28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 requires facts supporting a federal question; allegations under federal regulations that do not apply to the defendants, with no other federal law alleged, do not establish jurisdiction.

Velasquez v. Grisham · filed 2019-12-19

Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants are federal employees. Nor are there any allegations that this case arises under any other federal laws. Plaintiff, therefore, has not met his burden of alleging facts that support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a case raises an issue of federal law.

Horton v. Milwaukee County Transport Service · filed 2019-12-20

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and may only hear cases in two primary categories: 1) those raising issues of federal law, known as “federal question” jurisdiction, and 2) those between parties who are citizens of different states and which involve an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.00, known as “diversity” jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332(a).

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law even when state courts have concurrent jurisdiction.

Guinan v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 848 · filed 2019-12-20

The fact that the state court has concurrent jurisdiction over the Action does not, in any way, make Local 848’s removal improper. Plaintiff’s claims clearly arise under federal law and therefore, the Court has original jurisdiction to hear the Action.

Section 1331 requires facts sufficient to show that the pleaded claims arise under federal law for federal-question jurisdiction.

Daria v. Sapient, Inc. · filed 2019-12-23

The district court properly dismissed Daria’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Daria failed to allege facts sufficient to show that her claims arose under federal law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when the complaint alleges a claim arising under federal law.

Sarandos v. Singer · filed 2020-01-08

Plaintiff has not brought any claim under federal law and therefore, there is no jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Klein v. Met Ed · filed 2020-01-08

Here, with respect to these state utility law claims, we have found Mr. Klein’s complaint presently does not allege any “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, giving rise to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction over claims raising issues of federal law; allegations that invoke no cognizable federal claim do not establish that jurisdiction.

Wren v. Department of Children and Family Services · filed 2020-01-14

Plaintiff’s allegations do not invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and may only hear cases in two primary categories: 1) those raising issues of federal law, known as “federal question” jurisdiction, and 2) those between parties who are citizens of different states and which involve an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.00, known as “diversity” jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332(a). ... Even so, the Court concludes that nothing in her complaint invokes any cognizable federal claims.

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

Melville v. Jiha · filed 2020-01-17

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. ... Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund, 81 F.3d 1182, 1188-89 (2d Cir. 1996). The facts alleged do not give rise to any claims arising under federal law.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over suits brought under federal law, including the Internal Revenue Code.

United States v. Springer · filed 2020-01-28

The United States sued Springer and others pursuant to various provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, a federal law. Doc. 36 at 2. As a result, this Court had federal question jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and had the authority to enter judgment.

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

Smith v. Focus Moving Solutions LLC · filed 2020-01-29

To invoke jurisdiction under § 1331, Plaintiff must bring a claim arising under federal law. Plaintiff has not alleged a claim that involves a federal question.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint arises under federal law or raises a significant federal issue.

Schorsch v. Waynesboro Gen Dist Court · filed 2020-01-30

Schorsch does not attempt to establish subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question). Liberally construed, Schorsch’s complaint does not arise under federal law or raise a significant federal issue.

A third-party complaint’s citation to § 1331 does not establish federal-question jurisdiction when its only identified federal statute is inapplicable.

Simon Property Group, L.P. v. CASDNS, Inc · filed 2020-02-03

There is no reference to any federal statute under our federal question jurisdiction other than the reference to 15 U.S.C. § 1119 which is wholly inapplicable.

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

Douglas v. The Estate of T. Joe Calloway · filed 2020-02-06

Plaintiff does not seek relief under any federal law supporting federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a claim arising under a federal statute even when the defendant challenges whether the complaint states a valid claim.

Nieves-Floran v. Doctors' Center Hospital, Inc. · filed 2020-02-12

Despite purporting to question the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, Doctors does not address whether Nieves’s EMTALA claims, brought under a federal statute, arise under the laws of the United States as required for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Finding that this court has federal question jurisdiction over Nieves’s EMTALA claims, I will proceed to consider Doctors’ motion as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to plead facts sufficient to sustain an EMTALA claim.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when pleaded facts support a colorable claim under federal law, even before the court decides whether that claim is adequately stated.

Grages v. Geisinger Health · filed 2020-03-10

Setting aside for the moment whether the plaintiffs have adequately stated a plausible claim under § 1395dd, we find the facts pleaded with respect to the circumstances of Kimberly’s discharge sufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a claim arising under federal law even if the plaintiff ultimately fails to prove an element of that claim.

Campbell v. Keagle Inc · filed 2022-03-04

Campbell’s claim arises under federal law, so 28 U.S.C. §1331 supplies jurisdiction. If she fails to prove all elements of her claim, including the commerce element, then she loses on the merits, not for want of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction over an action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal statute.

Aquapan v. Sunshine 39 Windows & Glass, Inc. · filed 2022-03-22

This argument lacks merit as this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action was brought pursuant to the FLSA, a federal statute Moreover, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction of the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Harris v. Credit Acceptance Corp · filed 2022-09-28

First, we agree with the District Court’s denial of Harris’s motion to remand the action to state court. Defendants timely removed the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, and the District Court exercised federal question jurisdiction over Harris’s federal statutory claims and supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims.

Section 1331 gives a district court original jurisdiction when a complaint sufficiently alleges a violation of a federal statute.

PARAMOUNT RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE GROUP, INC. v. NATIONWIDE MORTGAGE BANKERS, INC. · filed 2023-05-31

As explained in further detail below, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a violation of the United States Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1836 et seq., and of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq. which establishes federal question jurisdiction. ... Thus, the Court finds it has original jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts a federal statutory claim, even if most claims arise under state law.

(PS) Lewis v. Bear Stearns Residential Mortgage Corp. · filed 2023-08-09

However, plaintiff’s 1AC plainly attempts to state a claim under the FDCPA, which arises under federal law. ... Thus, Chase was permitted to remove to this court under federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over claims under federal statutes, even when the case also presents state-law questions or claims.

Carter v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation · filed 2023-08-16

Claims under federal statutes create federal-question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a). The presence of state-law questions or causes of action, over which the court has supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), does not divest the court of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over claims based on federal statutes.

Grainger v. Brock & Scott PLLC · filed 2023-08-30

However, because Plaintiff identified two federal statutes, the FCBA and TILA, as bases for her claims, Defendants could properly remove the case to this Court.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims under federal statutes regardless of the amount of relief sought.

Berry v. Afni, Inc. · filed 2023-10-26

The Court has jurisdiction over an action “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Claims under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act are considered such claims. This is so notwithstanding that Berry seeks only $6,000 dollars in relief.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction when a properly pleaded complaint alleges a violation of a federal statute.

Hernandez v. Alamaddine · filed 2023-11-02

The district court properly determined that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate Hernandez’s complaint, because Hernandez alleged a violation of a federal statute.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a complaint that asserts a claim under a federal statute, including RESPA.

Rahman v. MTGLQ Investors, L.P. · filed 2024-01-24

Federal question subject matter jurisdiction exists when claims are brought under a federal statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... First, the Rahmans argue that a state court action may not be removed to federal court solely based on a RESPA violation, but the Rahmans cite no case law for this proposition, and the Court sees no reason why RESPA should be treated differently from any other federal law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts claims grounded in federal statutes, even if those claims challenge state policies.

SJ v. Pontiac, City of · filed 2024-07-31

The Township removed this case to this Court based on the plaintiff’s assertion of federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331; 1441(a). Jasper appears to believe that because he challenges certain state DEI policies, he should be able to do so in state court. He ignores, however, the fact that many of the causes of action he asserts to attack these policies are grounded in federal statutes that form the bases of his purported claims.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging a claim under a federal statute.

DODSON v. ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY COMPANY · filed 2024-08-06

Because 42 U.S.C. § 2000e is a federal statute, the Court holds it has subject matter jurisdiction over the case based on federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim alleging a violation of the Exchange Act.

Castle v. Jones · filed 2024-09-23

While Plaintiffs assert only diversity jurisdiction in the Amended Complaint, this case also involves federal question jurisdiction arising under the claim for violation of the Exchange Act.

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

Sifuentes v. Capital One · filed 2024-10-01

As the district court stated, § 1331 gave it original jurisdiction over Sifuentes’s federal claims, such as his claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The court could therefore enter final judgment on the merits of the federal claims.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over suits brought under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Lanham Act.

JTH Tax, LLC v. Page · filed 2024-11-26

As Liberty brings suit pursuant to the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Lanham Act, the court has federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies federal question jurisdiction over a claim brought under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act.

Cartiga, LLC v. Aquino · filed 2025-02-04

That argument is easily put aside because, as explained below, the Court denies Aquino’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion with respect to the federal DISA claim, which independently supports federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims asserted under federal statutes, including Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act and the NLRA.

IBRAHIM v. PAREKH · filed 2025-05-29

These statutes confer federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims.

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

Gold Pearl Records LLC v. City Sketches, Inc. · filed 2025-06-04

As this case involves claims under federal statutes, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a), which Baldwin admitted in his answer to the amended complaint.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over TILA and RESPA claims because they arise under federal law.

Hudson v. Data Mortgage, Inc. · filed 2025-10-07

Hudson’s TILA and RESPA claims “aris[e] under” federal law.

Section 1331 gives a court federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint invoking federal statutes, even when the court dismisses the claims as frivolous.

Watkins v. Watkins · filed 2022-06-23

Watkins also purports to bring claims under a number of federal statutes, (see id., PageID.4), and her invocation of those statutes confers federal question jurisdiction on the Court under 28 U.S.C. §1331.

Section 1331 gives a federal district court jurisdiction when a claim alleges a violation of a federal statute, regardless of whether the violation is ultimately proved.

United States v. One 1962 Aero Twin Commander 500B, Tail No. N37CK, Serial No. 500A1251-76 · filed 2024-01-25

Because the United States is alleging a violation of a federal statute, the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims asserting rights under federal law, including the federal cable-franchise statute.

Washtenaw County, Michigan v. Ottoman · filed 2024-11-08

This shows that there would be federal question jurisdiction for the Plaintiffs’ claims, under 28 U.S.C. § 1331,32 so that the claims in the removed State Court Lawsuit do not “lack a federal jurisdictional basis absent the bankruptcy.”

Claims arising under the ADA and FMLA fall within the district court’s original federal-question jurisdiction.

Boxum v. Tokyo Electron America · filed 2025-08-21

However, the Court has original, not supplemental, jurisdiction over claims which arise under federal law, such as the ADA and FMLA claims. 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 permits district courts to hear civil actions arising under federal law, but a plaintiff must identify a federal provision giving a private right of action for the relief sought.

Hohensee v. Sullivan · filed 2009-01-12

While it is empowered to hear civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, plaintiff has not identified any provision of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States that provides him a private right of action to bring suit against the United States for the relief he seeks.

Section 1331 does not supply original jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no constitutional right and the invoked federal statute creates no private cause of action.

Edwards v. Washington · filed 2009-10-14

The complaint therefore fails to provide a basis for this Court’s original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal jurisdiction for a Supremacy Clause claim when that clause supplies no private right of action.

Rose v. State of Utah · filed 2010-10-22

In sum, because the Supremacy Clause does not provide Ms. Rose with a private right of action, she cannot rely on § 1331 for jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a complaint citing facially applicable federal regulations even when those regulations ultimately provide no private cause of action.

Bennick v. The Boeing Company · filed 2012-12-31

Furthermore, it is of no consequence to the district court’s initial jurisdiction determination that it later found that he failed to state a claim because those same regulations did not provide any cognizable cause of action. ... As a result, the court properly determined that it had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to § 1331, and was correct in denying his post-judgment motion for relief from the same.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint invokes HAMP, which provides no private right of action, and alleges no other federal basis.

Wheeler v. Citigroup · filed 2013-04-08

Accordingly, the Court finds that HAMP does not provide a private right of action. Since the allegations in the third-amended complaint do not suggest any other basis for federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court finds that the plaintiffs did not satisfy their burden of establishing federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction when a complaint expressly asserts a claim under federal law that provides a private right of action.

Knox v. Quest Diagnostics Inc · filed 2013-06-11

A federal court has original jurisdiction over a cause that arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Knox explicitly asserted a federal claim in his complaint when he alleged that the “defendants violated provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and [are] liable to plaintiff under 15 U.S.C. 1681o.” App. 17. See Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 430 (7th Cir. 2009). In addition, section 1681o of the FCRA provides a private right of action. See Cushman v. Trans Union Corp., 115 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 1997). Thus, the District Court properly denied Knox’s first motion for remand and correctly exercised jurisdiction over the defendants’ motions for summary judgment.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a HIPAA claim when HIPAA provides no private cause of action to the individual.

FOWLER v. ESKENAZI BEHAVIORAL HEALTH · filed 2019-08-16

Mr. Fowler alleges violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), but “HIPAA is not actionable” because it “does not provide a private cause of action to the individual.” Staton v. Payne, No. 1:07-cv-1643- LJM-DML, 2010 WL 1257476 at *1, *1 n.9 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 24, 2010); see 42 U.S.C. §§ 1320d–1320d-9. So the Court cannot exercise federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint relies exclusively on criminal provisions that create no private civil cause of action.

(PS) Dmitriy v. Vladislava · filed 2020-01-16

Here, plaintiff sues exclusively under the criminal code. ... 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 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a private civil claim based on a federal criminal statute that creates no private right of action.

Hardrick v. Girls and Mags (company) · filed 2020-01-27

Here, subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331 does not exist. Even assuming the defendants’ alleged conduct could expose them to criminal liability under 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the statute does not give rise to a private civil action against the defendants.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction when the complaint pleads claims arising under federal law, including constitutional and § 1983 claims.

Harding v. Grisham · filed 2022-05-23

Under these claims, Plaintiff has asserted substantial questions of federal law—namely, whether the Defendants deprived Plaintiff of rights and privileges secured by the United States Constitution. Therefore, this Court has original jurisdiction for these claims arising under federal law.

Section 1331 jurisdiction remains when a federal claim fails to plausibly allege an element but is not so frivolous as to deprive the court of jurisdiction.

Tucker v. Ron Hall's Famous Final Cleaning Company · filed 2025-04-30

Although the Court ultimately concludes that Tucker failed to plausibly allege his FLSA claims, it pauses to note that the federal claims were not so frivolous as to deprive the Court of its subject-matter jurisdiction. To the contrary, Tucker merely failed to plausibly allege one element of FLSA coverage.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction when a complaint asserts a claim arising under federal law, including a civil RICO claim.

SCX Holdings, LLC v. Gjoka · filed 2025-06-20

The Complaint asserts two civil RICO claims arising under federal law, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(a) and (d). These claims fall within the original jurisdiction of the federal district courts.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint pleads federal claims; the test for federal issues embedded in state-law claims does not apply.

Disability Law Center v. Cox · filed 2025-07-22

State Defendants’ reliance on the test for whether a state-law claim in a complaint nonetheless gives rise to federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is misplaced because DLC pleads only federal claims.50 The court finds that DLC’s action “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”51 because DLC unambiguously raises several federal issues on the face of its Complaint.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint pleads standalone claims based on federal law.

VIOLETTE · filed 2026-06-08

Count III and IV are standalone federal claims, based on federal law, which easily meets the Supreme Court’s requirement that a substantial federal question appear on the face of the plaintiff’s pleadings.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over federal claims stayed pending arbitration extends to motions in the same case to confirm or vacate the resulting award.

Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties · filed 2026-05-14

Because those claims were sufficient to establish the District Court’s jurisdiction in this case under 28 U. S. C. §1331, they also established the District Court’s authority to resolve the motions to confirm or vacate the arbitral award resolving those claims.

Section 1331 requires a source of federal law beyond the Federal Arbitration Act to establish federal-question jurisdiction over a dispute involving an arbitration award.

Madeoy v. American Arbitration Ass'n · filed 2008-10-09

Additionally, the complaint does not involve a dispute arising under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because the Federal Arbitration Act does not create a basis for federal court jurisdiction, and any claim of federal question jurisdiction in a dispute involving an arbitration award must come from another source of federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction to confirm an arbitration award when the underlying claims arise from a state-law attorney fee dispute.

Pimentel v. Ricotta & Marks, P.C. · filed 2019-09-13

Plaintiff’s underlying arbitration claims are based on state law, and arise out of a fee dispute between him and his former attorneys. These facts do not suggest a cause of action falling under the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a petition to confirm an arbitration award to raise a federal question on its face; federal claims underlying the arbitration do not suffice.

Matios v. City of Loveland · filed 2022-07-14

Thus, we must determine whether the Petition itself raises a federal question without regard for the underlying claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or whether there is diversity jurisdiction, id. § 1332. ... Thus, the Petition does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a petition to vacate an arbitration award merely because it alleges manifest disregard of federal law.

Friedler v. Stifel, Nicolaus, & Company, Inc. · filed 2024-07-18

With the benefit of these cases, and unburdened by prior circuit precedent, we think the better view is that a claim of manifest disregard of federal law doesn’t present a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a petition to vacate an arbitration award when the petition raises no federal question.

Green v. Bank of America Merrill Lynch · filed 2024-08-27

Green therefore has failed to carry his burden of establishing federal question jurisdiction, and his petition is subject to dismissal because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not supply federal question jurisdiction over a petition to vacate an arbitration award without an independent federal basis, such as an arbitration agreement governed by federal law.

Scales v. Ace Hotel NY · filed 2024-12-06

The Amended Complaint does not establish that federal question jurisdiction exists without facts alleging that the contract is controlled by federal law.

Section 1331 allows a court with federal-question jurisdiction that ordered arbitration and stayed the suit to retain jurisdiction to confirm the arbitration award.

Blake v. JPay · filed 2025-03-05

Thus, the Court had jurisdiction under ... 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when ordering the arbitration and staying this suit and retains jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to confirm the arbitration award.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a petition to vacate an arbitration award merely because the underlying dispute raises a federal-law issue.

Gupta v. Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company · filed 2025-03-13

In sum, the Court finds that although Plaintiffs claim federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the crux of this case is the validity of the arbitral award. Plaintiffs simply claim that the arbitrator did not fulfill the FAA requirements for a valid arbitration. That the underlying claim raises questions of ERISA has no bearing on the jurisdiction of this Court to hear this case. Therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and Defendants’ 12(b)(1) Motion will be granted.

Section 1331 permits a court with federal-question jurisdiction over a suit it stayed for arbitration to retain jurisdiction to confirm the arbitration award.

Blake v. JPay · filed 2025-09-18

It retains jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to confirm the arbitration award.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a request to confirm or vacate an arbitration award merely because the claims arbitrated arose under federal law.

McGehee · filed 2025-12-09

Badgerow, which Synchrony itself cites, holds that the “look-through” approach to jurisdiction does not apply to requests to confirm or vacate arbitral awards under the FAA’s Sections 9 and 10. ... This Court therefore lacks federal question jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a petition to vacate an arbitration award based on alleged manifest disregard of federal law when the arbitrator considered that law and allegedly misapplied it.

Luong v. Circuit City Stores, Inc. · filed 2004-02-19

Virtually every line of the opinion and award discusses Toyota and how it plays out on the facts in Luong’s case. That cannot amount to “manifest disregard” and accordingly, cannot be a ground for an independent basis of federal question jurisdiction whether or not it would be if well-pled.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a motion to vacate an arbitration award merely because the underlying arbitration involved federal claims; the motion must itself establish a federal question.

Goldman v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc · filed 2016-08-22

We therefore join other courts in holding that § 4 of the FAA should be read differently than § 10 for jurisdictional purposes.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a petition that alleges only grounds for vacating an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act.

Jennings v. Honda · filed 2025-06-25

Because Jennings’ petition does not raise a federal question on its face, the court holds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and, accordingly, grants Vandergriff’s motion to dismiss.

Section 1331 permits a prisoner to bring a federal civil rights complaint seeking injunctive relief, subject to the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement.

GONZALEZ v. ORTIZ · filed 2021-01-29

True, Petitioner could bring a civil rights complaint for injunctive relief under § 1331, but he must first exhaust administrative remedies under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting an Eighth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Rushdan v. Perbula · filed 2008-09-25

The district court had federal question jurisdiction because the first amended complaint asserted an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference under section 1983.

Section 1331 gives a federal court original jurisdiction over a constitutional claim despite a local personnel statute providing the exclusive avenue for work-related complaints.

Deschamps v. District of Columbia · filed 2008-10-23

... the statutory remedy does not foreclose this Court from entertaining the constitutional question over which it has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction when a complaint presents a federal question, such as an alleged violation of the Constitution or federal law.

Dixon v. TELEVISION STATION CHANNEL THREE NORFOLK · filed 2008-11-24

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

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions alleging federal constitutional violations under § 1983.

Garner v. City of Federal Way · filed 2009-03-05

Garner’s contention that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdietion lacks merit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”).

Section 1331 requires a complaint to plead facts presenting a federal question, such as an alleged violation of the Constitution or federal law.

Thomas v. Oil City Police · filed 2009-03-26

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a "federal question" is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ... The complaint does not allege a violation of either the Constitution or federal law.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over actions raising constitutional claims.

Bartakian v. County of Clark · filed 2009-07-08

Removal of this action to federal court was not improper because Bartakian raised constitutional claims.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over complaints arising under the Constitution and federal law.

Toolasprashad v. Bureau of Prisons · filed 2009-09-29

The Court is satisfied that it has original jurisdiction ... over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, inasmuch as the complaint arises under the Constitution and federal law.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims asserted under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Stovall v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture · filed 2013-06-07

As the district court below noted, the D.C. district court had jurisdiction over Stovall’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because the claims were asserted under the ECOA and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over complaints alleging federal statutory or constitutional violations.

Gillespie v. Janey · filed 2013-06-07

Gillespie asserted that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over her complaint; however, her complaint included claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and alleged violations of her constitutional rights. Accordingly, as we noted on appeal, the District Court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 &1343, and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint expressly alleges a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Locklear v. Town of Pembroke, NC · filed 2013-07-02

Locklear’s jurisdictional argument is belied by the plain language of his complaint, which claims on multiple occasions that defendants violated Locklear’s rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over § 1983 complaints alleging violations of federal civil rights.

FuQua v. Massey · filed 2015-06-29

Finally, she contends that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, but the § 1983 complaint alleged federal civil-rights violations within the court’s federal-question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over complaints asserting claims arising under the Constitution or federal laws.

Kennedy v. Boardman · filed 2017-01-17

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the instant complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1349. See Defs.’ Notice of Removal at 4. To be precise, the complaint raises claims “arising under the Constitution [and] laws . . . of the United States,” id. § 1331, by alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 and 1986; “42 U.S.C. 12132, 12182, 122203 (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, ADA),” and “42 U.S.C. sec 2000e, et sec.,” as well as violations of the plaintiff’s civil rights “under the Fifth, Seventh and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.” Compl. ¶¶ 2–3.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction when a party pleads a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or federal law.

Greene v. Sprint Nextel Corp. · filed 2017-06-13

A party invokes § 1331 jurisdiction by pleading a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... Greene has asserted no basis for federal-question jurisdiction and his claim for $60,000 defeats any diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a party pleads a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or federal law.

Greene v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles · filed 2017-06-13

A party invokes § 1331 jurisdiction by pleading a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a Bivens complaint alleging constitutional violations by a federal official.

Rusk v. Tymkovich · filed 2018-03-14

We in turn conclude that 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which “grants federal courts jurisdiction to hear cases that arise under the Constitution,” afforded the district court with jurisdiction over Rusk’s complaint.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a challenge to local election officials’ actions when the complaint alleges violations of the Revised Organic Act and federal constitutional rights.

Nelson v. Fawkes · filed 2018-06-25

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Thus, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action because Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ interpretation and application of local election laws which resulted in Plaintiffs’ disqualification and exclusion from the ballot for the November 6, 2018 general election violate the Revised Organic Act of 1954, 48 U.S.C. § 1561, and the United States Constitution—specifically the Plaintiffs’ First, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment rights.

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

Meikle v. Office of the Mayor · filed 2019-08-28

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 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a civil rights case.

DAVIS v. THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2019-10-17

He claims that the Court lacks jurisdiction, even though he sought to invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction by filing the lawsuit (see ECF No. 2 at 4), and jurisdiction over this civil rights case is clearly proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1343.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction when the pleaded facts suggest a claim arising under federal constitutional or statutory law.

Johnson v. IMA Medical Research · filed 2019-11-15

Plaintiff invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, but he fails to allege any facts suggesting a matter involving federal constitutional or federal statutory law.

Section 1331 requires a plausibly alleged federal constitutional or statutory claim for federal question jurisdiction.

Uphues v. Law Offices of William R. Satterberg, Jr. · filed 2019-11-27

Because the Complaint does not plausibly allege facts that, if proven, would constitute a violation of the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute by a state actor that is redressable by a private citizen in federal court, this Court does not appear to have federal question jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over a complaint seeking injunctive relief under § 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Hutchings v. Knight · filed 2019-12-19

This case was properly removed to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction: The Complaint seeks injunctive relief against Defendant City of Alton under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Section 1331 requires a federal question apparent from the complaint; conclusory assertions of constitutional violations do not establish one.

FILBERT v. EZ RENTALS, LLC · filed 2020-01-10

The complaint does not present a federal question. The court cannot reasonably infer any constitutional violations from the face of the complaint. Filbert asserts constitutional rights violations but only in conclusory terms.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint facially alleges constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Turner v. Alberto · filed 2021-01-26

Consequently, the complaint on its face presents a federal question that supported removal. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367(a).

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over civil rights claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of federal due process rights.

Leigh v. Sacks · filed 2021-12-13

The Court has jurisdiction over plaintiff’s federal civil rights claims, based on her due process claims for alleged deprivation of property rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges claims under federal civil rights laws.

Croomes v. IntouchCX · filed 2025-03-31

Federal question jurisdiction exists because Plaintiff’s complaint alleges several claims under the federal civil rights laws.

An operative complaint alleging federal civil rights violations establishes federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Cash v. Simmons · filed 2025-06-27

Contrary to Cash’s contentions, the district court properly exercised removal jurisdiction over Cash’s action because the operative complaint alleged federal civil rights violations, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (allowing removal if the district court has original jurisdiction); and defendants satisfied the procedural requirements for removal, see 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), (b) (setting forth procedure for removal, including joinder or consent by “all defendants who have been properly joined and served”); Sharma v. HSI Asset Loan Obligation Tr. 2007-1 by Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 23 F.4th 1167, 1169 (9th Cir. 2022) (standard of review).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a product-liability claim that alleges no violation of the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty.

Martinez v. Tony & Sons Auto Repair · filed 2024-02-02

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ... She does not allege facts showing that the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States were violated, nor does she state that the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.

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

Washington v. Lindsay · filed 2023-07-31

Plaintiff does not invoke any federal law, and the allegations in her complaint do not suggest a claim that arises under federal law. The Court therefore cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction over her claims.

Section 1331 does not provide subject matter jurisdiction over a civil action that does not arise under federal law.

Bell-Boston v. Ann Taylor Co. · filed 2008-09-23

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 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no federal causes of action.

Reed v. ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY SERVICES, LLC · filed 2008-10-17

Accordingly, AlliedBarton does not raise, nor does this Court have, original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ("[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that does not arise under federal law.

Bell-Boston v. Dorcey · filed 2008-10-29

The district court correctly dismissed appellant’s 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 federal district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law; allegations that raise no federal question do not establish that jurisdiction.

Bell-Boston v. Nativity Homeless Shelter · filed 2009-02-10

Federal district courts have jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. ... The facts alleged do not appear to raise a federal question, and plaintiff does not state a statutory or other basis for federal court jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law; a complaint that identifies no federal claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Bell-Boston v. nativity/selected Homeless Woman · filed 2009-03-06

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 in civil actions in matters where the controversy exceeds $75,000 and is between citizens of different states, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Here, however, the complaint does not explicitly identify a basis for this Court's jurisdiction, identify a claim arising under the laws of the United States, or otherwise provide sufficient information for the Court to discern a basis for its jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, but a complaint that identifies no federal claim does not establish that jurisdiction.

Bell-Boston v. Safeway · filed 2009-03-06

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 in civil actions in matters where the controversy exceeds $75,000 and is between citizens of different States, see 28 U.S.C. §l332(a). Here, however, the complaint does not explicitly identify a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction, identify a claim arising under the laws of the United States, or otherwise provide sufficient information for the Court to discern a basis for its jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a civil action that does not arise under federal law.

Bell-Boston v. Superior Court · 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 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a civil action that does not arise under federal law.

Bell-Boston v. Nativity Homeless Shelter · 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 federal district courts jurisdiction over matters presenting questions of federal or constitutional law; a matter presenting no federal question falls outside that jurisdiction.

Brissett v. Alexandria General District Court · filed 2009-08-27

Generally, a federal district court has jurisdiction to hear matters involving questions of federal or constitutional law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and matters involving parties who reside in different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ... This matter does not present a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a harassment claim that presents no federal question.

Leggett v. Powers · filed 2009-11-20

Plaintiff’s harassment claim against Powers does not present a federal question under § 1331, and he cannot bring a private right of action based on defendant’s alleged criminal behavior.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law; a complaint about unreturned personal property that alleges no federal violation does not establish that jurisdiction.

Daniel v. Alexandria Detention Center · 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. ... The allegations in the complaint regarding the plaintiffs personal property do not appear to allege a violation of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the case presents no federal question.

Larkins v. M&T Mortgage · filed 2010-05-26

Here, the district court correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because there was no diversity among the parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and the case did not present a federal question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint presents no federal question.

Griffin v. Board of Professional Responsibility · filed 2010-11-02

The Court finds that this complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction as plaintiff has failed to allege that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law nuisance and cruelty-to-animals claims that raise no federal question.

Semulka v. Moschell · filed 2010-11-18

Since neither the nuisance nor cruelty-to-animals claims invokes federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and because there does not appear to be a basis for diversity jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1336, the District Court’s dismissal was proper.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, but a complaint that states no federal claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Fleming v. Tweedy · filed 2011-06-08

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 bald assertion of "[t]he infringement . . . of [his] constitutional rights to the justice system," Compl. at 2, it does not appear that the complaint states a federal claim.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law; allegations that suggest no federal claim do not establish that jurisdiction.

Dubose v. Horning Brothers · 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 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law; a complaint stating no federal claim does not establish that jurisdiction.

Lucky v. Capital One Bank · filed 2011-11-01

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. In addition, federal district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, and the suit is between citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). This complaint neither states a federal claim, establishes diversity of citizenship of the parties, nor avers that the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law; a complaint stating no federal claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Brown v. Taylor · filed 2011-11-01

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. ... This complaint neither states a federal claim nor establishes diversity of citizenship of the parties. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law; a complaint that states no federal claim does not establish that jurisdiction.

Rumble v. Johnson · filed 2012-02-09

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. ... This complaint neither states a federal claim nor establishes diversity of citizenship of the parties. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law; a complaint stating no federal claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Bell v. Flemming · filed 2012-10-31

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. ... This complaint neither states a federal claim nor establishes diversity of citizenship of the parties. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, but a complaint presenting no federal question does not establish that jurisdiction.

Williams v. Carlos · filed 2012-11-16

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. ... 'l`his complaint sets forth no federal question.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, the Constitution, or treaties, and does not cover a complaint presenting no federal question.

Fletcher v. Aventura Hospital & Medical Center · filed 2012-11-19

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. ... This complaint sets forth no federal question.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction when a complaint presents a federal question; allegations that present no federal question do not establish that jurisdiction.

Braun v. State of Montana · filed 2013-04-16

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ... Assuming without deciding that plaintiff has viable legal claims against defendants, the allegations in the complaint do not present a federal question nor bring this case within the Court's diversity jurisdiction. ... For the same reasons, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in the present case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts no federal claim against the named defendants.

Kyung L. Trotter v. Michael D. Ayres, Sr.,et al · filed 2015-05-13

But even construing Trotter’s Rule 60(b) motion liberally as a complaint, we cannot discern a basis for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Trotter asserted that various individuals violated her due process rights, but the motion did not name those individuals as defendants. She did not assert any federal claims against the Ayreses. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; jurisdiction is absent when no federal question is established.

Greely v. Leefer · filed 2015-12-29

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, the district court lacked jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a petition that invokes federal law to resist disclosure but asserts no federal claim.

Doe v. Nassau County Police Department · filed 2016-12-09

As discussed above, although Petitioner relies upon the SCA in seeking to prevent disclosure of his identifying information, he does not seek to assert claims arising thereunder. Therefore, the Petition and Order to Show Cause were not initial pleadings, and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Petitioner’s motion to quash the Subpoena.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint states no federal claim and the asserted federal laws do not completely preempt its state-law claims.

McCubbins v. United Airlines, Inc. · filed 2017-03-22

The Plaintiffs Complaint does not state a federal question on its face and federal jurisdiction is not created by preemption under either the Airline Deregulation Act or the Montreal Convention. Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A complaint that identifies no federal statute or constitutional provision underlying its claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Riggs v. Wyatt · filed 2017-08-31

As to federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff did not specify which federal statute or provision of the United States Constitution her claim has its basis in.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a civil action that does not arise under federal law.

Byrd-Sanders v. Child Support · filed 2017-11-20

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 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint states no federal claim.

Connolly v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc. · filed 2018-02-14

Further, in the absence of any federal claim to establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and in the apparent absence of diversity of state citizenship between the parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332,2 the Court would be without subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Vardakas v. American DG Energy, Inc. · filed 2018-03-02

The state law claims do not raise a federal question.

Section 1331 does not give a district court subject matter jurisdiction over a complaint that states no federal question.

Justice v. Charleston Area Medical Center · filed 2018-12-12

Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on August 27, 2018, recommending that this Court find that Plaintiff has not stated a federal question and, thus, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 4), and DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint, (ECF No. 1), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint identifies no federal right the defendant allegedly violated.

Moore v. State of Massachusetts · filed 2019-04-02

Federal question subject matter jurisdiction is also absent. Although Moore checked a box on the complaint form indicating that the complaint raises a federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the complaint does not identify a federal right the defendant is alleged to have violated.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts no federal claim and no federal law is implicated.

Hunter v. Bugg · filed 2019-06-28

Plaintiff does not assert federal-question jurisdiction, and this Court discerns no federal law implicating its jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the original petition contains no federal question.

Nieto v. Lantana Community Association, Inc. · filed 2019-08-01

Defendant could not have removed the Original Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as the Original Petition did not contain a federal question.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law; a complaint that raises no federal question does not establish that jurisdiction.

Leigh v. Moriarty Rentals · filed 2019-08-16

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... Thus, Leigh does not raise a federal question.

Section 1331 requires allegations that present a federal question; merely alleging a deprivation of civil rights does not establish federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint presents no federal question.

Cooper v. Pasco County, Florida · filed 2019-09-06

Additionally, Cooper has not established federal jurisdiction by demonstrating either federal question or diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Although Cooper alleges this court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 because the defendants “deprived [Cooper] of his civil rights,” no federal question is presented by the allegations in the Amended Complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff alleges no federal claims.

El Karmassi v. Bridgestone America · filed 2019-09-13

Plaintiff □□□ not alleged any federal claims and jurisdiction is therefore not proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no federal claim and its allegations reveal none.

Liu, Wen v. Gutierrez, Laura · filed 2019-09-16

The court does not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as Liu has identified no federal claims in his complaint, nor can this court discern one from the facts alleged.

Section 1331 supplies no federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint pleads no federal cause of action.

Smith v. Dell, Inc. · filed 2019-10-08

In this case, Smith has pled no federal cause of action, so the only possible basis for jurisdiction is diversity jurisdiction.

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

Yates v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2019-10-17

No federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the master complaint asserts no federal claim and the state law claims alleged in the complaint do not depend on the resolution of a federal law question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a fraud claim that does not arise under federal law or the Constitution.

Brown v. Fios · filed 2019-10-25

Because Plaintiff's 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 when the complaint asserts no federal cause of action.

Couch v. Rogers · filed 2019-11-13

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and only have authority to hear a case if it falls under one of two categories of federal jurisdiction: (1) federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or (2) diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff does not assert a federal cause of action so this case does not fall under this Court’s federal-question jurisdiction, and his Complaint states that he is proceeding under this Court’s diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges only a local-law cause of action and no federal claim or allegation.

AFSCME LOCAL 2186 v. THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2019-11-13

There are no allegations or claims under any federal statute. Therefore, there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction.

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

Draper v. GB LL Holdings · filed 2019-11-15

However, Draper does not cite to any federal statutory or constitutional provision that might support the exercise of jurisdiction under § 1331, and the court is unable to discern any federal _ question presented by his sparse allegations.

Federal-question jurisdiction is unavailable when the complaint identifies no federal law or statute underlying its claims and the court can discern none.

Hernandez v. Orellana · filed 2019-11-22

To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff has not identified a federal law or statute underlying her claims and the Court cannot ascertain one.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim seeking repayment of a private loan that does not arise under federal law or the Constitution.

Liu v. Zheng · filed 2019-12-13

Furthermore, plaintiff does not assert any claims arising under the laws of the United States or the Constitution. His submissions to the Court merely state that a few individuals borrowed money from him and they have not returned it.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no federal cause of action or other federal question.

Fukuda v. Wong · filed 2019-12-18

For a claim to be properly in the United States District Court, the Court must have either (1) federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ... Finally, the Court recognizes that Plaintiff has not alleged any federal causes of action. Accordingly, federal subject matter jurisdiction is unavailable to Plaintiff.

Section 1331 permits federal jurisdiction over claims involving federal law or the Constitution; a complaint stating no federal claim does not establish that jurisdiction.

Evans v. Steve · filed 2019-12-23

A federal court can decide cases involving violations of federal laws or the federal Constitution, 28 U.S.C. §1331, or cases between citizens of different states in some circumstances, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Evans did not check either of the boxes under “Jurisdiction” on the complaint form. Indeed, as Evans has not stated any federal claim against Steve and both are apparently Wisconsin citizens, there is no basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint identifies no federal law or federal-law cause of action.

MANSFIELD v. NEWARK PUBLIC SCHOOL · filed 2020-01-09

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

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no federal cause of action and gives no factual basis for treating its state-law claims as arising under federal law.

Fukuda v. Wong · filed 2020-01-09

First, considering federal question jurisdiction Plaintiff has not alleged any federal causes of action. ... For one, Plaintiff provides no factual allegations to support his assertion that his claims arise under the Medicare Act.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to be apparent from the complaint; a complaint showing no federal cause of action or other federal basis does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Rich Poisel's Roofing v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America · filed 2020-01-13

Construing the plaintiffs’ Complaint liberally, the Court finds that it fails to show any manner in which this court could find a basis for jurisdiction based on either diversity of citizenship or a federal question arising under the Constitution, law, or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331-32. No federal cause of action or basis for federal court jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the Complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide subject matter jurisdiction when a case presents no federal question.

Crump v. Cherry · filed 2020-01-15

In addition, there is no federal question in this case which would establish subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff identifies no federal law as the basis for the requested relief.

Scott v. Jaffer · filed 2020-02-13

Here, there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction. The Plaintiff does not identify any provision of federal law under which she seeks a restraining order against the Defendant.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a plaintiff uses a federal civil rights complaint form when the allegations establish no federal claim.

Beck v. Babel · filed 2020-02-18

Beck did not—and presumably cannot—allege that his rights under the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute were violated by defendants, or, perhaps more glaringly, that defendants (a private citizen and private insurance companies) are state actors or acted under color of state law. Accordingly, the court does not have federal question jurisdiction over this case, regardless of the fact that Beck submitted his complaint on the form federal civil rights complaint.