28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 supplies federal jurisdiction to review agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, while the APA’s final-action requirement is a nonjurisdictional exhaustion requirement subject to limited exceptions.

Gwinn Area Community Schools v. State of Mich. · filed 1983-09-01

The jurisdiction of federal courts to review agency action under the APA is found in 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 704, the scope of review of federal courts is limited to those agency actions which are “made reviewable by statute” or which are “final.” This statutory prerequisite is not a jurisdictional requirement, however, but “an exhaustion of remedies requirement, subject only to a few carefully limited exceptions.”

Section 1331, not the Administrative Procedure Act, supplies jurisdiction to review federal agency action; the APA supplies the scope of review.

Falkowski v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · filed 1983-10-14

The Administrative Procedure Act, of course, does not confer independent subject matter jurisdiction on federal district courts to review federal agency action. ... Rather, such jurisdiction is based on general federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Supp. V 1981). The APA merely provides the appropriate scope of review, once jurisdiction is otherwise available.

Section 1331(a) supplies jurisdiction to review under the Administrative Procedure Act a federal agency’s decision to disclose records requested under FOIA.

United Technologies Corp. v. Department of Health & Human Services · filed 1983-10-25(a)

United is entitled to judicial review under Sections 702 and 706(2)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331, as amended in 1976 to remove the $10,000 amount requirement for federal-agency actions, supplies jurisdiction for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Story v. Marsh · filed 1983-10-31(a)

This Court finds that it has jurisdiction in this cause by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... when read in conjunction with the 1976 amendment to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), which deleted the jurisdictional requirement that there be Ten Thousand Dollars in controversy, it is clear that judicial review of an agency action is proper.

Section 1331 independently requires an action to arise under federal law; when the Administrative Procedure Act is the only federal law offered for enforcement, the plaintiff remains bound by the APA’s agency-action limits.

Impro Products, Inc. v. John R. Block, Secretary of Agriculture of the United States · filed 1983-12-16

Impro appears to argue that it is not bound by the constraints of the APA because its action is grounded solely on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Supp. V 1981). ... In making this argument, Impro overlooks the requirement of § 1331 that the action arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Impro fails to point to any federal law, other than the APA, to be enforced, and it has offered, no grounds on which we could imply such a right to sue from any statute. Impro therefore is bound by the constraints of the APA.

Section 1331, coupled with the Administrative Procedure Act, supplies jurisdiction to review a federal agency’s rulemaking challenge when the Civil Service Reform Act’s exclusive scheme does not apply.

National Treasury Employees Union v. Devine · filed 1983-12-30

The exclusive scheme of the CSRA is not applicable here. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to entertain NTEU’s rule-making challenge grounded in the APA, and to review OPM’s promulgation of the October 25th regulations.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over an Administrative Procedure Act claim challenging the Administrative Office’s separation of a federal judicial employee.

Sipe v. Fritz · filed 1984-05-07

The Court has jurisdiction of plaintiff’s claim that the action of the Administrative Office (AO) in separating Sipe from employment was invalid pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act.

Section 1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim that a federal agency violated the Administrative Procedure Act, even though the APA does not itself grant jurisdiction.

Reiner v. West Village Associates · filed 1985-07-08

it is now clear that the federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 (1982) over a claim that an agency has violated the APA.

The 1976 amendment to Section 1331 eliminated the amount-in-controversy requirement and thereby supplied jurisdiction for federal-court review of agency action without treating the APA as an independent jurisdictional grant.

Computerware, Inc. v. Knotts · filed 1986-01-13

In 1976 Congress amended 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to eliminate the $10,000 amount in controversy requirement. The effect of this amendment was to confer jurisdiction on federal courts to review agency action, thus undercutting the rationale for interpreting the Administrative Procedure Act as an independent grant of jurisdiction.

An action seeking review of allegedly unauthorized federal agency action arises under federal law for Section 1331 unless another statute precludes review.

GTE International Inc. v. Hunter · filed 1986-05-08

An action against a Federal agency or officer seeking review of allegedly-unauthorized agency action is deemed to arise under the laws of the United States for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 unless some other statute is interpreted as precluding such review.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over an Administrative Procedure Act procedural claim alleging that an agency abused its discretion by failing to decide a request.

Pueblo De Cochiti v. United States · filed 1986-08-13

Plaintiffs’ procedural claim, alleging Defendants have abused their discretion in not reaching a decision on Plaintiffs’ Complaint, states a claim for which relief can be granted under 5 U.S.C. § 706, and this Court has jurisdiction to hear that claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction for judicial review of federal agency action under Section 10 of the APA even though the APA does not itself confer subject-matter jurisdiction.

Shanty Town Associates Limited Partnership v. Environmental Protection Agency · filed 1988-04-04

Though Shanty Town's complaint did not identify the source of its cause of action, the district court properly treated the action as one brought under Sec. 10 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 702, because it sought judicial review of an action by a federal administrative agency. While Sec. 10 does not itself confer federal subject matter jurisdiction over such actions, jurisdiction exists under the general federal question statute.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction for judicial review of federal agency action under Section 10 of the APA even though the APA does not itself confer subject-matter jurisdiction.

Shanty Town Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Environmental Protection Agency · filed 1988-04-04

Though Shanty Town’s complaint did not identify the source of its cause of action, the district court properly treated the action as one brought under § 10 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 702, because it sought judicial review of an action by a federal administrative agency. While § 10 does not itself confer federal subject matter jurisdiction over such actions, jurisdiction exists under the general federal question statute.

Unless Congress expressly precludes review, Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over APA challenges to agency action arising under federal law.

Parola v. Weinberger · filed 1988-06-01

Unless a statute expressly precludes review, however, a federal district court has jurisdiction over APA challenges to agency actions as claims "arising under" federal law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. ... Defendants cite no preclusion of review statute that would strip the district court of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. ... Accordingly, the district court properly exercised jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to review agency action challenged under the Administrative Procedure Act even when no separate statutory enforcement cause of action is available.

Golden Gate Audubon Society, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers · filed 1988-06-21

Even without the enforcement cause of action, however, we also have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the general federal question jurisdiction statute. The Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702, provides that “[a] person ... adversely affected or aggreived by agency action ... is entitled to judicial review thereof.” Section 1331 provides the district court with jurisdiction to hear challenges under the APA.

Section 1331 independently supplies jurisdiction over an Administrative Procedure Act challenge to reviewable federal agency action even though the APA itself is not a jurisdictional grant.

Orrego v. US DEPT. OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEV. · filed 1988-12-07

In Califano v. Sanders plaintiff brought an action that could not be maintained under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the Supreme Court held that Section 10 of the APA is not an independent grant of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs here, however, derive their cause of action from the APA but do not rely on it for jurisdiction. Nothing in Califano v. Sanders suggests that the APA does not grant a cause of action to one who has standing, so long as there is an independent statutory basis for jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides the independent jurisdictional basis for an APA cause of action seeking review of federal agency conduct when review is not statutorily precluded.

Orrego v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development · filed 1988-12-07

Plaintiffs here, however, derive their cause of action from the APA but do not rely on it for jurisdiction. ... Private defendants’ arguments fail because jurisdiction is proper under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) or § 1337 (acts of Congress regulating commerce).

Section 1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim that an agency violated the Administrative Procedure Act, although the APA itself does not grant jurisdiction.

Town of Beverly Shores v. Lujan · filed 1989-05-10

However, as both parties point out, federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim that an agency has violated the APA pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over an Administrative Procedure Act claim alleging that federal facilities violated state environmental requirements incorporated through federal law, although the plaintiff must still state a reviewable agency-action claim.

McClellan Ecological Seepage Situation v. Cheney · filed 1989-08-31

This Court concludes that MESS has standing under the APA and that the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, the Court agrees with the Government that MESS has failed to allege a proper cause of action under the APA, and therefore Counts 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 will be dismissed.

Section 1331 permits a district-court suit to review judicially reviewable agency action when no statute specifies the review route, and that suit functions as a review proceeding rather than an original action.

Harmon v. Richard L. Thornburgh, Attorney General of the United States · filed 1989-09-01

When an administrative action is judicially reviewable but no statute specifies the route to take to get judicial review, an aggrieved party can bring a suit against the responsible officials in a federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the general federal-question statute.... Such a suit resembles an equity suit but is actually a review proceeding rather than an original proceeding.

Section 1331, read together with the Administrative Procedure Act, gives district courts jurisdiction to review Interior Board of Land Appeals decisions.

Joe Aulston and Lola Aulston v. United States of America, and Shell Western E & P, Intervenors-Appellees · filed 1990-09-20

The district court’s jurisdiction to review IBLA decisions derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1988) read in conjunction with 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (1988).

Section 1331 ordinarily supplies subject-matter jurisdiction to review agency action alleged to violate Administrative Procedure Act standards, although the APA does not independently confer jurisdiction.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency · filed 1991-07-17

As both these cases recognize, the Supreme Court has held that the Administrative Procedure Act does not afford an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction, but general federal question jurisdiction typically exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to review agency action in violation of APA standards.

Section 1331 supplied an independent jurisdictional predicate for a pre-enforcement challenge to final Federal Trade Commission reporting orders.

A. O. Smith Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission · filed 1976-02-11

At the outset, we note that the district court held that it had federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or, alternatively, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1337. ... In any event, we would agree with the district court.

Section 1331(a) supplies statutory jurisdiction over a federal pre-enforcement challenge to an FTC protective order when the claims arise under federal statutes and the Constitution, provided Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement is separately met.

Exxon Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission · filed 1977-08-19(a)

Section 1331(a) provides jurisdiction in cases arising “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. . ” ... it is apparent that the claims asserted do arise under federal statutes and the United States Constitution. … Accordingly, it is held that this Court does have subject matter jurisdiction over this case under ... U.S.C. § 1331 provided a case or controversy exists within the meaning of Article III.

Section 1331(a) gives district courts power to review federal agency action when no statute precludes review.

Association of National Advertisers, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission · filed 1979-10-02(a)

General federal question jurisdiction, now unencumbered by the amount-in-controversy requirement in suits against federal officials, 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) (1976), gives the district courts the power to review agency action absent a preclusion of review statute.

Article 76 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not remove federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 over a qualifying challenge to a court-martial.

Schlesinger v. Councilman · filed 1975-03-25

We now conclude that although the article is highly relevant to the proper scope of collateral attack on court-martial convictions and to the propriety of equitable intervention into pending court-martial proceedings, it does not have the jurisdictional consequences petitioners ascribe to it.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a non-habeas collateral constitutional challenge to court-martial proceedings.

Allen v. United States Air Force · filed 2010-05-07

Nevertheless, we do have jurisdiction to review Allen's collateral challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supports jurisdiction over a military reservist’s claims that a discharge violated the Constitution and federal law.

Wronke v. Marsh · filed 1985-04-24

The plaintiff alleges that this court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, in that the controversy arises under the constitution and laws of the United States. ... The court finds that it has jurisdiction under these provisions.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject-matter jurisdiction to review a court-martial for constitutional error and conformity with Supreme Court standards.

Williamson v. Secretary of the Navy · filed 1975-05-14

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to review a military court martial in order to inquire into constitutional errors of the military tribunal and to determine whether military rulings conform to Supreme Court standards.

Section 1331 gives district courts equitable jurisdiction to review a servicemember’s constitutional challenge to a court-martial conviction and resulting discharge.

Joseph G. Hatheway, Jr. v. Secretary of the Army · filed 1981-04-20

After Hatheway’s dismissal from the service, he filed an action in district court alleging jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,1361 and 2201. He sought a declaration that his conviction was invalid, and an order that he be given an honorable discharge and all pay and benefits denied because of his conviction. ... The district court had equitable jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and mandamus jurisdiction under § 1361.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over constitutional challenges directly attacking military regulations enforced in a court-martial.

Sisson v. United States · filed 1986-03-18

The challenges here are based on constitutional rights and entail a direct challenge to the military regulations enforced against Sgt. Sisson. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits a court to adjudicate constitutional challenges to military promotion decisions even though promotion itself is committed to the political branches and the court cannot directly order it.

Emory v. Secretary of the Navy · filed 1987-05-19

He alleged that the court had jurisdiction to order the relief sought under the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution and under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 (1982). ... To so conclude, however, is not to say that there is an absence of subject matter jurisdiction over Emory’s constitutional claims. ... We simply hold that dismissal of his complaint for want of subject matter jurisdiction was error.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a noncustodial plaintiff’s collateral attack on a court-martial judgment alleging lack of jurisdiction or an equally fundamental defect in the proceedings.

Penland v. Raymond Edwin Mabus, Jr. · filed 2015-01-30

Contrary to the Navy’s argument, it is clear that district courts have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to hear a non-custodial plaintiff’s collateral attack on a court martial when she alleges that the court martial had no jurisdiction or there was some other equally fundamental defect in the proceedings.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction to hear noncustodial collateral attacks on court-martial convictions.

Tinsley v. United States · filed 2025-04-22

The court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider his challenges. ... It also has held that 28 USC § 1331 provides federal courts with subject matter jurisdiction to hear such actions.

Section 1331 permits a district court to hear a constitutional collateral challenge to a court-martial conviction brought by a person who is not in custody.

Green v. Skulute · filed 1993-12-07

Denying plaintiff access to this Court for collateral review of the constitutionality of her underlying court-martial, access to which she clearly would be entitled if custody were at issue, would be unjustifiably unfair. Accordingly, the Court finds that as a general proposition, it properly may exercise jurisdiction over the collateral attack of plaintiff’s court-martial conviction.

Section 1331 requires a federal issue in the plaintiff’s complaint; a defendant’s federal claims cannot supply federal-question jurisdiction.

Diggs · filed 2026-01-23

No such federal question arises here. This is a foreclosure action arising under Illinois law. Great Rivers has asserted no federal claims against Diggs. And to the extent Diggs seeks to advance federal claims against Great Rivers, they do not enter the jurisdictional calculus.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges violations of federal laws that provide private causes of action, even if it does not cite the specific provisions creating those actions.

Siri v. White · filed 2020-01-21

Federal-question jurisdiction extends to cases that arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... While the complaint does not cite to those specific statutory provisions, it alleges violations of the two relevant federal laws. Under the circumstances, that is sufficient to invoke the corresponding federal causes of action.

Section 1331 requires a federal right to be an essential element of a claim for federal-question jurisdiction; a claim merely cognizable under federal law is insufficient.

Gonzalez v. Whelan Security Co. · filed 2006-04-18

Whether Plaintiffs wage claim is “cognizable” under the FLSA is not the appropriate inquiry. Rather, Defendants must demonstrate that a federal right is an essential element of Plaintiffs wage claim.

A dispute over title to a patent or patent application, associated injunctions and title documents, or royalties collected by an asserted owner does not present a federal question under § 1331.

Photometric Products Corp. v. Radtke · filed 1954-11-29

The fact that the title to a patent or patent application is involved in an action in the federal courts does not present a federal question for adjudication and does not confer jurisdiction on the Court under T. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... An action by an alleged owner of a patent to recover royalties collected by one claiming title to the patent does not present a federal question.

Section 1331 does not reach a private debt claim merely because federal law may defeat a defense; the plaintiff's own claim must arise from a federal right.

Kuerschner & Rauchwarenfabrik, A.G. v. Swiss Bank Corp. · filed 1954-12-21

It is clear that this third amended complaint does not plead a cause of action based on a federal right, but merely claims for debt or money had and received. ... The allegation that the defense may be nullified by provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act does not give plaintiff a claim arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, of which the District Court has jurisdiction, diversity being absent.

A state-law claim does not arise under § 1331 merely because federal law may defeat it; a federal right must be an essential element of the claim and appear from the complaint without a defense or removal petition.

Simpson v. South Western Railroad · filed 1955-01-11

To bring a case within the statute, a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause of action. ... A genuine and present controversy, not merely a possible or conjectural one, must exist with reference thereto ... and the controversy must be disclosed upon the face of the complaint, unassisted by the answer or by the petition for removal. ... In the light of these authorities and the numerous cases cited therein, it is the opinion of this Court that were it not for the provisions of Title 28, Section 1336 and Section 2321 et sequentia and Title 49 U.S.C.A. § 17(9), the petition would not state a cause of action which arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

A claim for restoration to union membership does not arise under § 1331 when no federal law requires the union to admit or restore the claimant or creates a federal right to membership.

Brock v. BROTHERHOOD OF SLEEPING CAR PORTERS, ETC. · filed 1955-03-31

There is nothing in the Railway Labor Act, and plaintiff has cited no other Federal law, which requires a union, designated as an exclusive bargaining agent for a class or craft of employees of a carrier, to accept into membership, or to restore to membership, any person; and the Act does not create a right in any person to join, or reacquire membership in, such a union. ... Hence plaintiff’s claim in this respect does not arise under a Federal law or Constitutional provision, and does not meet the jurisdictional requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Constitutional or federal issues appearing only in objections or defenses do not create § 1331 jurisdiction because the federal claim or right must appear from the complaint.

Collins v. Public Service Commission of Missouri · filed 1955-04-09

Passing my doubts as to whether this proceeding constitutes “a civil action”, it is quite clear that — though the objections and defenses of petitioners may raise questions involving the Constitution or laws of the United States — this proceeding is not one “arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States”, and is not “founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States”, as any such claim of right must appear from the complaint.

A union's state-law duty to represent its voluntary members fairly does not create § 1331 jurisdiction when the dispute concerns breach of a private bargaining agreement and requires no construction of federal law.

Syres v. Oil Workers International Union, Local No. 23 · filed 1955-06-21

This duty, however, being one imposed by the law of the state in which the Union operates, cannot be made the basis for invoking federal jurisdiction under Section 1331, even though it might well form the basis for action in the state courts. ... The present case does not require construction of a federal statute, but involves simply an issue of whether the defendants have violated a private contract voluntarily made between the two groups of employees.

A complaint alleging on its face that a city engaged in arbitrary and discriminatory state action violating the Fourteenth Amendment presents a federal controversy sufficient for § 1331 jurisdiction.

Howard Johnson of Kingsport, Inc. v. City of Kingsport · filed 1961-01-26

We must conclude in the light of these decisions that Paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint has alleged arbitrary and discriminatory action on the part of the City of Kingsport and that the complaint does on its face allege violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The motion to dismiss is denied.

A case arises under federal law for § 1331 when the complaint shows that correct decision depends on construing a federal statute or that competing constructions would defeat or sustain a party’s claimed rights.

Suburban Trust Company v. National Bank of Westfield · filed 1962-12-10

Whether jurisdiction exists must be determined from the allegations of the complaint. A case is considered to arise under the laws of the United States if its correct decision depends upon the construction of a Federal statute, or when rights claimed by one party may be defeated by one construction and sustained by the opposite construction.

A complaint alleging on its face a violation of the federal securities laws is sufficient to sustain Section 1331 jurisdiction.

Lupardo v. I.N.M. Industries Corp. · filed 1965-01-08

The complaint, on its face, alleges a violation of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This is sufficient to sustain jurisdiction as alleged under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction when the complaint presents a question arising under the U.S. Constitution.

Sherwood v. Bradford · filed 1965-10-05

In an examination of the Complaint it appears that jurisdiction of the action is properly founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in that the question arises under the Constitution of the United States.

A complaint that cites nonexistent subsections of Section 1331 and alleges only private fraud presents no federal question and cannot establish federal jurisdiction.

Boles v. Cox · filed 1966-02-24

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331, subsections 32 and 16 do not appear to exist. … The complaint and amended complaint seem to allege only a fraud perpetrated by the various defendants upon this plaintiff and not a deprivation of rights under color of any State law. There is no diversity of citizenship and no Federal question. This Court has no jurisdiction.

Section 1331 jurisdiction requires the complaint to allege that the controversy arises under federal law; an asserted inability to obtain relief in state court is insufficient.

Roberson v. Harris · filed 1968-04-23

The complaint utterly fails to allege a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. It in no way intimates that the matter in controversy arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States. The alleged futility of a proceeding by plaintiff in the courts of Arkansas is a wholly insufficient basis upon which to predicate federal jurisdiction.

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

Ehrlich v. Wanda L. Van Epps, Etc. · filed 1970-06-22

The complaint also claims federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A careful examination of the complaint fails to reveal any basis for such a claim.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to allege a right grounded in federal law; federal involvement with property does not by itself turn a state-law marital-property dispute into a federal question.

Conroy v. Conroy · filed 1973-12-07

The complaint does not contain sufficient allegations of a federal right to the partition of this property. It is well settled that merely because there is some federal involvement — because the land is trust property — does not create a federal question.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction when a claim stands or falls on construing an order issued under federal law and more than the historical jurisdictional minimum is in controversy.

French v. Associated Hospital Service · filed 1973-12-18

Defendants conceded at oral argument that, inasmuch as the construction of an Order issued pursuant to federal statute is involved here — plaintiff’s claim stands or falls depending upon the Court’s construction of the Order — and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $10,000, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331.

A federal question first raised in a removal petition does not establish original jurisdiction under Section 1331(a).

State Tax Commission v. Union Carbide Corporation · filed 1974-12-13(a)

The allegations of original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 13.31(a) and § 1343(3) are without merit. The federal question of the unconstitutionality of the Multistate Tax Compact is raised for the first time in the removal petition.

Federal-question jurisdiction for removal must appear on the face of the state-court complaint and cannot be supplied by an answer or removal petition.

La Chemise Lacoste v. Alligator Co. · filed 1974-12-26

In an unwavering series of cases from 1894 to 1974 the Supreme Court has emphasized that federal question jurisdiction must appear on the face of the complaint. ... “[T]he controversy must be disclosed upon the face of the complaint, unaided by the answer or by the petition for removal,” Gully v. First National Bank, supra, 299 U.S. at 113, 57 S.Ct. at 98.

Under Section 1331(a), a plaintiff's claim does not arise under federal law when the federal issue appears only as an anticipated defense, and the Declaratory Judgment Act does not alter that rule.

Potomac Passengers Association v. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, a Corporation · filed 1975-09-25(a)

The question is much the same under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), ... except that under the latter the action may arise under the Constitution or any law or treaty of the United States so long as the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000. It follows that case law on the question whether an action “arises under” for purposes of section 1331(a) is highly important to consideration of the same question under section 1337. ... It has long been settled that an action does not “arise under” federal law if the federal question enters only by way of a defense to a state claim, and this even though the plaintiff tries to anticipate the defense in his complaint. ... the passage of the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act ... did not change the rule that an anticipated federal defense cannot be used by a plaintiff to gain access to the federal courts.

A state-law traffic-collision action does not arise under federal law within former § 1331(a) and therefore cannot be removed on that basis.

White v. Hughes · filed 1975-11-24(a)

This is clearly not an action which ... “arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S. C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over an intratribal election dispute based only on tribal law when no federal law or treaty is directly material to the controversy.

Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Ed Driving Hawk · filed 1976-01-23

Both sections, however, require that the matter in controversy arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... The complaint alleges that this and other Tribal laws have been violated by the defendants; no federal law or treaty provision is alleged as directly material to the controversy. ... Accordingly, the complaint cannot be said to assert a federal question cognizable under either § 1331 or § 1362.

A complaint was inadequate to establish Section 1331 jurisdiction when it did not plead federal jurisdiction according to the nature of the case or mention Section 1331.

Rotolo v. The Borough of Charleroi (Two Cases) · filed 1976-03-22

Although federal jurisdiction may nonetheless exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1971), ... Roto-lo’s complaint is inadequate to establish jurisdiction under section 1331. Federal jurisdiction must be pleaded according to the nature of the case, and Rotolo made no mention of section 1331 in his complaint.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction when the complaint suggests no federal question.

Searight v. State of NJ · filed 1976-05-06

Searight is a citizen of New Jersey, suing his own State; thus there is no diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and no suggestion of a federal question appears under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A Fourteenth Amendment claim properly invokes Section 1331, but jurisdiction fails when the plaintiff neither alleges that jurisdictional basis nor satisfies the former amount-in-controversy requirement.

Ball v. Brown · filed 1977-01-20

Regarding plaintiff’s fourteenth amendment claims, although 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) vests the Court with jurisdiction to redress the deprivation of civil rights under color of state law, fourteenth amendment claims are properly brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Plaintiff has neither alleged jurisdiction upon this basis, nor satisfied the jurisdictional amount required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A claim does not arise under a federal statute for Section 1331 purposes when the statutory material is merely tangential rather than an element of the cause of action.

Ciccone v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor · filed 1977-07-13

Presumably, some of those materials deal with this Act, but the particular content of the materials is at best only tangential to the claim and certainly not an element of plaintiff’s cause of action. It is a clearly insufficient basis on which to hold that this action “arises under” that Act within the meaning above enunciated; accordingly, I will not so hold. Additionally, since the standard for determining whether an action arises under an Act of Congress for the purposes of general federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1337, ... to the extent that plaintiff’s claim is premised on § 1331 and rooted in the Labor-Management Relations Act, subject matter jurisdiction is likewise lacking.

Section 1331’s removal of the amount requirement for suits against federal defendants does not eliminate the plaintiff’s obligation to plead a federal constitutional or statutory ground for jurisdiction.

United States v. Bush · filed 1977-10-11

The statutory language quoted, ... from 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not negate Petitioner’s obligation to comply with F.R.Civ.P. 8(a) which requires that a “pleading . . . shall contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends . .” The petition does not contain any allegations or assertion that even remotely suggests an infringement of a constitutional or other federally created right.

A private contract dispute does not arise under federal law for Section 1331 merely because contract performance depends collaterally on federal agency action or terminology; the federal right must derive from federal law.

Mendenhall Enterprises, Inc. v. Currier · filed 1977-11-14

In contrast, the contract in question here was not executed pursuant to any Act of Congress. The Interstate Commerce Commission was involved only insofar as it had the authority to approve or deny the contemplated sale. Nor was this a contract entered into to satisfy any statutory obligation. ... This suit involves the interpretation of a private contract governed by California law. ... Consequently, we hold that the district court had no jurisdiction to accept removal of the suit from state court.

A private contract dispute does not arise under federal law for Section 1331 merely because performance depends collaterally on federal agency action or terminology.

Mendenhall Enterprises, Inc. v. Currier · filed 1977-12-16

In contrast, the contract in question here was not executed pursuant to any Act of Congress. The Interstate Commerce Commission was involved only insofar as it had the authority to approve or deny the contemplated sale. Nor was this a contract entered into to satisfy any statutory obligation. ... This suit involves the interpretation of a private contract governed by California law. ... Consequently, we hold that the district court had no jurisdiction to accept removal of the suit from state court.

Section 1331 arising-under jurisdiction requires a federal right to be an essential element of the plaintiff's case; title derived from the United States generally does not itself create a federal question.

Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation v. Wippert · filed 1977-12-19

There is no federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1966) because the case does not “[arise] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” It' has been uniformly held that a case arises under the laws of the United States only if a right created by federal law is an essential element of plaintiff’s case. ... As a general rule, actions involving title to property do not. present federal questions simply because one of the parties derived title from the United States.

A complaint asserting a right derived from a federally required UMTA labor-protection agreement arises under federal law for Section 1331(a), and omission of a specific amount allegation is not fatal when the requisite value can be inferred.

Local Division 519, Amalgamated Transit Union v. LaCrosse Municipal Transit Utility · filed 1978-03-08(a)

I conclude that Local 519’s complaint, fairly construed, contains the assertion of a right which creates a matter in controversy arising under the laws of the United States, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). ... Although the requirement of the jurisdictional amount is important, a court may exercise jurisdiction in the absence of a specific averment, if the requisite dollar amount can be inferred from the complaint. ... Therefore, I find that the amount in controversy requirement of § 1331(a) is satisfied.

Section 1331(a) supplies federal-question removal jurisdiction over a complaint alleging an implied federal statutory cause of action and federal constitutional violations.

Phillips v. Kapp · filed 1980-03-06(a)

The complaint alleges an implied cause of action for defamation under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and the Administrative Procedure Act, and violations of the first and fifth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Thus, this court has federal question jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 does not independently support jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no claim arising under federal law, leaving the plaintiff to establish ancillary or pendent jurisdiction.

Ausland v. United States · filed 1980-04-16

No claims arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, other than the above mentioned tort claim, are alleged in plaintiffs’ original complaint or either of their amended complaints. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiffs must, therefore, depend on a theory of either ancillary or pendent jurisdiction insofar as they claim some type of federal question jurisdiction, since federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and cannot exercise any jurisdiction not granted by the United States Constitution and the Congress.

Section 1331 supplies subject-matter jurisdiction when the pleadings allege a controversy arising under the Constitution or federal laws.

Bell v. City of Philadelphia · filed 1981-03-24

Here, plaintiff bases jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, asserting deprivation of various civil rights in violation of the Constitution and in violation of two federal statutes. Accordingly, this court has subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a substantial claim founded directly on federal law and disclosed on the complaint’s face.

DeMarsh v. Payzant · filed 1981-08-12

The proper test under § 1331 for finding original federal jurisdiction is that there be a “substantial claim founded directly upon federal law.” ... The federal questions must be disclosed upon the face of the complaint, unaided by the answer.

For both original and removal jurisdiction under Section 1331, the federal question must appear on the complaint’s face without aid from the answer or removal petition.

Diaz v. Swiss Chalet · filed 1981-10-06(a)

Accordingly, for both removal and original jurisdiction, the federal question must appear on the face of the complaint unaided by the answer and the petition for removal.

Section 1331 jurisdiction may rest on federal law necessarily brought into play by the complaint even if the pleading does not cite that law expressly, including federal reserved water rights.

In Re Gen. Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water · filed 1982-01-19

The fact a complaint may not explicitly state that there is a federal question present does not defeat federal jurisdiction, however. A court may “take judicial notice of any federal laws necessarily brought into play by the allegations of the complaint; and it is immaterial that specific reference to such laws may be omitted in the pleading.” ... under both 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345, a federal court does have jurisdiction “over controversies involving federal rights to the use of water.”

Section 1331 permits removal when the complaint's right to relief necessarily and substantially depends on construing or applying federal law, even if federal law supplies no remedy, but a federal issue raised only by the defendant does not suffice.

County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co. · filed 1982-10-27

In a case such as this where the right to removal depends on “arising under” jurisdiction, the important issue is whether a federal question appears on the face of the complaint or is impliedly the goal of the complaint. ... A defendant’s assertion of an issue of federal law in the pleadings or in the petition for removal does not create a federal question. ... The availability of a federal remedy is unnecessary to create “arising under” jurisdiction as long as plaintiff’s right to relief depends upon the construction or application of federal law. ... Here the complaint is not predicated solely upon state common law but the relief depends upon violation of the Act and its regulations. Since the construction of a federal law is pivotal to plaintiff’s claims, this case meets the many tests for “arising under” jurisdiction and, consequently, the ... motion to remand must be and hereby is DENIED.

Section 1331 jurisdiction does not depend on expressly citing federal law, but the complaint must facially present a pivotal federal question arising from a right or immunity created by federal law.

Langella v. Weisz · filed 1984-04-13

Lack of specific reference to federal law in the complaint is not determinative of the existence of a federal question. ... Nevertheless, it must be plain from the face of the complaint that a federal question is a pivotal and determinative issue. The plaintiffs’ claim must arise from a right or immunity created by the federal Constitution or laws.

A complaint facially alleging that enforcement of a state judgment violates federal constitutional, civil-rights, and securities law states federal claims within Section 1331(a) jurisdiction.

Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil Co. · filed 1986-01-10(a)

As such, this complaint has plainly stated federal claims over which this court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331(a) and 1343(a)(3).

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when the success or failure of the claims depends on interpreting federal law.

Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians v. United States · filed 1986-04-02

The court finds that the statutes conferring federal jurisdiction in this area are 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1361 and 1362. Since the success or failure of plaintiffs’ claims depends on an interpretation of federal law, namely 25 U.S.C. § 476 and its accompanying regulations, federal question jurisdiction under section 1331 exists.

Section 1331 supports removal when the face of a state-court complaint pleads a federal constitutional claim, even if that claim is later dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Burke Ex Rel. Peschel v. Austin Independent School District · filed 1987-03-18

The petition clearly invokes, however, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and argues that Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages against Defendants under the Fourteenth Amendment. ... Moreover, the clear law of the federal courts allows for the removal of an action presenting a federal question, followed by the subsequent dismissal of that action for failure to state a claim. This is because jurisdiction is determined from the face of the Plaintiffs pleadings, and the issue of whether a complaint states a claim goes to the merits of the case, and not to the jurisdiction of the court.

Section 1331 jurisdiction exists when federal questions appear on the face of the well-pleaded complaint.

Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Smith · filed 1987-04-30

Jurisdiction under § 1331 requires that the federal questions appear on the face of the well-pleaded complaint. ... The railroads’ complaints fulfill this requirement.

Section 1331 supplies original jurisdiction, and therefore removal jurisdiction, when a mandamus-styled state complaint substantively alleges a Section 1983 due-process claim and seeks damages.

Harris v. Birmingham Board Of Education · filed 1987-06-01

In reality, Harris alleged a 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action based on the Board's alleged deprivation of his procedural due process rights in the termination proceeding. Title 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441(a) authorizes removal of any case over which the district court has original jurisdiction. ... The district court had original jurisdiction of this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331 and 1343. The case was therefore properly removed.

Section 1331 supports removal when a state-tax action against an Indian tribe necessarily presents the federal jurisdictional question of tribal sovereign immunity, even though the complaint is framed under state law.

State of Oklahoma Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Jan Graham and Chickasaw Nation, by and Through Overton James, Gove · filed 1987-06-26

This recognition underscores the implicit federal question lodged in the State’s complaint and focuses our inquiry. ... At this juncture, however, we find that removal was proper because of the constitutional grant of federal jurisdiction over Indian affairs. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not support removal when the well-pleaded state complaint does not rely on federal treaties or another substantial federal question, even if federal Indian law may arise during the litigation.

New York ex rel. Abrams v. Anderson · filed 1987-10-07

Applying this standard, I note immediately that defendants’ first two grounds for removal under section 1331 must fail. ... Therefore, for all the reasons cited above, this action is remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Niagara County.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over state foreclosure and fraudulent-conveyance claims merely because the complaint invokes the Fifth Amendment or cites federal Farm Credit statutes and regulations collaterally.

Franklin v. Federal Land Bank of St. Louis · filed 1989-03-07

The civil action here, originally filed in Saline County Circuit Court, essentially concerns state law. As discussed above, merely intoning a Fifth Amendment deprivation is insufficient, standing alone, to confer federal-question jurisdiction. As also discussed above, the petition’s references to federal statutes and regulations are insufficient, standing alone, to confer federal-question jurisdiction. The references to federal statutes and regulations are collateral to the claims and, standing alone, will not support a federal cause of action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting only state employment-contract, state civil-rights, and common-law tort claims.

Ball v. Martin Marietta Magnesia Specialties, Inc. · filed 1990-03-06

Plaintiffs’ claims clearly do not “arise under” federal law.

A Rule 22 interpleader action has Section 1331 jurisdiction only if a claimant could have brought a coercive federal action; competing ERISA beneficiaries satisfy that requirement because ERISA gives them a federal benefits remedy.

Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada v. Thomas · filed 1990-03-09

In an action brought pursuant to the interpleader rule, either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction must be established. Federal question jurisdiction exists only if such jurisdiction would have existed in a coercive action by the defendant. ... 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The availability of a remedy to the adverse claimants under ERISA gives this Court jurisdiction to decide an action brought pursuant to the interpleader rule.

A nonfrivolous complaint pleading patent ownership, infringement, and Patent Act remedies arises under federal patent law, and accompanying non-patent relief does not defeat Section 1331 jurisdiction.

Kunkel v. Topmaster International, Inc. · filed 1990-06-25

The federal district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over actions “arising under” the patent laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a) & (b) (1988). ... That is all Kunkel needed to do to invoke federal jurisdiction. ... That the amended complaint also seeks non-patent relief does not divest the district court of the jurisdiction it would otherwise have.

A state complaint's mere references to federal regulations do not create Section 1331 jurisdiction, but separately pleaded claims that depend on federal statutes, regulations, or contracts do.

Com. of Mass. v. v. & M MANAGEMENT, INC. · filed 1990-12-06

This Court will not construe the Commonwealth’s reference to federal regulations in Count I as creating “substantial questions of federal law” sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court. ... The five counts of the Commonwealth’s Complaint, which raise purely federal claims, provide a sufficient basis for removal in this case.

Section 1331 removal jurisdiction requires a federal issue on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint, and a plaintiff may avoid federal jurisdiction by relying exclusively on state law.

Hood v. Gary Foster and City of Carlinville · filed 1991-03-27

Under federal question jurisdiction, the case must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. The federal issue must appear on the face of the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint. ... Because the plaintiff is the master of his complaint, "he or she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law." ... Nowhere on the face of his complaint does Mr. Hood make reference to the United States Constitution or to any federal laws. ... Therefore, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his complaint.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction exists only when the plaintiff’s complaint necessarily calls for interpreting federal law.

Miloslavsky v. Audio Engineering Society · filed 1991-08-26

“Federal question jurisdiction may be properly invoked only if the plaintiff’s complaint necessarily draws into question the interpretation of federal law.” ... Therefore, there is no federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint, and a claim pleaded only under state law supplies no independent federal-question jurisdiction over that defendant.

Sarmiento v. Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners · filed 1991-08-28

We first evaluate Sarmiento's pleadings to determine whether they allege a federal claim against Seidensticker, noting that if a federal question exists, it must appear in the complaint. ... Sarmiento's complaint alleges as to Seidensticker only a state law claim and provides no colorable basis for the assertion of federal question jurisdiction over Seidensticker.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint alleges a federal right, including a constitutional deprivation under color of state law even if it does not name § 1983.

Balas v. Leishman-Donaldson · filed 1992-09-09

The general federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, provides: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." A cause of action satisfies the "arising under" requirement of the statute only when plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint raises an issue of federal law. ... We find that plaintiff's complaint, as set out in this opinion, contains allegations sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction upon the district court. At the time the removal petition was filed, the complaint, on its face, alleged within each state law tort count a claim that Balas' rights as guaranteed by the federal constitution had been violated by defendants while acting under color of authority vested in them by state law. Although the complaint does not specifically reference 42 U.S.C. § 1983, we can discern no other purpose for inclusion of this language than to present a cause of action based upon that statute.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal question on the face of the complaint that is essential to the cause of action; parallel state constitutional grounds can make federal claims nonessential.

Belair v. Lombardi · filed 1993-08-03

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “the District Court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, the laws, or treaties of the United States.” Thus, the federal court will have jurisdiction if the suit involves a federal question. ... The federal law must be an essential element of the plaintiffs cause of action, the federal question must be disclosed on the face of the complaint, and the federal question may not be inferred from a defense asserted or one expected to be made. ... In the present case, Plaintiff has alleged the same violations of procedural and substantive due process rights under both the United States and Florida Constitutions, and thus has a choice of relying on state law for the relief which he seeks. Therefore, the federal claims are not an essential element of Plaintiffs cause of action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state tort claims merely because federal statutes support a negligence theory; federal law must create the claim or be essential to relief.

Nelson v. United Artist Theater Circuit, Inc. · filed 1993-11-02

Federal law does not create Plaintiffs cause of action nor is Plaintiffs right to relief dependent on resolution of either federal statute. Because Bed-way has failed to satisfy the “essential” element requirement for removal, we hold that removal to this Court from state court was improper.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a removed state-law claim merely because federal law supplies a defense; the federal claim must appear on the complaint unless an artful-pleading exception applies.

Greenfield v. National Westminster Bank USA · filed 1994-03-21

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the district courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... The Court agrees that the face of the complaint does not disclose a federal question. ... The Court finds that, while federal law provides a defense to plaintiffs action, the federal forfeiture laws do not completely preclude state courts from adjudicating claims arising under state uniform commercial law. Accordingly, removal is not permitted under the first category of the artful pleading exception.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint expressly asserts a federal cause of action, even if the allegations are vague.

Scott v. Greiner · filed 1994-07-15

When a plaintiff specifically and intentionally raises a federal question on the face of the complaint, the action is removable regardless of the vagueness of the allegations.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when no federal question appears on the face of the complaint.

Foliety v. Cervantes · filed 1994-07-28

After reviewing the above allegation and other equally unclear allegations in the remainder of the complaint, the court finds it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action based on either federal question jurisdiction (i.e. 28 U.S.C. § 1331) or diversity jurisdiction (i.e. 28 U.S.C. § 1332). ... There are no allegations establishing that a federal question appears “on the face of the complaint.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state foreclosure action whose complaint presents no federal question merely because the defendant seeks indemnification through a related Bivens claim.

Hammond v. Kunard · filed 1994-12-22

This conclusory statement alone does not provide the Court with subject-matter jurisdiction over the state foreclosure action merely because our original jurisdiction over the Bivens action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a well-pleaded complaint; a debt collection dispute supplies no jurisdiction when the complaint states no viable federal claim.

Maydak v. Bonded Credit Co. · filed 1995-05-11

Other than the FCA, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., appears to be the only conceivable law under which plaintiff's cause of action may have arisen for purposes of conferring federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The "well-pleaded complaint" rule teaches that the federal question upon which subject matter jurisdiction is based must be "presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” ... Plaintiff's amended complaint on its face, however, did not specifically invoke the FDCPA. Additionally, the court does not construe the amended complaint as stating an arguably plausible claim under the FDCPA.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction to require exhaustion of tribal remedies when the complaint alleges an ERISA claim, without first deciding whether the alleged ERISA plans are valid.

Prescott v. Little Six, Inc. · filed 1995-08-31

Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges the LSI plans are governed by ERISA and that Defendants violated various ERISA provisions. As such, the Plaintiffs have alleged a federal claim for relief over which the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. See Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2429, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987) (holding that federal jurisdiction exists when a federal question is presented on the face of the complaint). The Court accordingly has jurisdiction to dismiss this action pending exhaustion of tribal court remedies.

Section 1331 supports jurisdiction over a petition to vacate an arbitration award only when the petition itself discloses a federal question; federal claims in the underlying arbitration do not suffice.

Jo Minor v. Prudential Securities, Inc. And Patrice MacKie · filed 1996-09-04

We simply hold that a district court has subject matter jurisdiction over a petition to vacate an arbitration award pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 10 only where diversity of citizenship exists or the motion discloses a federal question on its face.

Section 1331 requires a basis for federal question jurisdiction to appear on the face of the complaint; a wrongful death complaint identifying no constitutional provision or federal law does not suffice.

Gause v. Baptist Memorial Hospital · filed 2001-02-05

The complaint was captioned “WRONGFUL DEATH,” and did not cite any constitutional provision or federal law. Because there was no basis for jurisdiction apparent on the face of the complaint, dismissal was proper.

Section 1331 requires a federal issue on the face of a well-pleaded complaint; claims sounding in state tort and contract law do not qualify.

Rollin v. Kimberly Clark Tissue Co. · filed 2001-12-13

The Court cannot discern any claim within the four corners of Kimberly Clark’s Third-Party Complaint that presents a federal question. Shorn of the improper reference to the Jones Act, the claims for indemnity and contribution sound in Alabama tort and contract law.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a removed state-law complaint that presents no federal question on its face and is not completely preempted by federal law.

State Farm Indemnity v. Fornaro · filed 2002-08-26

Judge Hedges then determined that there was neither a federal question presented on the face of the Complaint, nor was there Congressional preemption based on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of any claim raised in the Complaint. ... The Court adopts Judge Hedges’s findings that this Court does not have diversity jurisdiction, federal question jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction over these consolidated matters, and accordingly accepts Judge Hedges’s recommendation that Civil Action No. 02-2019 be remanded to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, and Civil Action No. 02-2020 be remanded to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Morris County.

Section 1331 reaches a complaint that asserts a federal cause of action on its face, despite vague allegations.

Graham v. West Virginia Division of Highways · filed 2003-02-06

Plaintiffs specifically, even if unintentionally, raised a federal question on the face of their complaint, and the action was removable within thirty days of the filing of the complaint regardless of the vagueness of the allegations.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law discovery petition connected to a state-law action merely because a party asserts a connection to a separate bankruptcy case.

In Re Kevin Adell's Petition to Authorize · filed 2003-12-03

There is no hint that this discovery action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. On the contrary, it arises under the laws and court rules of Michigan. Moreover, this action simply concerns discovery matters related to a state civil action in Florida state court, and this underlying Florida action, which only concerns violations of a Florida statute and Florida tort law, is completely devoid of any federal question. The underlying Florida action and this discovery action are genuinely unrelated to the bankruptcy action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that require no federal question for their resolution.

Asociación De Detallistas De Gasolina De Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Shell Chemical Yabucoa Inc. · filed 2005-07-05

This Court is convinced that no federal cause of action is necessary for the resolution of the state claims raised by ADG.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint presents a federal claim on its face.

King v. Knoll · filed 2005-09-17

Because the Complaint presents a federal question on its face, the Court may exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim to affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint for federal-question jurisdiction.

Blalock v. State Farm Insurance · filed 2006-10-05

No indication of any ADA claim “affirmatively appear[ed]” on the face of Blalock’s complaint. ... Thus the district court did not err in dismissing the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a claim; a vague reference to federal laws without an identified cause of action does not suffice.

Lytle v. Potter · filed 2006-10-06

First, no federal question appears on its face. ... Count Six vaguely references "federal environmental laws” but otherwise the precise cause of action remains unspecified.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when a state-court petition alleges a federal statutory violation on its face, even if it also characterizes that violation as a state-law unfair practice.

Missouri Ex Rel. Nixon v. Progressive Business Publications, Inc. · filed 2007-02-26

Given the content of plaintiffs petition, plaintiff has obviously pled a federal question on the face of the petition, and the case was properly removed by defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts that federal statutes and federal case law authorize the requested relief.

Sonoma County Fire Chief v. Dry Creek Rancheria Band · filed 2007-04-05

The district court properly had jurisdiction over this case, as the County’s complaint raised a federal question by arguing that Public Law 280 (18 U.S.C. § 1162; 28 U.S.C. § 1360) and federal case law allowed the County to enforce fire codes on the casino. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint for removal based on federal-question jurisdiction.

Griessel v. Mobley · filed 2008-05-07

Second, as noted earlier, to remove a claim based on federal jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the nature of the federal claim must appear on the face of the complaint. Nothing in the complaint raises an issue of the parental kidnaping statute.

Section 1331 requires a federal question apparent from the face of the complaint; state-law claims about a lease do not invoke federal-question jurisdiction.

City of Newark v. Lawson · filed 2009-09-24

In his initial pleading in the District Court, Lawson raised state law claims concerning the validity of a lease agreement with the City, and he disputed the state court judgments issued in the City’s favor. Even affording his pro se pleading a liberal construction, see Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365, 369 (3d Cir.2003), Lawson did not raise any federal question for purposes of § 1331.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to plead a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or federal law.

Davis v. Ryan Oaks Apartment · filed 2009-12-17

A federal question exists when the plaintiff pleads a “colorable claim ‘arising under’ the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

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

Walters v. Smith · filed 2011-02-03

The Walters and Smith are not diverse, ... and no federal question is presented on the face of the Walters’ complaint. See, e.g., Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (observing that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a federal question to be presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint).

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; allegations of property damage, fraud, theft, overbilling, and fraudulent advertising do not present one.

Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp · filed 2011-04-18

Federal question jurisdiction exists only if a federal question is presented on the face of the complaint. ... None of these allegations presented a federal question pursuant to § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the operative, properly pleaded complaint; a proposed amendment that might add a federal claim does not establish jurisdiction.

LION RAISINS, INC. v. Fanucchi · filed 2011-04-27

Moreover, and more importantly, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “[F]ederal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint,” not based upon what an amended pleading may present in the future.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint states a federal cause of action on its face.

Arce v. Potter · filed 2011-06-22

A complaint, rather, establishes subject matter jurisdiction if it states a federal cause of action on its face.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when a federal question appears on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.

Liebman v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company · filed 2012-02-23

Whether a claim “arises under” federal law is determined by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides for federal-question jurisdiction when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiffs’ properly pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the operative complaint at removal contains no federal claim.

Mostofi v. Capital One, N.A. · filed 2013-02-25

It is evident from the face of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, as explained in Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, that Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint is devoid of any federal claim.

Section 1331 requires a federal question presented on the face of a well-pleaded complaint; generalized references to the Constitution do not establish jurisdiction.

Dos Santos v. Belmere Limited Partn · filed 2013-03-21

Further, the generalized references to the Constitution in Appellants’ complaint do not satisfy their burden of showing that these claims arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction when the complaint sets forth a federal question, regardless of the theory ultimately relied on at trial.

Marrero v. Brin · filed 2013-07-01

Regardless “of what theory was eventually relied upon at trial,” there is federal original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when the complaint sets forth a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a substantial, disputed federal question on the face of the complaint; merely invoking federal statutes or constitutional provisions does not establish jurisdiction.

Johnson v. Loyola University New Orleans · filed 2017-01-20

The relevant inquiry here is whether this case presents a federal question triggering jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which establishes federal jurisdiction over civil actions “‘arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.’” Id. at 278 & n.1 (quoting § 1331). ... Johnson’s remaining arguments before this court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 20 U.S.C. § 1011l, the First Amendment, and the Constitution are insufficient to establish a federal question. Even construing her pro se pleadings liberally, see Yohey, 985 F.2d at 225, Johnson has failed to articulate how her claims create a substantial, disputed federal question under the cited statutory and constitutional provisions.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint does not raise the federal statute asserted as the basis for jurisdiction.

Van Teasley Trust v. Berger · filed 2017-04-04

Although Hart asserts that the underlying civil action “arise[s] under the Fair Debt Collection Practice[s] Act,” Dkt. 1 at 2—i.e., a federal law—the complaint filed against him in the Landlord and Tenant Branch of the Superior Court makes no mention of that statute, see Dkt. 1 at 4–6.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based only on an introductory reference to due process when the complaint asserts no federal constitutional claim.

Smith v. Pickens · filed 2017-09-29

Merely mentioning plaintiff’s belief that defendants violated his due process rights in the preamble of his pleading does not mean that Smith is asserting a federal constitutional claim against them, so as to support the existence of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits original jurisdiction when the face of a complaint alleges a cause of action under federal law.

Smith v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2018-06-12

Consequently, a district court could assert original jurisdiction over the complaint on the basis of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint for federal-question jurisdiction.

Wells Fargo Bank, Na v. Wilson · filed 2019-01-28

Second, to the extent Wilson argues as much, the Court finds that it lacks federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because no federal question is raised on the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; invoking a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Osei v. Standard Chartered Bank · filed 2019-02-25

However, as discussed above, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide a valid basis for federal question jurisdiction. ... Therefore, because Osei has not presented any federal question on the face of his complaint, he has not met the requirements for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction when a federal question appears on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.

Shipkovitz v. Sessions, III · filed 2019-03-07

“The 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 complaint.” ... The Court therefore concludes that the face of the plaintiff’s Complaint presents federal questions and confers original jurisdiction on this Court.

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

Alvey v. Bey · filed 2019-07-22

Because the face of the Unified Government’s complaint does not establish federal question jurisdiction, it appears that this Court lacks jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a removed state-law action based on a defendant’s separate potential federal claim.

U.S. Bank National Association v. Clark · filed 2019-07-25

Regardless, defendant gives no reason or support for alleging anything under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, and such claim importantly is not part of the state court proceeding. The defendant does not raise federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as it relates to this case.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction when a federal question appears on the face of the complaint.

Stevens v. Conn's, Inc. · filed 2019-08-07

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a district court has original jurisdiction when a complaint has a federal question on its face.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction when a federal claim appears on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint.

Robinson v. Pintez · filed 2019-09-10

The Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s recommendation and FINDS that there is federal question jurisdiction based on the face of the Complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that asserts only state-law claims.

Chon v. Kim · filed 2019-10-08

Here, the state-court complaint discloses no federal statutory or constitutional question that would support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question apparent on the face of the complaint, even when a pro se complaint is liberally construed.

Chandler v. Publisher Clearing House · filed 2019-10-15

But even with the benefit of liberal construction, Plaintiff has not alleged a federal question and none is apparent on the face of the Complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal statutory defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC v. Willis · filed 2019-10-18

The fact that a defendant may seek to raise a federal statute as a defense to a plaintiff's cause of action does not mean that the lawsuit raises a federal question, because it is the complaint not any defense that is considered for purposes of determining the presence of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s complaint raises only a state-law claim.

Flagstar Bank F S B v. Cormier · filed 2019-10-21

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is unavailable because Plaintiff, Flagstar Bank FSB (“Flagstar”), does not raise a federal question in its complaint seeking Louisiana state law executory process.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a federal claim appears on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.

Villanueva v. Eaton Corporation · filed 2019-10-23

The existence of federal question jurisdiction is determined from the face of the complaint. ... Here, Plaintiff's complaint clearly alleges a violation of the FMLA, a federal statute.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint raises no federal question.

People of the State of Colorado, The v. Ziankovich · filed 2019-11-04

Specifically, Respondent’s notice of removal relies on federal question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331) but the Court’s review of the complaint upon which removal is based shows no federal question has been raised.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer action when no federal question appears on the face of the complaint.

Cerise Property Holdings, LLC v. Cole · filed 2019-11-19

Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and attached Complaint makes clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the instant matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. First, there is no federal question apparent from the face of the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple unlawful detainer cause of action.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint does not clearly invoke federal law or a constitutional right.

(PS) Howard v. City of Sacramento · filed 2019-12-03

Nor does there appear to be a basis for federal question jurisdiction. ... Plaintiff’s complaint does not clearly invoke any federal law or constitutional right.

Section 1331 gives district courts original federal-question jurisdiction when issues of federal law appear on the face of the complaint.

Steele v. United States of America · filed 2019-12-10

As issues of federal law appear on the face of plaintiff's complaint, this Court has original federal question jurisdiction over this matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Husvar, 430 F.3d at 781.

Section 1331 requires a federal question apparent on the face of the complaint, even when the complaint is liberally construed.

Thomas v. R-Cap Security · filed 2019-12-16

Federal question jurisdiction arises where a “well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” ... But even with the benefit of liberal construction, Thomas has not alleged a federal question and none is apparent on the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s complaint; a defendant cannot create federal-question jurisdiction through a notice of removal or cross complaint.

Simmermon v. Chuck Mai · filed 2019-12-17

However, Defendant cannot confer jurisdiction upon the Court by attempting to attach a federal question to his Notice of Removal or by way of a cross complaint.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when an amended complaint adds a federal claim after improper removal.

BIOCONVERGENCE LLC v. ATTARIWALA · filed 2019-12-18

The Seventh Circuit has held that if a plaintiff amends an improperly-removed complaint to invoke subject matter jurisdiction by adding a federal question, for example, the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over the matter. ... Accordingly, we hold that this Complaint properly invokes our subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to both 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts no claim for relief under federal law or a constitutional right.

GM Reality Inc. v. Washington · filed 2019-12-19

Defendant has not set forth any laws or constitutionally-protected rights that plaintiff is seeking relief under in the complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges only a state-law unlawful detainer claim.

460 South Lake Avenue, Ltd. v. Appleton · filed 2019-12-26

Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and attached Complaint makes clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the instant matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. First, there is no federal question apparent from the face of the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple unlawful detainer cause of action.

Section 1331 requires a federal question apparent from a well-pleaded complaint, either because federal law creates the claim or because relief necessarily depends on a substantial question of federal law.

Thomas v. Taco Bell Corporate Office · filed 2019-12-30

Jurisdiction pursuant to § 1331 requires the presence of a federal question, that is, where a “well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983). ... But even with the benefit of liberal construction, Plaintiff has not alleged a federal question and none is apparent on the face of the Complaint.