28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a federal defense does not establish jurisdiction.

TPCO US Holdings, LLC v. Fussell · filed 2023-07-03

This Court never held federal question subject matter jurisdiction over this case and Removing Defendants do not meet their burden of establishing federal jurisdiction in their Notice. First, as required by the well-pleaded complaint rule, there is no federal claim on the face of the Complaint to serve as a basis for removal.

Section 1331 requires the plaintiff’s own claim to arise under federal law; a possible federal defense to a state tax collection suit does not create federal-question jurisdiction.

Children of the Kingdom v. Central Appraisal District of Taylor County · filed 2023-08-03

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, a suit “arises under” federal law for purposes of Section 1331 “only when the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal law].” Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908). Here, the plaintiff in the underlying suit is CADTC. CADTC’s cause of action is a suit to collect delinquent state taxes, which is undeniably a state law matter that is best adjudicated and enforced by state courts. Appellants’ argument—that the assessment of taxes interferes with their right to freely exercise their religious beliefs—would, if anything, arguably constitute a defense to the collection of taxes assessed against their property. Thus, no question of federal law is implicated by CADTC’s suit, and the trial court properly concluded that it could exercise subject matter jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate CADTC’s cause of action.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a federal counterclaim cannot create federal-question jurisdiction.

Whitson v. Hallpier Corporation - Camel Motors · filed 2023-08-07

Further, even if Hallal was a defendant, a federal question counterclaim cannot support removal under the well-pleaded complaint rule. The well-pleaded complaint rule states that federal question jurisdiction applies only if a federal question is presented on the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the complaint; a federal defense does not establish jurisdiction.

8437 Cedros Ave, LLC v. Blannon · filed 2023-08-24

Even if federal question jurisdiction were invoked in the notice of removal, whether a claim “arises under” federal law must be determined by the complaint. ... A defense that raises a federal question is irrelevant for purposes of federal question jurisdiction. ... Here, Plaintiff’s complaint asserts a single cause of action for unlawful detainer. ... Section 1331 therefore does not provide a basis for jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the well-pleaded complaint; a plaintiff may pursue state-law claims even when a federal claim is available.

Shelkett v. Fluffys Management Service LLC · filed 2023-10-17

Upon consideration, the Court finds that, applying the well-pleaded complaint rule to the First Amended Petition, Plaintiff’s claims do not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; an anticipated federal defense does not establish jurisdiction.

Schwartz Foundation v. Schwartz · filed 2023-12-20

So, under the well-pleaded complaint rule, the initial pleadings in both cases fail to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; a federal defense does not establish jurisdiction over a removed action.

WF MASTER REO LLC v. HOUSER · filed 2024-01-18

In removal cases, the existence of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is determined under the well pleaded complaint rule, which provides that federal question jurisdiction is established when the face of a properly pleaded complaint asserts a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law direct condemnation action when no federal question appears on the face of the complaint.

Ada County Highway District v. Wells Fargo Bank NA · filed 2024-01-23

Here, the ACHD’s complaint contains no reference to federal law; rather, it only pleads a direct condemnation cause of action under Idaho law. Accordingly, there is no federal question at issue in this case based on the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a defendant’s claims or defenses do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

898 Fifth Avenue South Holdings, LLC v. Pear · filed 2024-02-05

Mr. Pear instead appears to contend that this Court has federal-question jurisdiction based on his own asserted “complaint” and his asserted defenses. ... Mr. Pear has accordingly not established any basis for this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint.

Moses v. City of Memphis · filed 2024-02-08

Furthermore, none of these alleged federal claims are presented on the face of plaintiff’s complaint, so they cannot confer federal jurisdiction over this environmental nuisance action.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a defense or counterclaim does not suffice.

Integra Affordable Management LLC v. Dunham · filed 2024-06-07

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is present only when a federal question appears “on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; federal defenses and counterclaims do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. LeTennier · filed 2024-06-18

Thus, as no federal question appears on the face of the Complaint, removal under federal question jurisdiction was improper.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense does not establish jurisdiction.

Rogers v. Roxana Church of the Nazarene · filed 2024-08-19

The undersigned adopts the majority view that a federal question must be contained within the four corners of the complaint to properly confer jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; a federal defense to a state-law claim does not suffice.

Johnson v. Ng · filed 2024-08-28

The Fourth Circuit recognizes that removal “is appropriate if the face of the complaint raises a federal question,” but that “merely having a federal defense to a state law claim is insufficient to support removal.”

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; a state-law malpractice claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Avery v. Thompson · filed 2024-09-06

In the present case, Plaintiff has not met her burden of establishing federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The “well-pleaded complaint” rule requires that “a federal question be presented on the face of the complaint.”

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Glenoaks Properties, LLC v. Dos Santos · filed 2024-11-14

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege or plead any claim raising a federal question. Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to plead that this Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Total Quality Logistics, LLC v. Rodvi Logistics LLC · filed 2024-11-27

Furthermore, under the well-pleaded complaint rule, federal question jurisdiction must appear on the face of the Complaint. Clearly, it does not here where TQL has alleged three state law claims.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; a bare reference to a trademark does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

HUGAIS v. KOURAIN · filed 2025-01-23

Generally, "[t]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the 'well-pleaded complaint rule,' which pro- vides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint." Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (citations omitted). ... Under these legal principles, we have little hesitation concluding that Mr. Hugais's bare references to a trademark—without more— do not support removal.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the plaintiff’s properly pleaded claim for a case to arise under federal law.

Clark v. Blueprint Investments, LLC · filed 2025-01-29

When removal is based on federal question jurisdiction, the cause of action must “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Ms. Clark fails to claim that the “properly pleaded claim for relief” in any of the Municipal Court cases implicate federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges only local-law violations and does not properly plead a federal question.

Buell v. Jarvis · filed 2025-03-19

Because Plaintiff’s Complaint does not properly plead a federal question and the record indicates that Plaintiff is alleging violations of local law, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a defendant’s federal constitutional challenge does not establish jurisdiction.

Haney v. Sloan · filed 2025-05-27

Because the Court evaluates federal question subject matter jurisdiction by looking at the face of the underlying complaint, and the underlying complaint here appears to be the same petition (filed in 2008) that Judge Rubin considered, the undersigned also finds that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; pleading only state law claims does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

ILWU (Hawaii) Employers General Pension Plan v. Hoban E & C USA, Inc. · filed 2025-05-29

Consequently, because no “federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint,” Caterpillar Inc., 482 U.S. at 392, there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction, and the Court must DISMISS the Complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim on the face of the complaint; asserting federal rights exclusively through state constitutional claims does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Dalton-Webb v. Prescott, City of · filed 2025-06-02

There is also no federal question jurisdiction, as Plaintiff does not assert claims arising under the Constitution or federal law. Plaintiff alleges Fourth and Ninth Amendment violations exclusively through the Arizona constitution.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Chuck and Ann Fina Family Revocable Trust Dated August 30, 1996 v. Boyle · filed 2025-06-09

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. To determine whether an action arises under federal law, a court applies the “well-pleaded complaint rule.” ... The Complaint here does not present a federal question and, as a result, does not give rise to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a defendant’s proposed federal claims do not establish jurisdiction.

Consolidated-Hampton, LLC/20 Lambourne v. McKoy · filed 2025-06-18

The state court complaint makes clear, however, that the eviction action arises entirely under state law. See ECF 2. Thus, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction, and Thompson McKoy has not asserted diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 removal jurisdiction requires an essential federal right to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint, unaided by the defendant’s removal petition.

Prensa Grafica Cubana S.A. v. Osle · filed 1961-06-20

Plaintiffs’ motion to remand must be granted. It is well settled that “[t]he presence of a Federal question which will authorize the removal of a suit from a state to a Federal court must be disclosed by the plaintiff’s complaint, unaided by the petition for removál.” ... There is nothing on the face of this complaint which indicates that any essential element of these claims is based upon a right arising under federal law or treaty.

Section 1331 does not confer removal jurisdiction when the plaintiff asserts only a state-law claim.

Glucksman v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · filed 1963-07-17

The plaintiff asserts no claim or cause of action arising “under the Constitution (or) laws * * * of the United States.”

A state-law complaint is not removable under § 1331 merely because it generally asserts a violation of federal law; its well-pleaded allegations must disclose a substantial federal question.

Barnett v. Faber, Coe & Gregg, Inc. · filed 1968-09-27

The mere assertion that a plaintiff is entitled to remedy under federal law was said to be inadequate to support jurisdiction in the federal court of a claim which arises wholly under state law. To invoke removal jurisdiction of inferior federal courts, a substantial federal question must be disclosed in the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint such that the case could have been originally brought in a federal court. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441.

Federal-question removal requires the federal issue to appear in the plaintiff's state-court complaint and cannot rest on allegations in a responsive pleading or removal petition.

Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Ralph Williams Gulfgate Chrysler-Plymouth · filed 1971-07-16

Removability is contingent only upon the characterization of the suit made by the plaintiff in his state court complaint and not upon any allegations which defendant might make in a responsive pleading or, for that matter, in the defendants’ removal petition. ... Thus, there is no federal question jurisdiction on which removal can be predicated.

For removal based on Section 1331(a), an available federal remedy does not create jurisdiction when the plaintiff pleads only a nonpreempted state-law claim and no federal question appears on the complaint's face.

Ashley v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. · filed 1976-04-06(a)

Since the plaintiffs’ petition alleges only a state cause of action which is not preempted by federal law, no federal question appears on the face of the petition and this court is without jurisdiction.

Section 1331(a) supports federal-question removal only when the federal basis appears on the face of the state-court complaint; a federal claim asserted solely in the removal petition cannot create original jurisdiction.

National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Delaware · filed 1977-12-01(a)

The basis for federal question removal jurisdiction must appear on the face of the complaint, without reference to any statement supplied in the petition for removal. ... Because the claimed basis for jurisdiction appears only in the petition for removal and does not appear in the state court complaint, it cannot confer jurisdiction over the proceedings in this Court.

Section 1331 does not support removal when a state complaint seeking rulings on pending federal trademark applications presents no actual federal controversy that could have been filed originally in federal court.

American Brahmental Ass'n v. American Simmental Ass'n · filed 1977-11-16

Thus, the declaratory judgment that the Plaintiff is seeking in this case — a judgment that is virtually indistinguishable from the one sought in ... — is not one which the court would have jurisdiction to consider had the Plaintiff originally filed its suit in federal court. ... It necessarily follows, then, that there is no basis for removal under the federal question provision of § 1441(b).

Section 1331(a) jurisdiction is determined from the complaint at the time of removal and is not lost merely because the plaintiff ultimately tries the case solely on state-law theories.

Westmoreland Hospital Ass'n v. Blue Cross · filed 1979-09-10(a)

Because appellants’ complaint was based in part on federal statutes, and federal agency regulations and interpretations, we conclude that there was jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). It is immaterial that at trial appellants relied solely on state law principles to make their case.

Section 1331 does not support removal of a state-law complaint merely because it is closely related to a separate federal action in which pendent-party jurisdiction might have been available.

Staffer v. Staten Island Hospital · filed 1988-05-05

Defendants removed the action to this Court, asserting that the case presents a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... A case may not be removed to federal court under § 1441(b) unless the complaint, which is crafted by plaintiff, alleges a claim that arises under federal law. ... Although in this case removal and transfer would be efficient, a plain reading of the Complaint leads me to conclude that the jurisdictional predicate for removal has not been met.

Section 1331 does not support removal of a state-law abuse-of-process claim when no federal question appears on the complaint's face and state law governs the claim.

Fisher v. White · filed 1989-04-24

In sum, it is state, not federal, law that will govern in this abuse of process case, and removal was improper. Because this is not a case “arising under the Constitution, law, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and there being no diversity of citizenship among the parties, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, this Court is without subject matter jurisdiction.

Federal-question jurisdiction for removal follows the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Taft v. Burlington Northern Railroad Corp. · filed 1996-05-20

Whether a defendant may remove a case based on federal question jurisdiction is determined by the “well-pleaded complaint” rule.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint for removal based on federal-question jurisdiction.

Gateway 2000, Inc. v. Cyrix Corp. · filed 1996-09-10

Removal on the grounds of federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, requires that a Federal question be presented on the face of the plaintiffs well-pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint for removal based on federal-question jurisdiction.

Aronson v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P. · filed 2000-01-12

For a case to be removable under § 1441 and § 1331, the well-pleaded complaint rule requires the federal question to be presented on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state tort suit and related lien-apportionment motion when the federal issue first appears in a lienholder’s notice of removal.

Varco v. Lapsis · filed 2001-11-15

Therefore, Varco’s motion to adjudicate does not present a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and her case was improperly removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).

The well-pleaded complaint rule associated with § 1331 does not determine bankruptcy-related removal jurisdiction under §§ 1452 and 1334.

In Re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative · filed 2005-02-16

In arguing for the applicability of the well-pleaded complaint rule to challenge removal of this suit from Connecticut state court, CRRA is confusing two different jurisdictional statutes, both providing original jurisdiction for federal district court. ... First, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the general federal question statute, recites, “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” With respect to the “arising under” language, for purposes of removal “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint.” ... In contrast, for “related to” bankruptcy removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1452, the court has jurisdiction if it satisfies 28 U.S.C. § 1334.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a removed action when a federal question appears on the face of the well-pleaded complaint or federal law completely preempts the pleaded state-law claims.

King v. Retailers National Bank · filed 2005-09-19

When determining whether federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in removal actions, courts follow the well-pleaded complaint rule, that is, federal question jurisdiction exists only when a plaintiffs well-pleaded complaint raises an issue of federal law. ... Because no federal question appears on the face of King’s Complaint and the FCRA does not completely preempt state law claims for purposes of removal, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over King’s claims.

Section 1331 does not support removal when the well-pleaded complaint presents no federal claim.

In Re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010 · filed 2010-10-06

Therefore, although Plaintiff is correct in arguing that the well-pleaded complaint rule prevents Defendants from removing this matter on the basis of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, there is nothing preventing Defendants from removing this matter based on an assertion of jurisdiction under 43 U.S.C. § 1349.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a complaint alleging only state-law claims does not support federal-question removal.

Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Jamil · filed 2011-12-23

Where, as here, “the state court complaint alleged only causes of action under state law[,]” then “the complaint presents no federal question” on its face, and there is no basis for removal.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction over a removed case is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Ulysse v. AAR Aircraft Component Services · filed 2012-01-23

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution and laws or treaties of the United States. However, where removal is predicated upon federal question jurisdiction, the "well-pleaded complaint rule" governs.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal cross-claim does not supply federal-question jurisdiction for removal.

Lucero v. Ortiz · filed 2015-10-31

The issue is whether federal question jurisdiction, for the purposes of removal, can be based on a cross-claim. Because the Court agrees with the Honorable William P. Lynch, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of New Mexico’s conclusions, the Court will adopt the PFRD and remand the case to the Second Judicial District Court of the State of New Mexico for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331’s well-pleaded complaint rule applies only to federal-question jurisdiction and does not govern removal based on an independent jurisdictional grant.

Sears v. Sears (In Re AFY, Inc.) · filed 2018-09-06

The “well-pleaded complaint rule,” however, applies only to jurisdiction based on § 1331. It does not govern when a defendant cites an independent jurisdictional grant as the basis for removal.

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded complaint to rely on a federal right to relief for federal-question removal; possible federal preemption alone does not suffice.

Flinn v. Minnesota Life Insurance Company · filed 2018-11-14

Accordingly, courts apply the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, which requires defendants who base removal on federal question jurisdiction to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s “well-pleaded complaint” relies on a federal right to relief, even if federal law may preempt the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Tr., 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983).

Federal-question jurisdiction requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; documents submitted with a notice of removal cannot create one.

Hester v. Horowitz · filed 2019-06-19

There is no evidence that the complaint was ever filed, nor could documents included with the notice of removal create a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim in the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a defendant’s reliance on federal law does not establish federal-question jurisdiction for removal.

Brookside Properties Inc v. Johnson · filed 2019-09-04

Second, with respect to federal question jurisdiction, Defendant has failed to satisfy the well-pleaded complaint rule. Notwithstanding Defendant’s reliance on 15 U.S.C. § 1692, it is well- settled that “a defendant may not remove a case to federal court unless the plaintiff ‘s complaint establishes that the case ‘arises under’ federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. V. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 11 (1983).

Section 1331 permits removal based on a federal question only when the question appears on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.

Dominguez v. 24-7 Safety · filed 2019-09-12

Removal based on § 1331 is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint” rule. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under the rule, “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of a plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Id. at 392.

Section 1331 does not support removal when the face of the plaintiff’s state-court petition shows no federal question.

Federal National Mortgage Association v. Amerson · filed 2019-09-16

The Court finds that, based on the face of plaintiff’s state-court petition, it does not have federal question jurisdiction over this case, and, for this reason, removal cannot properly be based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction on removal only when the complaint itself asserts a claim arising under federal law; a state-law eviction claim does not qualify.

ARORA v. BARRETTA · filed 2019-09-24

For removal to be proper under § 1331, the removed claims must arise from a “right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” ... Accordingly, there is no federal question jurisdiction on the face of the Complaint.

Federal-question jurisdiction cannot rest on a removing defendant’s federal claim raised in a notice of removal or objections when that claim is absent from the complaint.

Ina Group, LLC. v. Patel · filed 2019-09-29

While Harrison has a reference to due process in her Notice of Removal and cites 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in her objections, Harrison is an intervening party and these claims are absent in the Complaint (Doc. 5). ... Asserting a federal claim in the Notice of Removal or the objections to a Magistrate’s R&R is not sufficient.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the initial state-court pleading for federal-question jurisdiction over a removed case.

Long v. Pickett · filed 2020-02-12

It appears that the Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter because Plaintiff has not alleged that a federal question appears on the face of the initial pleading in the state-court proceeding.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s pleading for federal-question jurisdiction over a removed case.

Robinson v. State of New Mexico · filed 2020-03-03

It appears that the Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter because Robinson has not alleged that a federal question appears on the face of the initial pleadings in the state-court proceedings.

Section 1331 requires federal-question jurisdiction to arise from the plaintiff’s complaint; allegations in a removal notice or response to the complaint cannot supply it.

White v. Santa Clara Valley Water District · filed 2020-07-17

Allegations in a removal notice or in a response to the complaint cannot provide this Court with federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s own action; a defendant’s federal defenses do not establish federal-question jurisdiction for removal.

Ward v. Cane · filed 2020-09-11

This Court must only examine Plaintiffs’ state court action to determine whether a federal question is presented.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction on removal only when a federal question appears in the plaintiff’s complaint; federal defenses do not suffice.

G.V. HOMES INC. v. FREMPONG · filed 2021-03-15

Moreover, these constitute defenses to the underlying state action, and the law is clear that subject matter jurisdiction in removed actions cannot be based on defenses to a complaint, but only on the claims asserted in the complaint itself.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction on removal only when a federal question appears on the face of the properly pleaded complaint; a federal defense alone does not suffice.

Koy-Ghadoush v. Andreiu · filed 2021-04-28

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under” federal law. Removal based on § 1331 is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint” rule. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under this rule, “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” ... There is no federal question jurisdiction simply because there is a federal defense to the claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on federal-law allegations in a removal notice or a response to a state-law complaint.

Wong v. Dawson · filed 2021-05-24

Although defendants assert that plaintiff has violated various federal laws, allegations in a removal notice or in a response to the complaint cannot provide this Court with federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; federal defenses do not establish federal-question jurisdiction for removal.

FEDERAL NAT'L MORTGAGE ASSOC. v. LEICHT · filed 2021-07-09

Accordingly, to the extent that Leicht’s Notice of Removal asserts any violations of federal law as a defense to the Complaint in Quiet Title, any such assertions do not establish a basis for removal.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the well-pleaded complaint at the time of removal to support federal jurisdiction.

Biegon v. City of Dallas · filed 2021-09-30

In sum, Biegon has not shown that the allegations in a well-pleaded complaint established that federal jurisdiction existed at the time of removal, which requires that the Court sua sponte remand his case to state court.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction ends when an amended complaint removes the federal claim.

Williams v. KBR Services · filed 2026-01-27

When Williams amended her Complaint to remove her federal claim, federal question and supplemental jurisdiction evaporated.

A footnote listing constitutional amendments without context or elaboration does not establish federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331’s well-pleaded complaint rule.

James Laurence Butler, Sr. v. Morgan · filed 2014-04-03

The sole reference to federal law in the amended complaint -- a single footnote citation listing, without context or elaboration, various constitutional amendments -- is inadequate to demonstrate a federal question under the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Section 1331 requires more than a complaint’s bare references to federal statutes or constitutional amendments to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Atrisco Heritage Foundation v. New Mexico Commission for Community Volunteerism · filed 2020-03-30

Simply reciting federal statutes and constitutional amendments at the outset of the complaint is not enough to invoke the court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s claim; a defendant’s potential defenses or counterclaims do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Hermosa Village Phase 1 Housing Partners, L.P. v. Lauren Esther Dieguez De Leon · filed 2024-01-23

Defendant contends that the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 makes the case removeable, (NOR at 2–5), but her potential defenses or counterclaims against Plaintiff are not enough to invoke this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a federal issue appears only in a defendant’s defense or counterclaim to a state-law claim.

Clear Point Crossing Residence v. Johnson · filed 2024-01-09

Clear Point has sued Johnson solely under a Texas state-law cause of action, and Johnson cannot create federal subject matter jurisdiction by simply raising federal questions as defenses or counterclaims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when no federal issue appears on the face of the complaint and the claim is not completely preempted by federal law.

Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago v. Group Administrators, Ltd. · filed 1994-02-07

In light of our finding that plaintiffs state law claim in this case is not preempted by ERISA, the complete preemption doctrine is unavailable as a basis for jurisdiction. Therefore, as no federal question appears on the face of Rehab Institute’s complaint, we lack jurisdiction over the case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law fraud claims that assert no TILA claim when TILA does not completely preempt state law.

Walker v. Commercial Credit Corp. · filed 1996-02-02

The Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded complaint asserted only state law fraud claims and no claims under TILA. TILA does not completely pre-empt state law; therefore, this court does not have jurisdiction on that basis.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law complaint merely because the defendant asserts that federal law preempts the claims.

Williams v. Potomac Electric Power Co. · filed 2000-09-08

There is no federal question jurisdiction where a defendant simply claims that a complaint based on state law is preempted by federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that neither require resolution of a substantial disputed federal question nor are completely preempted by federal law.

Owens v. Catholic Diocese of Jackson, Miss. · filed 2001-06-05

Whether a claim “arises under” federal law so as to confer federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which “provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint.” ... Accordingly, the court finds that neither the artful pleading/complete preemption doctrine nor the substantial federal question doctrine applies. ... For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ complaint.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when no necessary federal cause of action appears on the well-pleaded complaint and federal law does not completely preempt the claims.

Swift Electrical Supply Co. v. Township of Lakewood · filed 2001-10-09

For the reasons discussed above, the Court concludes that the Complaint properly asserts only state claims that are not preempted by federal law. No necessary federal causes of action appear on the face of the well-pleaded Complaint. This Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the action and no other basis for federal jurisdiction applies.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that are neither artfully pleaded nor completely preempted by federal law.

North County Communications Corp. v. Verizon New York, Inc. · filed 2002-11-14

The plaintiffs well-pleaded complaint alleges only state law claims. Such claims are neither artfully pleaded or completely preempted by federal law. The interconnection agreement itself, if in fact it does control, does not mandate that federal claims be asserted in federal court. No subject matter jurisdiction exists. This case must be remanded to the Supreme Court of New York.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff elects to plead only an available, nonpreempted state-law claim.

Egan v. Premier Scales & Systems · filed 2002-12-30

Where both state and federal remedies are available, such as under the civil rights laws, and where federal law does not preempt a state law, a plaintiff may avoid federal jurisdiction by relying upon state law. ... Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 impermissibly superceded Plaintiffs choice to file in state court and is improper.

Section 1331 requires an affirmative federal claim on the face of the complaint; an anticipatory federal preemption rejoinder does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

City of New York v. Verizon New York, Inc. · filed 2004-08-20

As Plaintiff made clear at oral argument, Plaintiffs purported affirmative federal claim is nothing more than an anticipatory federal preemption rejoinder to Verizon’s expected invocation of state law as authority for its unfranchised occupancy. ... Count V thus fails to provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction of the subject matter of this litigation.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; a state law claim that is not completely preempted does not supply federal question jurisdiction.

DiPilato v. Commonwealth Ass'n of School Administrators · filed 2008-11-03

Under the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” federal jurisdiction only exists when there is a federal question on the face of the complaint.

Defensive ERISA preemption of a state-law claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Lawrence v. Nation · filed 2016-06-14

Accordingly, under this rule, defensive ERISA preemption of a plaintiffs claims is insufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction under § 1331.

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

City of Oakland v. Bp P.L.C. · filed 2020-08-12

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 provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only state-law negligence when no applicable federal statute completely preempts the claim.

Block v. Big Blue Healthcare, Inc. · filed 2020-08-19

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, then, there is no federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims presenting a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; a federal defense to a state law claim does not suffice.

Magnum Property Investments, LLC v. Allen · filed 2020-08-26

Second, subject matter jurisdiction exists over civil actions “arising under” federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim arises under federal law “when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” See Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Plaintiff’s Complaint herein contains a single cause of action for unlawful detainer, a state law claim. (Complaint at 1.) There is no federal question jurisdiction even if there is a federal defense – under 12 U.S.C. § 3708 and its implementing regulations, or otherwise – to a claim arising under state law. See Caterpillar, Inc., 482 U.S. at 392-93. This is a simple state law unlawful detainer case, and there is no federal question presented on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a defendant’s defenses do not supply one.

Catamount Properties 2018, LLC v. Lucore · filed 2020-09-02

No federal question appears on the face of the unlawful detainer complaint.

Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense or counterclaim does not establish it.

West Coast Servicing Inc. v. Akrabian · filed 2020-09-17

Any rights based in federal law that Defendants believe they have by way of a defense or a basis for a counterclaim does not give this Court original jurisdiction over Plaintiff's unlawful detainer case.

Section 1331 requires a well pleaded complaint alleging a federal law cause of action; an anticipated defense does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Howell v. Garden of Eden · filed 2020-10-01

Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a civil action to arise only if a “well pleaded complaint” alleges a cause of action based on federal law—an “actual or anticipated defense” does not confer federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on anticipated federal defenses or counterclaims.

Foshee Management Company, LLC v. Finch · filed 2020-10-20

As the above case law makes clear, those anticipated defenses and counterclaims, even if based on federal law, do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; an affirmative defense or counterclaim cannot supply it.

(UD)(PS) Alvernaz Partners, LLC v. Pitts · filed 2020-10-21

To the extent Defendant is arguing he was denied due process or equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, such an argument likely relates to an affirmative defense or potential counterclaim, which cannot be considered in evaluating whether a federal question appears on the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a federal defense or counterclaim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Bell Fund VI LA Pasadena, LP v. Parker · filed 2020-10-27

A claim arises under federal law “when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’ s properly pleaded complaint.” ... There is no federal question jurisdiction even if there is a federal defense to the claim or a counterclaim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense or counterclaim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

(UD)(PS)Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC v. Jackson · filed 2020-11-13

Furthermore, even assuming Defendant intends to raise a federal defense based on the Fourteenth Amendment or assert a counterclaim against Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action, as articulated above, removal cannot be based upon a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim raising a federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law unlawful detainer claim based on a federal defense or counterclaim.

Sherman Way Gardens Ltd. v. Arkhipov · filed 2020-11-18

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under” federal law. ... Here, the underlying Complaint contains a single cause of action for unlawful detainer, which does not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a defendant’s federal defense does not supply federal-question jurisdiction.

Aura Mortgage Advisors, LLC v. Poole · filed 2020-12-02

However, it is not enough for a complaint to merely implicate federal laws and rights. Instead, “[t]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). This is true even when a defendant raises a federal defense.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; a federal defense cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Mitchell v. Bikoba · filed 2020-12-08

Federal question jurisdiction therefore cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim raising a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the well pleaded complaint; a potential federal defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Mitchell v. Bailey · filed 2020-12-14

To determine whether a claim arises under federal law, the court examines the “well pleaded” allegations of the complaint and “ignore[s] potential defenses.”

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint; a federal defense to a state-law claim does not establish jurisdiction.

Wilson v. Jones · filed 2021-01-05

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, a federal question must exist on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint in order to establish federal question subject matter jurisdiction. Thomas, 743 F.3d at 1139; see Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). ... Those conditions aren't present here.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a federal defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Savvidis · filed 2021-01-11

Further, to the extent the defendants argue that the foreclosure violated various constitutional doctrines and federal laws, that defense is not part of a properly pleaded complaint and is therefore insufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction.

Federal-question jurisdiction cannot rest on a federal defense or counterclaim to a complaint asserting only a state-law unlawful detainer claim.

(UD) Nahouraii v. Weinerman · filed 2021-01-25

Furthermore, even assuming Defendants intend to raise a federal defense based on Federal Regulation 55292 or assert a counterclaim against Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action, as articulated above, removal cannot be based upon a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim raising a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a planned federal defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Maret v. Jacob · filed 2021-02-02

In Defendants’ Opposition, for the first time, Defendants also claim that federal question jurisdiction exists because they intend to rely on a federal statute, the Volunteer Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. § 14501, as part of their defense. However, “[t]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). ... Here, there is no federal question presented by the Complaint filed by Plaintiffs in state court, as Plaintiffs bring a single cause of action under a state statute. Thus, Defendants’ removal cannot be sustained in this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the properly pleaded complaint, subject to the complete-preemption exception.

Juanopulos v. Salus Claims Management, LLCCase remanded to the 269th District Court of Harris County, Texas. · filed 2021-02-09

By this, federal jurisdiction exists “only when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Ibid (citations omitted). No federal question appears on the face of the complaint here, as Juanopulos asserts what appear to be only violations of the Texas Insurance Code and related state-law torts and remedies.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint; state-law claims do not qualify merely because a federal defense may be raised.

Mrs. Olson Coffee Hut v. County of Ventura · filed 2021-02-09

Here, each action asserts causes of action for “Violation of Health Orders” and “Public Nuisance.” Dkt. 7-1 at 9-10, 83-84. These causes of actions do not present a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a federal defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

(PS)(UD) Kim v. Krietz · filed 2021-02-11

Federal question jurisdiction therefore cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third- party claim raising a federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the well-pleaded complaint asserts only state-law claims, even if the defendant intends to raise federal defenses.

County of Ventura v. House of Gains Gym, Inc. · filed 2021-02-22

Because plaintiffs’ well pleaded complaint in this action asserts claims only under state law, this action does not “arise under” federal law for purposes of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a defendant raises ordinary federal preemption only as a defense to state-law claims.

LEMISKA v. THE BRIAD GROUP · filed 2021-02-22

Here, the Court finds that Defendant cannot establish federal question jurisdiction by arguing the FAA preempts N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:5-12.7.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint raises a federal constitutional issue only to answer an anticipated state-law defense.

DEGENNARO v. GRABELLE · filed 2021-02-23

But just as in Bracken, Plaintiff’s anticipation of a state defense and his own federal response to that defense do not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not give a federal court jurisdiction over a state-law unlawful-detainer claim when no federal question appears on the face of the complaint, even if defendants assert federal defenses.

Wisemount Property, Inc. v. Stokes · filed 2021-03-18

In this case, Plaintiff brings one state law claim for unlawful detainer. No federal question is presented on the face of the Complaint. ... However, “[a] federal law defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court[.]” Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). The Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a federal defense to a state-law unlawful detainer claim does not supply jurisdiction.

Saso v. Genho · filed 2021-04-19

Thus, because no federal question is presented on the face of the Sasos’ unlawful detainer complaint, federal jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a federal defense does not establish jurisdiction.

(UD)(PS) Covington v. Lee · filed 2021-04-21

Federal question jurisdiction therefore cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim raising a federal question. ... Even if those laws did apply, however, it does not appear as though they would be part of Plaintiff’s claim, but rather Defendants’ defense.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is determined from the face of a well-pleaded complaint without considering potential defenses.

Bolton v. Gallatin Center for Rehabilitation & Healing, LLC · filed 2021-04-21

As its name suggests, the well-pleaded complaint rule requires courts to ignore potential defenses and look only to the face of the complaint to determine whether a federal question exists.

Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 requires a federal claim on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a defendant’s federal defense or counterclaim cannot supply it.

MRS Property Investments, Inc. v. Bivona · filed 2021-05-03

Thus, Bivona bears the burden of establishing that this suit “aris[es] under” federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In doing so, he must satisfy the well-pleaded complaint rule, in which “a suit arises under federal law only when the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon federal law.” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (cleaned up).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a state-law complaint raises no federal issue and the defendant asserts a federal defense.

Surkhi v. King · filed 2021-05-17

The Court is not convinced that federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff’s Complaint does not raise a federal issue. At best, Defendant raises a federal defense to Plaintiff’s action based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. But, even so, this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a federal defense or counterclaim does not create federal-question jurisdiction.

(UD)(PS) Mashhadialireza v. Huddleston · filed 2021-06-02

Federal court jurisdiction therefore cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim raising a federal question. ... The instant Complaint therefore relies solely on California state law and does not state any claims under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a federal question raised only in a defense or other responsive claim does not establish jurisdiction.

(PS) Expose v. US Bank National Association · filed 2021-06-17

Federal question jurisdiction therefore cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim raising a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

HALL v. KEYES · filed 2021-06-29

Because the Complaint does not allege a cause of action “arising under” federal law and Defendant relies exclusively on a federal defense to establish federal jurisdiction, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; federal defenses and counterclaims do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

FEDCorp, Inc. v. Salamone · filed 2021-07-21

Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff has established this Court’s jurisdiction based on state- law claims arising under claims and defenses pursuant to federal statutes fails because there is no federal question present in the complaint that could satisfy the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the well-pleaded complaint; a federal defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Shafighi v. Dadon · filed 2021-07-27

Stated differently, even if Defendant argues his defense raises a federal question, that does not provide the Court with subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires federal-question jurisdiction to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a defendant’s federal counterclaim or defense cannot create it.

Board of Supervisors Of Alleghany County v. Kern · filed 2021-09-07

To determine whether a court can exercise federal question jurisdiction, a court must look at “the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Verizon Md., Inc. v. Global NAPS, Inc., 377 F.3d 355, 363 (4th Cir. 2004); see 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Board’s petition in the circuit court was filed under Virginia Code § 24.2-234 and arises solely under state, not federal, law. A defendant cannot create federal question jurisdiction to remove a case to federal court simply by raising a federal counterclaim or defense.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a defense or counterclaim raising a federal question does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Catamount Properties 2018 LLC v. Cummings · filed 2021-09-15

To the extent that Plaintiff attempts to present a federal question via a defense or counterclaim, this does not imbue this Court with subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not allow federal-question jurisdiction to rest on a federal defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim.

(UD)(PS) Roberts v. Shaffer · filed 2021-10-20

Federal question jurisdiction therefore cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim raising a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to arise from the plaintiff’s cause of action; a defendant’s asserted counterclaim or defense cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction.

US Bank Trust, N.A. v. Malec · filed 2021-10-20

Even if Keeley Malec had asserted a counterclaim, “a counterclaim -- which appears as part of the defendant’s answer, not as part of the plaintiff’s complaint -- cannot serve as the basis for ‘arising under’ jurisdiction.” Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., 535 U.S. 826, 831 (2002). ... Accordingly, Keeley Malec’s invocation of federal statutes in the Notice of Removal is insufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction on the Court.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the properly pleaded complaint; a federal defense to an unlawful detainer claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Saba v. Sinutko · filed 2021-11-08

Here, there is no federal question apparent from the face of the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple unlawful detainer cause of action. ... Thus, to the extent Defendant’s defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law, those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a federal defense or counterclaim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Weimer v. Gomez · filed 2021-11-30

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under” federal law. Removal based on § 1331 1s governed by the “well-pleaded complaint” rule. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2429, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1987). Under the rule, “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.”

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the properly pleaded complaint; a federal defense or counterclaim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Reyes v. Villela · filed 2021-12-07

There is no federal question jurisdiction even if Defendant has alleged an actual or anticipated federal defense to the claim or a counterclaim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction only when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; federal defenses do not establish it.

Griffin v. IIP Management, LLC · filed 2021-12-09

Although Ms. Griffin purports to assert defenses to the Municipal Court eviction action in the pleading she has filed, including that the eviction proceeding violates her rights arising under federal laws (see Doc. No. 1 at 1), removal jurisdiction based on a federal question is proper “only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). The complaint in the Municipal Court eviction action on its face alleges no cause of action arising under federal law. Rather, the complaint alleges claims only arising under Ohio law. (See Doc. No. 1-1.) Federal defenses are an insufficient to ground to establish federal question removal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the properly pleaded complaint; state-law foreclosure claims and federal defenses do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

D.B. Structured Products, Inc v. Savvidis · filed 2022-01-07

Because the Complaint only appears to raise state law claims relating to the mortgage loan, the action does not “aris[e] under” federal law.

Section 1331 does not allow federal-question jurisdiction to rest on an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim.

(UD)(PS) Hoffman v. Lyles · filed 2022-01-27

Federal question jurisdiction cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer action based on defenses alleging violations of federal law.

Onni South Hill, LP v. Angel · filed 2022-02-04

Thus, to the extent Defendant’s defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law, those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on a defendant’s federal defense to a state-law unlawful detainer complaint.

Frontier Properties LLC v. Rutledge · filed 2022-02-14

The fact that Rutledge’s defense is based in the Fourteenth Amendment does not give this Court federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when preemption is raised only as an affirmative defense to state-law claims.

Corvallis Hospitality, LLC v. Wilmington Trust, National Association · filed 2022-06-06

The fact that Defendants raise preemption as an affirmative defense is insufficient for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for removal based solely on federal defenses or counterclaims.

Gundogdu v. WDF-4 Wood Harbor Park Owner, LLC · filed 2022-07-11

But her counterclaims and defenses cannot form the basis of a proper removal.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the defendant raises a federal defense.

Bexar County v. Martin · filed 2022-07-18

As Martin has been reminded time and again, however, the existence of a federal defense to a state-law claim does not create federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on a defendant’s federal defense.

Furzland v. Baumli · filed 2022-07-25

Baumli’s assertion of this federal defense does not trigger federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a federal issue arises only as a potential defense to a state-law claim, even under the substantial-federal-question doctrine.

Total Quality Logistics, LLC v. Traffic Tech, Inc. · filed 2022-07-26

Thus, even under the substantial-federal-question doctrine, a potential federal defense to a state law claim is insufficient to bestow federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the plaintiff anticipates a federal defense.

Negrete v. City of Oakland · filed 2022-08-19

Even assuming that these inquiries implicate questions of federal law, a federal issue raised in anticipation of a defense is not sufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on a defendant’s federal defense or counterclaim.

Dong v. Holmes · filed 2022-08-24

It is axiomatic that a federal defense or counterclaim does not give rise to federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on a defendant’s federal defenses to a state-law unlawful detainer action.

IRP Griffin Apartments, LLC v. Stennis · filed 2022-09-07

To the extent defendant’s defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law, (see Dkt. 1, NOR at ¶¶ 6-8), those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the federal issue arises only as a defense to a state-law claim.

Huerta v. Covina Care Center, Inc. · filed 2022-09-29

A federal issue that is raised as a defense is not sufficient grounds to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 jurisdiction cannot rest on a defendant’s federal-law defenses to a state-law claim.

HC Mexico Avenue, LLC v. Willis · filed 2022-10-11

To the extent defendant’s defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law, (see Dkt. 1, NOR at ¶ 10), those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based solely on a federal defense or counterclaim to a state-law claim.

HSBC Bank USA, National Association v. Gutierrez · filed 2022-10-27

Neither a federal defense nor a federal counterclaim forms a basis for removal.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a federal issue arises only as a defense.

District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil Corp. · filed 2022-11-12

Federal-question jurisdiction does not exist if defendants raise a defense rooted in federal law.

Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 cannot be established by claims that amount only to affirmative defenses.

South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Wright · filed 2022-11-15

Moreover, the Magistrate has comprehensively and in detail addressed this Court’s lack of federal question subject matter jurisdiction, even if the Court were to consider Bey’s objections because these claims at best are affirmative defenses and, therefore, do not establish subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based solely on a federal defense or counterclaim.

Hooper Management, LLC v. Kiser · filed 2022-12-13

Neither a federal defense nor a federal counterclaim forms a basis for removal.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when a federal immunity defense is not an essential element of those claims.

Aponte v. Our Lady of Consolation Nursing and Rehabilitative Care Center · filed 2022-12-22

Plaintiff need not prove that Defendants are not immune in order to prevail and, therefore, this Court must remand where the “face of [the] well pleaded complaint” alleges “only state tort and contract claims” and does not “necessarily [or at all] depend on a disputed and substantial issue of federal law.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on a defendant’s federal-law defenses to an unlawful detainer action.

Onni South Hill, LP v. Jackson · filed 2022-12-28

To the extent defendant’s defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law, those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

A complaint that asserts no federal law or constitutional basis for its claims does not establish jurisdiction under § 1331.

Williams v. Feldman · filed 2023-01-03

Federal question jurisdiction does not exist because the plaintiffs’ complaints assert no federal statute or Constitutional provision as a basis for their claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction exists for “actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on a defendant’s federal-law defenses to an unlawful detainer claim.

California Community Housing Agency v. Payne · filed 2023-01-05

To the extent defendant’s defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law, those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction cannot be established by a defendant’s federal defenses or counterclaims.

U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Modikhan · filed 2023-01-11

Thus, Defendants’ invocation of federal defenses or counterclaims does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on a defendant’s federal defense to a state-law claim.

Ward v. Bawa · filed 2023-01-26

Moreover, any defensive claims Defendants may wish to present cannot provide a basis for removal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on federal-law defenses to an unlawful detainer action.

IH3 Property West, LP v. Jarrell · filed 2023-02-02

To the extent defendant’s defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law, (see Dkt. 1, NOR at 3-7), those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on a defendant’s federal defenses to an unlawful detainer action.

Onni South Hill, LP v. Saavedra · filed 2023-02-02

To the extent defendant’s defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law, those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

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

Person v. Camillus House Inc. · filed 2023-02-09

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ... There is no assertion of jurisdiction in the Complaint. Because Plaintiff has not articulated jurisdiction under a specific statutory grant, federal question jurisdiction, and does not assert that diversity jurisdiction exists, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the federal issue arises solely from a defense.

ONESOUTH BANK v. SUMMER TIME MELONS LLC · filed 2023-03-16

Global and Summer Time’s defense under the FSA does not confer subject matter jurisdiction onto the Court.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal issue raised in a defense or answer does not establish jurisdiction.

Kim v. Plummer · filed 2023-05-01

Accordingly, a defense or answer which raises issues of federal law cannot give rise to federal question jurisdiction.