21

The facts alleged do not suggest a cause of action arising under federal law, and there is no diversity jurisdiction, because all parties reside in New York.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to identify a federal cause of action to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Rouhi v. CVS Pharmacy · filed 2020-02-24

In this case, Plaintiff has failed to identify the federal cause of action which would permit this Court to exercise federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction when the complaint fails to describe a violation of federal law that a private citizen can remedy in federal court.

Hughes v. AT&T · filed 2020-02-27

Because the First Amended Complaint does not clearly describe a violation of the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute that is redressable by a private citizen in federal court, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a federal cause of action is asserted solely to manufacture jurisdiction.

Mayes v. Women's Health Center of Shelton Connecticut · filed 2021-08-26

Although federal District Courts generally should hear cases bringing federal causes of action, they need not do so where a federal cause of action is stated only to manufacture jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over negligence claims against federally deemed health centers when the FTCA is the exclusive remedy.

Moran v. Samaan · filed 2021-09-28

The Court analyzes Plaintiff’s Complaint and Defendants’ removal papers for federal question jurisdiction under § 1331. ... Here, Plaintiff pleaded negligence claims against RCFHC and WCHSA, federally-deemed facilities that the United States of America has since substituted its appearance on behalf of pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1). Such negligence claims against federally-deemed facilities constitute “related functions” under the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act (“FSHCAA”). See ECF No. 1-5 at 167-169. Therefore, the Federal Torts Claims Act (“FTCA”) is Plaintiff’s exclusive remedy against the United States of America, and this Court has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate those claims.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over FLSA claims even when individual or enterprise coverage is disputed, because coverage is a merits issue.

Williams v. Hooah Security Services, LLC · filed 2010-06-28

Having found that coverage is not a jurisdictional question, any determination by this Court that the Defendants did or did not engage in interstate commerce or the production of goods for interstate commerce at this time would be premature. ... The Court finds that it has proper subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over FLSA actions without requiring collective-action plaintiffs to comply with the FLSA opt-in rule.

Montes v. Janitorial Partners, Inc. · filed 2017-06-16

28 U.S.C. § 1331 assigns the federal district court original jurisdiction over all civil actions “arising under the . . . laws . . . of the United States.” Montes’s action arose under the FLSA, plainly a law of the United States. And “nothing in § [1331] conditions its jurisdictional grant on compliance with § [16(b)’s opt-in requirement].” Musacchio v. United States, 577 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 709, 717 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court therefore had subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over an FLSA claim even when the plaintiff fails to prove the FLSA annual sales threshold, which concerns the merits.

Salustio v. 106 Columbia Deli Corp. · filed 2017-08-30

Defendants argue that because their sales volume was under $500,000 this Court lacks “original jurisdiction” to hear plaintiffs’ FLSA claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and that we should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ NYLL claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). See Defs. Post-trial Mem. at 11. To the extent that defendants are arguing that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ FLSA claim because the $500,000- threshold was not reached, the argument is rejected.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over claims brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

LEA v. NORLYN ENTERPRISES, INC. · filed 2019-07-29

First, from the very outset of this suit, this Court has had federal question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiff asserted claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over an ERISA fiduciary’s action for equitable relief authorized by ERISA.

Phillips 66 Company v. Sacks · filed 2019-09-10

That statutory grant of authority is sufficient to cloak this action with federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim alleging a violation of federal law even when a missing element may defeat the claim on the merits.

Mead v. City First Bank of DC, NA · filed 2009-05-20

As in Doe, Mead’s claim alleging that City First disclosed his financial information without complying the RFPA raises a federal question sufficient to support jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The defendant’s argument — that Mead has failed to state a claim because he has not alleged disclosure to a government authority — goes to the merits of Mead’s claim, rather than the court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint seeking relief under federal law even when a settlement agreement may defeat the claim on the merits.

Burke ex rel. Buffalo Carpenters Pension Fund v. Lash Work Environments, Inc. · filed 2011-01-31

Notwithstanding the complaint’s reference to the Settlement Agreement, the complaint “was drawn so as to seek recovery under ERISA, vesting the District Court with subject matter jurisdiction.”

Section 1331 permits federal question jurisdiction over a federal claim that is neither insubstantial nor frivolous and was not asserted solely to invoke federal jurisdiction, even if the claim fails on the merits.

Crosby v. City of Gastonia · filed 2011-03-10

The allegations in Count I could not be said to have been insubstantial or frivolous, and inasmuch as the matter origi- nated in state court, the claims under federal law plainly were not asserted solely for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of the district court.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a well-pleaded federal claim even when a dispute over whether the federal statute covers the defendant must be resolved on the merits.

Martinez-Gonzalez v. Catholic Schools of the Archdioceses of San Juan Pension Plan · filed 2017-01-27

The Supreme Court “has established that a district court properly exercises jurisdiction under Section 1331 when a plaintiffs complaint is based on a right conferred under federal law.” ... Thus, the merits-based issues that arise from the well-pleaded allegations in the amended complaint should be evaluated under the rubric of the Rule 12(b)(6) motion-to-dismiss standard.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of federal law even when their merits are insufficient to state a claim.

Ayers v. Vestberg · filed 2019-11-15

Therefore, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction, because Plaintiff’s claims “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Whether Plaintiff’s claims are adequate or properly directed is better addressed as a challenge to the sufficiency of the claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), rather than a challenge to the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule 12(b)(1).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint does not suggest that the civil action arises under federal law.

Bell v. Georgetown University Hospital · filed 2008-05-12

Nothing in appellant’s complaint suggests she is pursuing a civil action either arising under federal law or between citizens of different states with an amount in controversy of more than $75,000.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law.

Lewis v. Fenty · filed 2008-09-10

The district court propei’ly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it is not a civil action arising under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or between citizens of different states with an amount in controversy of more than $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332; nor does the complaint allege any other basis for the district court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when at least some claims in a complaint present questions of federal law.

Johnson v. United States Department of Treasury · filed 2008-11-26

Although it found alternatively that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief, we note that jurisdiction was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because at least some of Johnson’s claims presented questions of federal law.

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

Bell-Boston v. Capital Hill Hyatt Regency · filed 2009-03-30

The district court properly dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it is not a civil action arising under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or between citizens of different states with an amount in controversy of more than $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332; nor does the complaint allege any other basis for the district court’s jurisdiction.

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

Bell-Boston v. Harriet Tubman Women's 12 Hour Low Barrier Shelter · filed 2009-05-06

The district court properly dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it is not a civil action arising under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or between citizens of different states with an amount in controversy of more than $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 provides subject matter jurisdiction only when a civil action arises under federal law.

Bell-Boston v. Mall · filed 2009-05-06

The district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it is not a civil action arising under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or between citizens of different states with an amount in controversy of more than $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 provides subject matter jurisdiction only when a civil action arises under federal law.

Bell-Boston v. Webster-Chapman · filed 2009-05-06

The district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it is not a civil action arising under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or between citizens of different states with an amount in controversy of more than $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law but supplies no substantive claim by itself.

NAHNO-LOPEZ v. Houser · filed 2009-05-20

Section 1331 gives the federal district court jurisdiction only when a federal question arises based on other federal law.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to state a claim arising under federal law for federal-question jurisdiction.

Miner v. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe · filed 2009-05-20

Federal question jurisdiction can exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 if Miner’s complaint states a claim arising under federal law. ... The Court finds that Miner has failed to raise a federal question and that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim brought under federal law unless the federal claim is immaterial and made solely to obtain jurisdiction or is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. White Pine Trust Corp. · filed 2009-08-03

But the CFTC brought its complaint under a federal law (the Commodity Exchange Act), and thus there is federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1331 unless "the alleged claim under the ... federal statute! ] clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where such claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946); see also Black v. Payne, 591 F.2d 83, 86 n. 1 (9th Cir.1979) (noting that the contention that a given instrument is not "a security” and therefore a securities fraud action would not lie goes to whether plaintiff states a claim, not whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction).

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a claim under a federal statute unless the claim is immaterial and made solely to obtain jurisdiction or is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Commodity Futures v. Baere · filed 2009-08-03

But the CFTC brought its complaint under a federal law (the Commod- ity Exchange Act), and thus there is federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1331 unless “the alleged claim under the . . . federal stat- ute[ ] clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where such claim is wholly insubstantial and friv- olous.” Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83 (1946); see also Black v. Payne, 591 F.2d 83, 86 n.1 (9th Cir. 1979) (noting that the contention that a given instrument is not “a security” and therefore a securities fraud action would not lie goes to whether plaintiff states a claim, not whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction).

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

Runaj v. Wells Fargo Bank · filed 2009-09-30

These claims clearly arise under the “laws ... of the United States,” and therefore the court has original jurisdiction over them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331(2009).

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, and a plaintiff must establish that basis for jurisdiction.

Bell-Boston v. Crime Victims Compensation Program · filed 2010-05-12

The district courts have jurisdiction in “federal question” cases, 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 (no amount in controversy was pleaded), the district court lacked jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, but not claims arising only under state or common law.

Spencer v. Fenty · filed 2010-05-13

lt has jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The allegations in the complaint, however, do not appear to arise under federal law, but instead under state or common law.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, but the complaint must establish a federal basis for jurisdiction.

Daniel v. Northern Virginia Community College Financial Officer · 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. ... Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint, without prejudice, because it does not establish that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction or that venue in this Court is proper.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a breach-of-duty claim based on common law rather than federal law.

Curtis v. Afscme Local 626 · filed 2010-05-18

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. A claim for breach of duty is a claim based on common law, not based on federal law. Thus, this Court does not have jurisdiction over this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject-matter jurisdiction over claims arising under federal statutes, including FTCA and Privacy Act claims.

Patel v. United States · filed 2010-10-19

Because Mr. Patel’s FTCA and Privacy Act claims arise under federal statutes and assert liability of the United States and the BOP, jurisdiction was proper in the Western District of Oklahoma.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to show that federal law creates a right to relief or that the right to relief turns on resolving a federal question.

Pullen-Walker v. Roosevelt University · filed 2010-12-16

When the asserted basis of removal is a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the complaint must establish that federal law creates a right to relief or that a right to relief turns on the resolution of a federal question.

A complaint seeking to invalidate local ordinances under federal law presents a federal question within Section 1331.

United States v. City of Arcata · filed 2010-12-17

The district court also had federal question jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides the district courts with “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” The government’s complaint posed a federal question in its own right because it sought invalidation of the ordinances under federal law.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, which a plaintiff must establish by stating a federal claim.

Arevalo v. Carderon-Monge · filed 2010-12-30

Plaintiff neither establishes federal question jurisdiction by stating a claim under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, nor establishes diversity jurisdiction by alleging that the parties are citizens of different states.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint raises a claim under federal law, even if the defendant disputes the plaintiff’s interpretation of that law.

San Luis Unit Food Producers v. United States · filed 2011-02-16

Federal Defendants argue that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331 because the statutes invoked by Plaintiff, although admittedly federal law, don’t contain the mandates Plaintiffs allege. This is a challenge to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, not to the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. The face of the Complaint clearly raises federal questions.

Section 1331 gives federal question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s action arises under federal law.

Johnson vs Elizabeth R. Wellborn, P.A., Morris Laing Evans Brock & Kennedy CHTD. · filed 2011-03-17

Federal question jurisdiction exists if the plaintiff’s action “arises under” the “Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging violation of a congressionally sanctioned interstate compact, which has the force of federal law.

M.F. v. State of New York Executive Department Division · filed 2011-04-11

Such a compact has the force of federal law. ... Thus, there can be no question that this case arises under the laws of the United States. ... Accordingly, the district court had jurisdiction over the matter.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction when the complaint on its face asserts a claim under federal law.

Swartz v. Oracle Corp. · filed 2011-04-12

The face of Mr. Swartz’s pleadings clearly asserts Oracle violated federal law. ... Therefore, this Court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this federal question complaint against Oracle.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges violations of federal statutes.

Boone v. Jp Morgan Chase Bank · filed 2011-11-30

Here, removal to federal court was proper because the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction based on the alleged violations of federal statutes including TILA, RESPA, and FDCPA.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint presents a substantial, disputed question of federal law, provided the claim is ripe and the plaintiffs have standing.

Revelis v. Napolitano · filed 2012-01-05

This does not implicate the APA, but a federal question is presented on the face of the Complaint in that it presents a substantial, disputed question of federal law; namely, whether the imminent application of DOMA to the petition violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Federal question jurisdiction exists, then, provided that the claim is ripe and that Plaintiffs have standing to pursue it.

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

Javier v. Countrywide Kb Home Loans · filed 2012-01-25

Contrary to Javier’s contention, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over her claims arising under federal statutes and thus removal was proper. 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 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a petition arises, at least in part, under federal law.

Meeks v. Host International, Inc. · filed 2013-05-22

The district court properly denied Meeks’s motion for remand because her petition, at least in part, arose under federal law.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law even when diversity jurisdiction is lacking.

Amezcua v. Federal Nat'l Mortgage Assoc. · filed 2014-03-18

Amezcua’s contention that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity is unpersuasive because the district court had federal question jurisdiction as Amezcua alleged claims arising under federal law.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction when a claim’s success depends on how a federal statute is construed.

Duberry v. District of Columbia · filed 2015-05-28

For now, it suffices to conclude that because Plaintiffs’ success depends on whether a provision of LEOSA is “given one construction,” Verizon Maryland, 535 U.S. at 643 (citation and internal alterations omitted), this case “aris[es] under the . . . laws . . . of the United States,” and this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Lipin v. Danske Bank · filed 2015-07-07

The notice of removal was timely and properly filed (see 28 USC § 1446), and the District Court has original jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of federal statutes, as well as supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims, including the Judiciary Law § 487 claims, since they arose out of the same case or controversy (see 28 USC §§ 1331, 1367 [a]; 1441 [a]; Eastern States Health & Welfare Fund v Philip Morris, Inc., 11 F Supp 2d 384, 388 [SD NY 1998]).

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

Kumvachirapitag v. Obama · filed 2015-09-25

The district court properly dismissed the action because Kumvachirapitag failed to allege claims under federal law or diversity of citizenship.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a claim that turns on construing federal law even when the plaintiff’s right of action is disputed.

District of Columbia Nurses Association v. Brown · filed 2016-01-04

This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this suit whether or not Section 501 affords the Association a private right of action. ... And although Section 501(b) employs the word “jurisdiction” in its title, it does not evidence Congressional intent to exclude a category of cases from the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

L'Ggrke v. Asset Plus Corporation · filed 2016-01-20

The district court indisputably had federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 over Plaintiff’s claim.

Section 1331 gives a federal district court subject matter jurisdiction over an action alleging federal law claims, so remand to state court is not required.

Penney v. Ndex West LLC · filed 2016-03-03

Contrary to Penney’s contention, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and it was not required to remand this action to California state court.

Section 1331 asks whether the claims arise under federal law; the parties’ designations do not affect that inquiry.

Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. Jefferson · filed 2016-04-14

Their designations as “counterclaim defendants,” “defendants,” or anything else have no bearing on whether the claims “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when federal law gives the plaintiff a right to sue or the complaint requires deciding a substantial question of federal law.

Kuri v. Matrix Center · filed 2016-05-18

A case arises under federal law if federal law gives the plaintiff a right to sue, or if the plaintiff’s complaint requires the court to decide a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 requires facts sufficient to show that the claims arise under federal law.

Keys v. Bokosky · filed 2016-11-07

The district court properly dismissed Keys’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Keys failed to allege facts sufficient to show that his claims arose under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1089 (9th Cir. 2002) (“federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no facts sufficient to show a violation of federal law.

Sepehry-Fard v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, I · filed 2016-11-07

The district court properly dismissed Sepehry-Fard’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Sepehry-Fard failed to allege facts sufficient to show any violation of federal law or diversity of citizenship in his complaint.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint fails to allege a violation of federal law.

Darby v. Chohan · filed 2016-11-07

The district court properly dismissed Darby’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Darby failed to allege any violation of federal law or diversity of citizenship in his complaint.

Section 1331 requires a question of federal law for federal-question jurisdiction.

Eiler v. Avera McKennan Hospital · filed 2017-01-04

... we agree with the district court that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1); Key Med. Supply, Inc. v. Burwell, 764 F.3d 955, 961 (8th Cir. 2014) (de novo review), as Eiler did not raise a question of federal law or cite to a federal statute, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and did not allege an amount in controversy sufficient for diversity jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege a violation of federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Bridgette Smith v. Arizona Medical Board · filed 2017-05-31

The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Smith’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Smith failed to allege any violation of federal law or diversity of citizenship in her complaint.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege facts sufficient to show a violation of federal law for federal-question jurisdiction.

Bockari v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank · filed 2017-08-15

The district court properly dismissed Bockari’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Bockari failed to allege facts sufficient to show any violation of federal law or diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a); Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1181-83 (9th Cir. 2004) (addressing diversity of citizenship under § 1332); Yokeno v. Mafnas, 973 F.2d 803, 807-08 (9th Cir. 1992) (analyzing whether plaintiff’s complaint presented a “substantial federal question”).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint raises no question of federal law.

Boyd v. Consol Island Creek Coal · filed 2017-11-13

First, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint does not involve any question of “federal law” as to invoke jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to plead facts establishing a claim arising under federal law to support federal question jurisdiction.

Nezbeda v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Corp. · filed 2017-11-20

After carefully reviewing Plaintiffs' Complaint, the Court finds that Complaint is frivolous because it fails to plead facts demonstrating that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over an action whose complaint relies on federal law as a source of recovery.

Finnegan v. Citi · filed 2017-11-22

The district court properly denied Finnegan’s motion to remand his action to state court because the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the action was properly removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. See Ethridge, 861 F.2d at 1394 (“When a plaintiff’s complaint relies on federal law as the source of recovery, it is obvious that the case ‘arises under’ federal law and therefore may be removed to federal court.”).

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, and a complaint must plead facts establishing that jurisdiction.

Dorsey v. Superior Court for the District of Columbia · filed 2017-12-20

The district courts have jurisdiction in “federal question” cases, i.e., civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and in “diversity” cases, Le., civil actions between citizens of different states or between United States citizens and foreign citizens or foreign states, provided the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In this case, appellant failed to plead facts to establish federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over an FTC enforcement suit arising under federal law even when the defendant disputes the FTC’s regulatory jurisdiction.

FTC v. At&t Mobility LLC · filed 2018-02-26

Although AT&T disputes the FTC’s regulatory jurisdiction, the district court had federal question jurisdiction because the dispute was one “arising under” federal law.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions concerning relinquishment of United States citizenship because they arise under federal law.

in Re: Brandon Bey · filed 2018-07-31

Thus, relinquishment of citizenship is a federal question. Federal district courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2012).

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law, and a local jurisdictional provision cannot strip that jurisdiction.

National Resident Matching Program v. Alashry · filed 2018-09-26

The provision cannot “strip” federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction because, to the extent it so impinges, it is preempted by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which grants district courts “original jurisdiction” over cases “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” and 9 U.S.C. § 205, which authorizes a defendant to remove an action that “relates to an arbitration agreement or award falling under the Convention” to federal district court, id.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a fraud claim merely because the complaint references federal statutes.

Sexton v. Potterfield · filed 2018-11-13

To the extent Plaintiffs have a claim for fraud, it is clear that it does not arise under federal law, and Plaintiffs cannot confer federal jurisdiction by simply making references to federal statutes.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over nonfrivolous claims that turn on federal law, including federal challenges to a state water-quality certification.

Exelon Generation Co. v. Grumbles · filed 2019-03-29

Although Exelon is also challenging the Certification in state administrative and legal processes, the immediate Complaint clearly raises only questions concerning the federal Constitution and laws, is not designed to invent federal jurisdiction, and is not frivolous. ... Jurisdiction exists under § 1331 if "the right of the petitioners to recover under their complaint will be sustained if the Constitution and laws of the United States are given one construction and will be defeated if they are given another," unless the claim is "immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or ... frivolous."

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when the plaintiff pleads a colorable claim arising under federal law.

Crandell v. Hardy County Rural Development Authority · filed 2019-05-10

Section 1331 provides for federal question jurisdiction, which is properly invoked by the plaintiff when the plaintiff pleads a colorable claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

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

Casiano v. Roth · filed 2019-05-21

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

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a filing that identifies no claim arising under federal law.

Kurowski v. Estate of Kenneth H. Kurowski · filed 2019-06-03

Her self-styled notice of appeal to the district court suggests no claims arising under federal-question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, or diversity jurisdiction, see, e.g., Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Kraus-Anderson Constr. Co., 607 F.3d 1268, 1276 (11th Cir. 2010) (explaining that “barren” complaint failed to cite any constitutional provision, federal statute, or recognized theory of common law to establish subject-matter jurisdiction).

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law on the face of the complaint for federal-question jurisdiction.

Smith v. Toyota Motor Corporation · filed 2019-06-05

Despite having liberally construed the allegations of the Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint, the Court is unable to find a claim on the face of the Complaint that would give rise to federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a claim arising under federal law; merely invoking federal jurisdiction does not establish subject matter jurisdiction.

Williams v. Pfiefer · filed 2019-06-11

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

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction when the complaint neither invokes federal law nor alleges a claim arising under federal law.

Owens v. John Doe of Store Vintage Wine and Spirits · filed 2019-07-01

To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Plaintiff does not invoke any federal law, and the allegations in his complaint do not suggest a claim that arises under federal law. The Court therefore cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction over his claims.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim alleging a violation of federal law, including USERRA.

Spice v. General Motors Fort Wayne Assembly · filed 2019-07-03

But again, it is Spice who is alleging a violation of a federal law–the USERRA–and that means jurisdiction is proper in federal court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s causes of action do not arise under federal law.

Johnson v. Billions Auto · filed 2019-07-31

The subject matter jurisdiction of this Court may derive from a federal question posed by the underlying lawsuit, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the citizenship of the parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or special circumstances covered by federal statute. The causes of action Johnson identifies do not arise under any federal statute. ... Accordingly, the Court concludes that federal question jurisdiction is lacking in Johnson’s cases.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s causes of action do not arise under federal law.

Johnson v. Experian · filed 2019-07-31

The subject matter jurisdiction of this Court may derive from a federal question posed by the underlying lawsuit, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the citizenship of the parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or special circumstances covered by federal statute. The causes of action Johnson identifies do not arise under any federal statute. ... Accordingly, the Court concludes that federal question jurisdiction is lacking in Johnson’s cases.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under federal law; pleadings alleging no facts or laws suggesting a federal question do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Agrawal v. Peter · filed 2019-08-09

A federal court's ability to exercise jurisdiction requires that a claim arise under either federal question or diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff fails to include any statement of the citizenship of the intended defendants in either pleading to establish jurisdiction by diversity of citizenship, nor are any facts alleged or laws cited which would appear to confer jurisdiction by reason of a federal question.

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

HICKS v. ROSARIO · filed 2019-08-22

If he is, Plaintiff must properly identify Defendants and state a legal basis for his claims such that they arise under federal law and establish subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the cited federal statutes do not apply and the claim does not otherwise arise under federal law or require resolution of a substantial federal-law question.

Taylor v. RockYou, Inc. · filed 2019-08-29

As discussed above, the federal statutes listed by plaintiff do not apply in this case. Thus, he has not shown that federal law creates the cause of action or that his right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Furthermore, plaintiff has not alleged that this action arises under the United States Constitution, or that it involves a federal agency or officer. For all these reasons, plaintiff has failed to establish that the Court has federal question jurisdiction over his amended complaint.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over claims brought under the Federal Trade Commission Act because they arise under federal law.

In re Sanctuary Belize Litigation · filed 2019-09-05

The FTC has brought claims against Chadwick pursuant to the FTC Act, which is a federal statute. Thus, the Court has jurisdiction because “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Savage v. White · filed 2019-09-16

To invoke jurisdiction under § 1331, Ms. Savage must bring a claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 requires facts showing that a claim arises under federal law; merely invoking federal question jurisdiction is insufficient.

Brown v. Automattic · filed 2019-09-20

Plaintiff invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction but fails to plead facts showing that her claim arises under federal law. There is, therefore, no basis for her assertion of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires facts showing that a claim arises under federal law; merely invoking federal jurisdiction does not establish it.

Jordan-Rowell v. Edge · filed 2019-09-23

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

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject-matter jurisdiction when a complaint asserts a claim arising under federal law.

Monteiro v. City Of Brockton · filed 2019-09-25

The complaint therefore asserts a claim arising under federal law; because it does so, subject-matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the matter was properly removed to this court.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to plead facts showing that the claim arises under federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Brown v. Microsoft Corporation · filed 2019-10-01

Plaintiff does not invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction or plead facts showing that her claim arises under federal law.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law.

United States v. Eskel · filed 2019-10-02

In addition, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides that subject matter jurisdiction exists in federal district courts over all civil actions arising under the laws of the United States. ... Therefore, the court is satisfied that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

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

Toahty v. Kimsey · filed 2019-10-11

Plaintiff has therefore failed to allege a claim under federal law, and the complaint fails to establish federal question jurisdiction.

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

Capital One, N.A. v. Walker · filed 2019-10-18

Plaintiff has not alleged, and it does not appear from the complaint, that this action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint neither states nor alleges facts showing liability under federal law.

Sun v. Cuomo · filed 2019-10-21

Additionally, Plaintiff makes no statement and alleges no facts as to Defendant's liability under federal law, thus precluding the Court from finding federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is not established by a complaint against a private bank that identifies no viable federal claim or federal statute.

SIMMONS v. META BANK & ACE · filed 2019-10-23

Liberally construing the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, it is apparent that he has not properly invoked this Court’s federal question jurisdiction nor stated a viable federal claim against Meta Bank & Ace, which is not a state actor subject to suit under § 1983 and he has otherwise not identified any federal statute upon which his claims rely.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that neither cites federal authority nor calls for the interpretation or application of federal law.

Mendez v. Albany County Department of Social Services · filed 2019-10-25

Here, there is no federal question because Plaintiff does not cite any federal authority, and her claim that Defendant failed to reimburse her does not “draw[] into question the interpretation or application of federal law.”

Section 1331 requires pleaded facts showing a claim arising under federal law; merely invoking federal jurisdiction is insufficient.

Brown v. HP Inc. · filed 2019-10-25

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a claim under federal law, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Brown v. Rosen · filed 2019-10-29

Plaintiff fails to plead facts showing that her claim arises under federal law. There is, therefore, no basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a complaint asserts rights created by federal statutes.

(PS) Mackintosh v. Lyft, Inc. · filed 2019-11-01

Because some of Plaintiff’s rights are created by these federal statutes, Defendants have adequately demonstrated why the Court has “federal question” jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no facts showing that the claim arises under federal law.

Brown v. CUCS · filed 2019-11-01

Plaintiff does not plead any facts showing that her claim arises under federal law.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law; a complaint that does not establish that basis is subject to dismissal.

Newson v. Cape Coral School Authority · filed 2019-11-02

Federal “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. After a careful review of Newson’s complaint and the other documents he filed, it does not appear that this Court has jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; allegations of fraud without an identified federal basis do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

BASS v. JABER · filed 2019-11-18

To establish a claim under federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff must allege a “civil action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff does not cite to any federal law that might form the basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when the only federal law invoked as a jurisdictional basis does not exist.

Limtung v. Thomas · filed 2019-11-21

Given that the only law Limtung cites in support of federal question jurisdiction does not exist, Limtung fails to allege a viable basis for subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction over a removed case when the complaint pleads claims based on federal statutes.

Churyumov v. Amazon Corporate LLC · filed 2019-11-25

Plaintiff’s Complaint clearly pleads claims based on federal statutes.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of federal law, even when those allegations are pled haphazardly.

Kraft v. Williams · filed 2019-11-25

Although pled haphazardly, Plaintiff has alleged violations of federal law over which the Court must exercise federal question jurisdiction.

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

Kallos v. Kallos · filed 2019-11-25

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

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction only when a claim arises under federal law.

Bell Bey v. The Mount Sinai Hospital · filed 2019-11-26

Because Plaintiff’s claims do not arise under federal law, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over his claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no violation of a federal statute.

Kelly v. Marketplace/Blue Cross Highmark - Delaware · filed 2019-12-11

The Court does not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when there are no allegations that Defendant violated a federal statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint’s allegations support no reasonable inference that a federal statute was violated.

Bart v. Legg · filed 2019-12-12

First, the Complaint provides no basis for federal question jurisdiction. ... From this set of alleged facts, the Court finds no reasonable inference that a federal statute was violated.