28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when no federal question is alleged or apparent on the face of the complaint.

Taylor v. University Hospitals of Cleveland Inc. OH · filed 2019-12-31

Nor has Plaintiff alleged a federal question and none is apparent on the face of the Complaint.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege facts that plausibly state a claim arising under federal law, even when the complaint is liberally construed.

Emerson v. Williams · filed 2020-01-02

Even liberally construing the Complaint, Plaintiff fails to allege facts that, taken as true, plausibly state a claim based upon federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331,2 or upon which relief can be granted.

Section 1331 requires a federal question apparent from the face of the complaint; a simple unlawful detainer claim does not satisfy that requirement.

Crystal Property Management, Inc. v. Blaze Kash · filed 2020-01-31

Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and the 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 confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law unlawful detainer complaint based on a federal issue raised by the defendant.

(UD)(PS)Nayyar v. Stuckey-White · filed 2020-02-03

The face of a properly-pled state law unlawful detainer action does not present a federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer complaint that presents no federal question on its face.

AERC Legendary JV, LLC v. Ha Kim · filed 2020-02-04

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 confer federal-question jurisdiction when no federal question is alleged or apparent on the face of the complaint.

Doyle v. Sarantopoulos · filed 2020-02-10

Nor has Plaintiff alleged a federal question and none is apparent on the face of the Complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question apparent from the face of the complaint; a simple unlawful detainer claim does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Property Management Associates v. Cameron · filed 2020-02-21

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 on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; constitutional objections raised by a defendant do not supply one.

Kermanshahi v. Addineh · filed 2020-02-24

First, there does not appear to be subject matter jurisdiction over the instant matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Respondent’s arguments disregard the long-established well-pleaded complaint rule. The well-pleaded complaint rule “provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” ... The Court’s review of the Petition shows that there is no federal question apparent from the face of the Petition, which appears to be solely a petition for dissolution of marriage.

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

Cahaba Valley Health Services Inc v. Truck Insurance Exchange · filed 2020-02-28

Because a federal question is not asserted on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint, there is not an independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies no federal-question jurisdiction when the face of the complaint raises no question of federal law.

McClean v. Nero · filed 2020-04-30

Third, there is no federal question jurisdiction in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as the face of the complaint includes no questions of federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to be evident from the face of the complaint; a complaint alleging no constitutional or federal statutory violation does not establish that jurisdiction.

Glenn v. Marlen · filed 2020-04-30

Plaintiff alleges no specific violation of the Constitution or federal statute, and no federal question jurisdiction is evident from the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint whose allegations could support either a federal civil rights claim or a state-law claim without identifying a federal basis for relief.

SHEPPARD v. BAYONNE POLICE · filed 2020-05-29

Federal question jurisdiction exists for “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Mr. Sheppard’s complaint does not invoke federal question jurisdiction. It does not identify any federal statute, rule, regulation, or case as the basis for his lawsuit. The notice of removal does not cite anything in the complaint, but states that the facts “can fairly be read” as a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Those allegations, however, are equally compatible with, e.g., a state-law cause of action for assault or one under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the pleadings; a complaint alleging no violation of federal law does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

McKie v. The Estate of Doris Dickinson · filed 2020-05-29

Federal subject matter jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented on the face of the pleadings, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or when all plaintiffs and all defendants have complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; a complaint showing none does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Smallwood v. Wilson · filed 2020-06-17

Smallwood does not allege any amount in controversy, does not address diversity of parties, and no federal question arises from the “face of . . . [his] complaint.”

Section 1331 gives a federal district court original jurisdiction when a complaint incorporates an EEOC charge alleging a violation of Title VII.

Bilbeisi v. Safeway · filed 2020-06-24

Here, a federal question appears on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint: Plaintiff’s EEOC charge, which is referenced in his complaint and attached thereto, says that Plaintiff “believe[s] [he] was being subjected to discrimination due to [his] national origin and religion, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” (Dkt. No. 2-2 at 12.) Consequently, the Court would have had original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s action if he had filed it in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Johnson v. Doe · filed 2020-07-21

There is no federal question apparent from the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction when a federal claim is apparent on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint.

Strowmatt v. Curtis · filed 2020-07-23

The basis for federal-question jurisdiction was apparent on the face of the complaint. Because the complaint asserted a federal claim, removal was proper.

Section 1331 requires a federal question apparent from the face of the complaint.

Swint v. Ohio Bureau of Workmen's Compensation · filed 2020-07-24

Even with the benefit of liberal construction, there is no federal question apparent from the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 permits federal question jurisdiction only when a federal question appears on the face of the complaint.

Stephens v. Sarah · filed 2020-09-15

However, he neither identifies the source of such jurisdiction, nor pleads facts that would allow this Court to construe his claims as arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. Federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to be alleged in the complaint to establish subject matter jurisdiction.

Atkins v. Jpmorgan Chase & Co. · filed 2020-09-18

The district court properly dismissed Atkins’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Atkins failed to allege a federal question or complete diversity of citizenship in her complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question evident on the face of the complaint.

Campbell v. Campbell · filed 2020-09-23

Lawsuits brought in federal court under 28 U.S.C. §1331 must include a federal question evident on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint.

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

Stephens v. Sarah · filed 2020-10-13

As noted in the Court’s September 15, 2020 order, there is no indication that this case arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. Federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when an action arising under federal law appears on the face of a well-pled complaint.

Edgewater Village Condominium Association, Inc. v. Balis · filed 2020-10-19

Likewise, federal jurisdiction exists when an action arising under federal law appears on the face of a well-pled complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim on the face of the complaint or a substantial federal question to support federal-question jurisdiction.

SNF Property, LLC v. Seoane · filed 2020-10-22

Accordingly, given the absence of a federal claim on the face of the complaint, and of a substantial federal question in the state court motion for injunctive relief, the motion to remand is due to be granted.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction when a properly pleaded complaint presents a federal question on its face, including an express federal constitutional claim.

Dunmore School District v. Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association · filed 2020-10-27

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Whether an action “arises under” federal law is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule. ... Here there is no doubt that Plaintiffs Complaint, on its face, presents a federal question. Plaintiff specifically cites the source of the claimed Equal Rights and Due Process protections to be the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a foreclosure action merely because the mortgage is federally insured when the complaint presents no federal question.

Kondaur Capital v. Soler · filed 2020-10-30

The Notice in the instant action states that subject-matter jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 on the basis that Defendant’s mortgage contract is federally insured. ECF No. [1] at 2. Aside from this statement, Defendant points to no federal law to support federal question jurisdiction, and a review of the complaint in the state court case—which was not attached to the Notice—reveals no federal question that would support the existence of this Court’ jurisdiction here. Defendant’s Notice falls short of meeting its burden of establishing original jurisdiction here.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s petition; third-party claims cannot supply arising-under jurisdiction.

Martin v. Hyundai Translead Inc · filed 2020-11-13

Plaintiffs’ Petition on its face does not present any claims giving ... rise to federal question jurisdiction, and Mid-Way’s third-party claims cannot provide “arising under” jurisdiction.

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

Bell Bey v. Rasheed · filed 2020-11-30

Federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.

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

Jasper Crook v. Wyndham Destinations, Inc. · filed 2020-12-10

The district court properly dismissed the Crooks’ action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Crooks failed to allege a federal question or meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that assert no federal claim and do not require resolution of a federal-law question.

Malloff v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-12-11

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law unlawful detainer claim when the complaint presents no substantial federal issue.

Fenton Scrips Landing, LLC v. Thurairajah · filed 2020-12-23

The underlying state action is based upon state law. The only claim Plaintiff asserts is for unlawful detainer. Plaintiff does not state any federal causes of action or prayers for relief. The federal element is not pivotal, substantial, paramount, or direct and essential and is merely incidental, attenuated, or collateral.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim to appear on the face of the complaint; passing references to a federal statute as background for state-law claims do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Rel v. Board of Regents of New Mexico State University · filed 2020-12-30

By mentioning the federal statute only in passing, Plaintiff makes no claim pursuant to the statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for removal of a state unlawful detainer action when no federal question appears on the face of that action.

Fedynich v. Lozano · filed 2021-02-23

Because the face of the Unlawful Detainer Action does not implicate a federal question and the Fedynichs do not otherwise suggest that the Court has diversity jurisdiction, the Court will grant the Motion to Remand or Strike in part, remanding the Unlawful Detainer Action, and deny the Motion to Join.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a claim arising under the Constitution or federal law appears on the face of the complaint.

DENNIS v. DICORCIA · filed 2021-02-25

Second, Plaintiff does not raise any federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal question jurisdiction exists when a claim arising under the United States Constitution or other federal law can be found on the face of the complaint. ... No claim arising under the Constitution or other federal law can be found on the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Therefore, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a plausible federal claim appearing on the face of the complaint to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Alonso v. Mayeaux · filed 2021-03-10

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a plausible federal claim appearing on the face of the complaint.

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

Burd v. Hefflin · filed 2021-03-16

Without any federal questions appearing on the face of Plaintiff’s pleading, Defendant cannot establish that the Court would have had original jurisdiction over this case had it been filed in federal court.

Federal-question jurisdiction requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; a federal claim in a counterclaim cannot establish it.

Zellmer v. Bey · filed 2021-03-22

For the court to have federal question jurisdiction, a federal question must be evidenced on the face of the complaint. City of Beloit v. Local 643 of Am. Fed’n of State, Cty. and Mun. Employees, AFL-CIO, 248 F.3d 650, 652 (7th Cir. 2001). The defendant’s “complaint” consists of the traffic citations, which are not based on a federal statute, federal constitutional provision or federal law. While the counterclaim alleges a due process violation under the United States Constitution, “claims in a counterclaim cannot confer federal jurisdiction over a case.” Salton, Inc. v. Philips Domestic Appliances and Personal Care B.V., 391 F.3d 871, 875 (7th Cir. 2004). The court does not have federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the face of the complaint presents a claim arising under federal law.

Makozy v. Zimmerer · filed 2021-04-06

A claim arises under federal law when the face of the complaint presents a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no federal cause of action and no right to relief dependent on a substantial question of federal law.

Salinas v. LFS Development, LLC · filed 2021-04-23

The FAC does not allege any cause of action involving federal law, or that Plaintiff’s right to relief depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting only state claims when federal law does not create the causes of action.

Silva v. Olsen · filed 2021-05-19

Plaintiff only asserts state claims (See Dkt. #3). She does not allege any federal causes of action (See Dkt. #3). Because Plaintiff only asserts state claims, federal law does not create her causes of action.

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

Asmelashe v. Guess · filed 2021-06-01

The complaint’s recitation of these state law claims does not provide “a federal question . . . on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

BROMLEY v. JERSEY UROLOGY GROUP, P.A. · filed 2021-07-13

In sum, the court finds Plaintiffs’ operative complaint does not raise a federal question, and therefore the Court has no basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not supply original federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint pleads only state-law claims.

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

Viewed objectively, as the Court is required to do, FEDCorp’s complaint only pleads state law claims and Salamone’s Notice of Removal argues this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question). Accordingly, this Court clearly lacks original jurisdiction because none of the claims in the Complaint involve federal question or arise under federal statutes.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when an amended complaint asserts a federal claim, even if the original complaint lacked one.

Legaux v. Mercer Investments, Inc. · filed 2021-08-03

The Court finds that Plaintiff remedied the lack of federal question jurisdiction in the original complaint when she amended her complaint to arise under Title VII.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only unlawful detainer, and a federal-law defense does not supply it.

Jinxing Investments LLC v. Cortez-Silva · filed 2021-09-15

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. ... 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 to appear on the face of the operative pleading for federal-question jurisdiction.

Frenstad v. 1933 Lyndale LLC · filed 2021-09-28

Nor does any other federal statute appear to provide a basis for jurisdiction — for example, no federal question of law is presented on the face of the operative pleading that Frenstad seeks to remove.

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

Adams v. Royal Park Nursing and Rehabilitation · filed 2021-09-29

Thus, because no federal question appears on the face of the Complaint, Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. Drain, 237 F.3d 366, 370 (4th Cir. 2001), even under a liberal construction, this Court grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; a pleading arising entirely from a state probate matter under state law does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Nicklas v. Sylvester · filed 2021-10-05

Plaintiff’s Complaint is neither well-pled nor does it contain any allegations necessary for this Court’s exercise of federal question jurisdiction. To the contrary, Plaintiff’s pleading springs entirely from a probate matter that was resolved by the Washington County Circuit Court in 2016, through application of Arkansas law. A basis for federal jurisdiction is not present on the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law defamation claim that presents no federal question on its face.

Delmonico v. Catholic Health Initiatives of Colorado · filed 2021-10-12

This is a state law claim that, on its face, presents no federal question. Therefore, the action must be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

WRPV XIV Olive LA, LLC v. Yang · filed 2021-10-20

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 section 1331. ... This is because the federal question must arise from the face of the Complaint, rather than from a federal defense or possible counterclaim.

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

Lindblad v. Han Lin Auction Gallery · filed 2021-10-25

Federal question jurisdiction “exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). No federal question appears on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint, which recites state law claims including conversion of real property, conversion of personal property, and fraud.2 Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Arizona, State of v. $8,025.00 in U.S. Currency · filed 2021-11-02

The Court finds the Complaint devoid of any federal causes of action. The Court therefore does not have federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint expressly asserts federal causes of action, even if it also asserts a state-law claim.

Johnson v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC · filed 2021-11-12

Removal is therefore proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (b), with this Court having federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (a).

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a federal counterclaim cannot confer federal-question jurisdiction.

Applewood Log Home Sales, LLC v. Russell · filed 2021-11-12

This would ordinarily end the issue because “[f]ederal question jurisdiction under … § 1331 is proper ‘only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.’” Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp. v. Smith, 507 F.3d 910, 914 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). Russell seeks to overcome this problem by relying on his federal counterclaim, which asserts Applewood failed to pay him minimum wage and overtime in violation of his rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Doc. No. 7 at PageID 208-09. Russell again encounters a jurisdiction problem here because “[i]t is well settled that federal counterclaims and defenses are ‘inadequate to confer federal jurisdiction ….’” Chase Manhattan, 507 F.3d at 914 (citing Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986)).

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; an unclear suggestion of an intellectual-property claim without an identified federal-law basis does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Richmond v. Original Juan and Spicin foods · filed 2021-11-17

Plaintiff may be attempting to allege a federal question under federal law governing intellectual property, but, if so, the claim is far from clear. He does not cite a federal statute or other source of federal jurisdiction.9 The Court therefore cannot find that federal question jurisdiction exists from the face of the Complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the underlying complaint; a federal counterclaim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction for removal.

Thomas v. Diaz · filed 2021-11-24

Thus, Plaintiff’s assertion of a violation of federal law as a counterclaim does not provide a valid basis for removal.

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

Veeva Systems Inc. v. IQVIA Inc. · filed 2021-12-09

“It is not enough that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense”—a federal question must instead appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the well-pleaded complaint; a claim solely for state-law unlawful detainer does not qualify.

Homa Property Investments Corp. v. Quilalang · filed 2021-12-17

Plaintiff’s complaint asserts a single claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law. ... Accordingly, the face of the complaint does not present a federal question justifying removal.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction over a removed state foreclosure action when the state court complaint presents no federal claim.

Chase Home Finance, LLC v. Acocella · filed 2021-12-21

First, there is no basis for “federal question” subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Specifically, the state court complaint contains no claims “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The action includes solely a foreclosure claim under Title 49 of the Connecticut General Statutes (captioned “Mortgages and Liens”).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the face of a properly pleaded complaint presents a claim under federal law, including the FCRA.

Horvath v. JP Morgan Chase & Company · filed 2022-01-07

For purposes of removal, Defendant has established federal question jurisdiction.

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

People of the State of California v. Munson · filed 2022-02-09

However, an actual or anticipated counterclaim is not a proper basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction for removal when the state-court complaint is not shown to present a federal question.

Robinson v. Higgins · filed 2022-02-18

Moreover, the documents Plaintiff has filed provide no basis for concluding that the complaint in the state-court action presents a federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only a private breach of contract with no federal question on its face.

Brown v. Winscott · filed 2022-02-18

For the sake of completeness, however, the Court notes that no federal question appears on the face of plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint is premised on a breach of contract between herself and another individual.

Section 1331 requires a federal question apparent on the face of the complaint; federal statutes raised only in later objections do not establish jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no federal claim.

Cain v. Sanders · filed 2022-02-24

But neither these statutes nor any other appears in the Complaint. Instead, all the factual allegations focus on the validity of the assignment and the Cains’ attempts to contact the Florida Notary Division. See Complaint at 1–4. Even under the “less stringent standards” afforded pro se litigants, this raises no question of federal law.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when a federal-law cause of action appears on the face of the complaint.

Cervini v. Cisneros · filed 2022-03-23

Further, the Court finds that this case unquestionably presents a federal question. This Court has federal- question jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; unclear references to federal law do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Williams v. Aetna Inc. · filed 2022-04-01

As to federal question jurisdiction, although the complaint cites to various federal statutes and constitutional amendments, it is not clear, for the reasons given above, which, if any, of these references are intended to allege a claim against the named Defendants and what the factual bases of those claims may be.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction only when a federal question is apparent on the face of the complaint.

Starr Indemnity & Liability Company v. Premier Craneworks, LLC · filed 2022-04-06

No federal question is apparent on the face of the Complaint [1], and the Complaint [1] lacks the information required to determine if diversity jurisdiction is present.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a landlord-tenant holdover action when no federal question appears on the face of the complaint.

The New Yorker Hotel Management Company, Inc. v. Barreto · filed 2022-04-29

Because this action does not present a federal question on its face and is rather a landlord-tenant dispute which is a matter of state law, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction of this action.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; a complaint alleging no violation of federal law does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Debbs v. AM PM Gas Station · filed 2022-05-03

In this instance, Plaintiff does not allege any violation arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. Thus, as pled, Plaintiff’s complaint does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to be apparent on the face of the complaint.

Allen v. Pickering Inns, Inc. · filed 2022-05-03

No federal question is apparent on the face of the Complaint [1], and the Complaint [1] lacks the information required to determine if diversity jurisdiction is present.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; allegations of property damage by a private corporation, without facts implicating federal rights or a treaty, do not establish jurisdiction.

El v. Marriott International, Inc. · filed 2022-05-11

These facts do not demonstrate the violation of a constitutional right, the violation of a treaty, or show that Marriott is a state actor or acting under color of state law. Therefore, plaintiff has not adequately shown the existence of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer action when the complaint raises no federal statutory or constitutional question.

US Bank Trust, NA v. Celestine · filed 2022-05-16

The Complaint also discloses no federal statutory or constitutional question that would support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges only a state-law false imprisonment claim and presents no federal question.

DAVIS v. KING · filed 2022-05-26

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations of false imprisonment squarely concern a state law cause of action, and that the Complaint fails to present any federal question.

Section 1331 requires the plaintiff’s complaint to disclose a federal statutory or constitutional question.

Caine and Weiner Company, Inc. v. MY Montecito Inc Sh · filed 2022-05-31

The Complaint discloses no federal statutory or constitutional question that would support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a removing defendant who omits the complaint fails to establish that basis for jurisdiction.

(UD)(PS) JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Nelson-Rogers · filed 2022-06-02

However, without the Complaint, the Court cannot determine whether the action arises under federal law. ... By failing to attach the Complaint, Defendant has not met her burden.

Section 1331 requires a claim involving federal law on its face; a perjury allegation under a criminal statute with no private cause of action does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Fletcher v. Eaton · filed 2022-06-06

A federal question is a claim that involves a federal law on its face. ... Here, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction, Fletcher has not provided any facts to support diversity jurisdiction, and Fletcher seeks relief under a criminal statute which does not provide a private cause of action or a basis for civil liability.

Section 1331 requires a question arising under federal law to appear on the face of the complaint.

Jones v. Bank of America · filed 2022-06-30

First, the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that no question arising under federal law appears on the face of the complaint.

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

Hodgins v. Niendorf · filed 2022-07-01

A federal question is one “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Defendant attempts to raise defenses based in federal law; however, the relevant question for the Court at this stage is whether the complaint is eligible for removal. A defendant cannot remove an action to federal court based on a federal question raised in a defense, a counterclaim, or a cross-claim.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; a state-law eviction action does not qualify.

Culver v. Nair · filed 2022-07-06

There is no federal question jurisdiction over the underlying litigation. United States District Courts have original federal question jurisdiction “of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. An action “arises under” federal law only if the federal question appears on the face of the complaint. This action involves an eviction proceeding brought under Washington state law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; a breach of contract claim alone does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

PUE v. NEW JERSEY TRANSIT CORP. · filed 2022-08-01

Second, Plaintiff does not raise a federal question on the face of the Amended Complaint. As noted supra, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint appears to only assert a claim for breach of contract. This basis, alone, subjects Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint to dismissal.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a state-law eviction claim that raises no substantial federal question on the face of the complaint.

Jerlyn Global, LLC v. Lockley · filed 2022-08-17

On the face of the Complaint, however, Plaintiff does not raise a “substantial” federal question, as it simply seeks to evict a tenant from an identified piece of real property in Duval County, Florida.

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

Crawford v. U.S. Department of State · filed 2022-08-19

No Federal question appears on the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; a state-law personal injury claim against private parties does not provide one.

Otis v. Zurich America Insurance Company · filed 2022-08-26

The complaint does not state a federal claim on its face. The plaintiff has alleged that a burrito she purchased from Kwik Trip had ink on it and that when she ate it, she became sick. That is a “tort” claim—a personal injury claim. Tort claims against private persons and entities are governed by state law. The court does not have federal question jurisdiction.

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

Mortiz Associates, LLC v. Higuchi · filed 2022-09-19

The Complaint does not include any claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges fraud and theft without identifying a federal law or substantial federal question.

Reiss v. Reiss · filed 2022-09-23

This broad reference to alleged tortious and criminal conduct, however, is not sufficient to establish the presence of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when an unlawful detainer complaint raises no federal question, even if the defendants assert federal-law defenses.

Candelas v. Saucedo · filed 2022-09-28

The Complaint also discloses no federal statutory or constitutional question that would support federal question jurisdiction. ... To the extent defendants’ defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law, (see Dkt. 1, NOR at ¶¶ 7-10), those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

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

The Marke at South Coast Metro LLC v. Molina · filed 2022-10-12

In this case, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not plead any claims arising under federal law. (See generally Dkt. 1.) Accordingly, the court lacks federal-question jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 requires a federal question apparent on the face of the complaint.

Branch v. Best Reward Federal Credit Union · filed 2022-10-17

The second type of federal jurisdiction relies on the presence of a federal question. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Furthermore, he does not provide a legal cause of action arising under federal law and none is apparent on the face of the Complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; claims alleging only state law negligence and vicarious liability do not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Laufert v. Davis Logistics, LLC · filed 2022-10-24

In this case, no federal question appears on the face of Ms. Laufert’s Second Amended Complaint. Ms. Laufert alleges only state law claims of negligence and vicarious liability.

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

Frysinger v. Mitchell · filed 2022-11-01

The Frysingers’ Amended Complaint raises no federal question. This court therefore lacks federal question jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 does not provide original jurisdiction over a state unlawful detainer claim when no federal question appears on the face of the complaint.

Red Brick Management, LLC v. McKinstry · filed 2022-11-07

This Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and thus, cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction an independent basis for removal over the sole state claim of unlawful detainer.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law only when a federal question appears on the face of the complaint.

Colvin v. Tako, LLC · filed 2022-12-05

There is no federal-question jurisdiction over the underlying litigation. United States District Courts have original federal-question jurisdiction “of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, an action “arises under” federal law only if the federal question appears on the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over a state prosecution merely because the defendant alleges that state officers violated his constitutional rights.

Bey v. Magistrate Court · filed 2023-02-02

Defendant's allegations that officers of the State of New Mexico violated his constitutional rights are not sufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction. ... Defendant has not shown that he can remove his case from Deming Magistrate Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 because his case is not a civil action and Defendant has not shown that the Court has jurisdiction over the action in Deming Magistrate Court.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a well-pled complaint.

Mathews v. Equestrian Estates Homeowners Association · filed 2023-02-14

District courts have federal-question jurisdiction “of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, an action “arises under” federal law only if the federal question appears on the face of a well-pled complaint. ... There is thus no federal question articulated by the facts in the complaint.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a removed case when the complaint at the time of removal pleads a claim arising under federal law.

Moreno v. Senior Health- TNF, LLC · filed 2023-02-24

Here, the case was properly removed because the complaint filed in state court pleaded claims arising under the statutes of the United States—the FMLA.

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

Rios-Rosa v. SECC Financial Office Members · filed 2023-03-07

Liberally construed, plaintiff has raised no federal question on the face of his complaint. Thus, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint and will dismiss it on initial review.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to be apparent on the face of the complaint.

Clinton v. Edward Jones and Co, LP · filed 2023-03-30

No potential federal question is apparent on the face of the complaint, so for the court to hear the case, it must fall under diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a liberally construed complaint alleges a violation of federal law, even if it does not cite the federal statute.

Bright v. Treehouse Group LLC · filed 2023-03-31

Although Plaintiffs failed to cite to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., in their Complaint, construed as true and read liberally, the Complaint alleges that Defendants violated the FDCPA. ... Thus, Defendants cannot succeed on their facial jurisdictional attack.

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

Grimes v. Mossy Nissan Kearny Mesa · filed 2023-04-17

Accordingly, the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction based on a federal question.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the face of the complaint alleges a federal-law violation supported by specific facts.

Cruz v. Maven, LLC · filed 2023-05-02

Rather, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated federal law and further alleges specific facts to support a claim under that law. Thus, from the face of the Complaint, there is federal question jurisdiction, and removal was proper.

Section 1331 requires the federal question to appear on the face of the operative complaint, so jurisdiction is assessed using an amended complaint that supersedes the original.

Owens v. Jameson · filed 2023-05-12

In determining whether an action “arises under” federal law, the Court is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which requires a federal question be presented on the face of the complaint. ... Because the TAC is the controlling pleading, it logically follows that subject-matter jurisdiction must be analyzed under it rather than the nullified original complaint.

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

Prendeville v. Dimon · filed 2023-06-02

As a threshold matter, I find that this case was properly removed from Las Vegas Justice Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as the only claim—arising under 15 U.S.C. § 1692(g)—presents a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the complaint cites federal laws unrelated to those claims.

Yates v. The Money Source, Inc · filed 2023-06-30

Plaintiffs refer to some federal statutes and maritime law cases, but not a single statute or case appears to establish a federal question relevant to the claims presented.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; citing inapplicable federal statutes does not establish jurisdiction.

Wieland v. Dodds · filed 2023-07-07

In sum, because Wieland fails to properly identify any federal statute that could confer federal question jurisdiction over this action, and because such jurisdiction is not apparent from his Complaint, the Court lacks it.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the petition does not allege a federal question.

Landmark v. Rodriquez · filed 2023-07-17

As the State has now withdrawn its opposition to the Motion to Remand, and as the Court’s independent review reflects that the Petition does not allege a federal question, the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 are not met and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a California unlawful detainer claim that presents no federal question on the face of the complaint.

ESA Management, LLC v. Kaler · filed 2023-08-02

Here, Court finds there is no federal question jurisdiction because the Underlying Action invokes an unlawful detainer proceeding pursuant to California law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law unlawful-detainer complaint that raises no substantial federal question on its face.

Tah MS Borrower LLC v. Faranzua · filed 2023-08-16

On the face of the Complaint, however, Plaintiff does not raise a “substantial” federal question, as it simply seeks, based on Florida law, to take possession of certain real property occupied by Defendants.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on federal claims raised as third-party complaints rather than in the original complaint.

Antar v. Lodice · filed 2023-08-22

Moreover, Antar’s state appellate actions, inasmuch as they invoke questions of federal law do so in a manner best construed as third-party complaints against the state court judge, which “cannot serve as the basis for ‘arising under’ jurisdiction.”

Section 1331 requires a federal question apparent from the claims actually pleaded, even when a pro se complaint is construed liberally.

Brown v. Talbot · filed 2023-08-22

Contrary to Defendants’ insistence, there is no facial basis for this Court to hold that it has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Even with a liberal construction of Brown’s complaint, to which it is entitled as a pro se filing, this Court declines to extrapolate beyond the claims Brown actually pleaded.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; allegations of medical malpractice alone do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

LAMBERTY v. COOPER HOSPITAL · filed 2023-08-29

“[f]ederal question jurisdiction exists only if a federal question is presented on the face of the complaint.” Rockefeller, 424 F. App'x at 83. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations of medical malpractice squarely concern a state law cause of action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint raises no substantial federal question.

Independence RV Sales & Services, Inc v. Mejias · filed 2023-08-31

However, Mejias has not identified any “substantial” federal question raised on the face of the Complaint.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when federal claims appear on the face of the complaint.

Jackson, Jr. v. Stephenson · filed 2023-09-07

The Court therefore finds that a federal question is clear on the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and the Complaint was properly removed for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s complaint raises no federal statutory or constitutional question.

Lina Lee v. Antonescu · filed 2023-09-08

The Complaint also discloses no federal statutory or constitutional question that would support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a well-pleaded complaint; listing federal claims without supporting factual allegations does not establish jurisdiction.

Cambrium v. CSL Plasma · filed 2023-09-27

As discussed above, the only well-pleaded claim is for medical malpractice, which is governed by state law — Oregon law in this case. While Plaintiff lists other claims, such as constitutional civil rights claims, which would only apply to state actors, not private individuals or businesses, and certain federal statutes, he has not pled any factual allegations that state a plausible claim for relief as to such claims. ... Therefore, federal question jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts a claim under federal law, including a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

O'Neill v. Adams County Jail · filed 2023-10-05

Further, plaintiff’s complaint raises a federal question by asserting, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,2 that he was subjected to “cruel and unusual punishment.” (Doc. 2, at PageID 19).

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

CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERCIES LLC - DUNS & BRADSTGREET9397952238 v. SMITH · filed 2023-10-18

As explained to Smith in the orders remanding the state court case when she previously attempted to remove it, the mortgage foreclosure complaint filed against her in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas does not set forth any federal basis for a claim that would justify asserting jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear clearly in the complaint; a passing assertion of discrimination is insufficient.

Turner v. Lyons, Doughty, Velduis, P.A./p.C. · filed 2023-10-19

Here, plaintiff’s allegations do not raise any federal question. Although he discusses “discrimination” in passing, “bare assertions” of a “discrimination claim” are “not entitled to be assumed true[,]” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 682 (2009).

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

Bire II LLC v. Horwich · filed 2023-10-25

It does not include any claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331; see Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1748 (2019). Defendant appears to contend that there are constitutional violations at issue, (NOR at 1–2), but her potential defenses or counterclaims against Plaintiffs are not enough to invoke this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Stahmann v. Menzel · filed 2023-11-02

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... Stahmann’s amended complaint must be dismissed because she has not alleged any violations of federal or constitutional law over which the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction.

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

Freiner v. Russell · filed 2023-12-18

Under § 1331, the Court has federal-question jurisdiction to hear cases involving the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ... The well-pleaded-complaint rule provides that jurisdiction exists only when a plaintiff’s properly-pleaded complaint presents a federal question on its face. ... In this case, Freiner’s complaint does not present a federal question on its face.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; using a federal civil-rights complaint form does not establish jurisdiction without allegations supporting a federal claim.

Reid v. Blessing · filed 2024-01-17

In the present case, Plaintiff has not met his 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.” Mich. S. R.R. Co. v. Branch & St. Joseph Cntys., 287 F.3d 568, 573 (6th Cir. 2002). While Plaintiff filed the complaint on a § 1983/Bivens complaint form, he cites no facts to support a claim for the violation of his constitutional rights or any other federal cause of action, and the Court cannot discern any federal claim from his allegations. Therefore, the complaint fails to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state unlawful-detainer complaint that presents no federal question on its face.

Guardia Piazza D'Oro, LLC v. Ellis-Sanders · filed 2024-01-18

Liberally construing the Notice of Removal, Plaintiff’s state court complaint does not present a federal question of law that would provide this Court with jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. First, there is no federal question apparent in the state action complaint appended to the Notice of Removal, which appears to allege only a simple unlawful detainer cause of action under California law.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the complaint presents no federal question.

Ford v. Washam · filed 2024-01-30

Moreover, based on review of Ford’s complaint, the Court agrees federal questions jurisdiction appears to be non-existent here. ... Because neither diversity jurisdiction nor federal questions jurisdiction are present, the Court will grant the motion to remand.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction to remove an action based entirely on state law.

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA v. BRADLEY · filed 2024-02-02

The civil tax action Ms. Bradley seeks to remove is predicated entirely on Pennsylvania law, rather than federal law, so it is not subject to removal to federal court.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the complaint for federal-question jurisdiction.

Kiss v. Kenny · filed 2024-02-07

Plaintiff alleges no federal question in the Amended Complaint. Therefore, the only basis for this Court’s jurisdiction would be diversity of citizenship.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; a request to interpret state law to determine whether a federal claim might exist does not suffice.

Barber v. Mitchell · filed 2024-02-20

Federal question jurisdiction exists over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... But this court cannot interpret Alabama law to help Barber determine whether she has a claim that invokes this court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no federal statute, treaty, or constitutional provision at issue.

Spinks v. Freeman · filed 2024-02-20

In this case, plaintiff has not presented a federal question as he does not point to any specific federal statutes, federal treaties, or constitutional provisions at issue.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; a state-law medical malpractice claim does not supply one.

DANIELS v. CAPITAL HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER · filed 2024-03-04

“lflederal question jurisdiction exists only if a federal question is presented on the face of the complaint.” Rockefeller, 424 F. App’x at 83. The Court finds that Plaintiff's allegations of medical malpractice squarely concern a state law cause of action.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a Section 1981 claim when the federal question appears on the face of the complaint.

Hall-Johnson v. CITIBANK, N.A · filed 2024-03-11

First, because Plaintiff alleges a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, this case presents a federal question on the face of the complaint as required for removal under Section 1441, and the Court has jurisdiction over that claim.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to implicate federal law on its face to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

RITCHWOOD v. ESSEX COUNTY TOWING · filed 2024-04-08

Here, the Complaint fails to establish federal question jurisdiction because it does not implicate federal law.

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

Burton v. Southern Hills Pavilion · filed 2024-04-18

Second, it is unclear whether there is any basis for federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The complaint identifies no federal cause of action or federal question.

Section 1331 requires a discernable federal question in the complaint for federal-question jurisdiction.

George v. Wintroub · filed 2024-04-22

Consequently, there is no discernable "federal question" alleged in the complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s claim; a potential federal defense or counterclaim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Vio Tustin Apartments I, LLC v. Jose · filed 2024-04-24

It does not include any claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331; see Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1748 (2019). Defendant contends that the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 makes the case removeable, (NOR at 2–6), but his potential defenses or counterclaims against Plaintiff are not enough to invoke this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Randleman v. Firelands Habitat for Humanity, Inc. · filed 2024-04-30

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is proper only when a federal question is presented on the face of the state court Plaintiff’s Complaint.

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

HARDAWAY v. PHILADELPHIA POLICE 22ND-23RD · filed 2024-05-01

Federal question jurisdiction must appear on the face of the complaint.13 ... Mr. Hardaway also does not plead a federal question.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a federal question appears on the face of the complaint; allegations that raise no federal question do not establish that jurisdiction.

Bounds v. Johnson · filed 2024-05-02

Federal courts have jurisdiction over complaints raising issues of federal law under 28 U.S.C. §1331 and complaints asserting claims between parties who are citizens of different states which involve an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000 under 28 U.S.C. §1332. “The well-pleaded complaint rule requires that a federal question be ‘apparent on the face’ of the complaint.” Hero v. Lake Cnty. Election Bd., 42 F.4th 768, 775 (7th Cir. 2022) (quoting Ne. Rural Elec. Membership Corp. v. Wabash Valley Power Ass’n, Inc., 707 F.3d 883, 890 (7th Cir. 2013)). The limited facts in the complaint do not raise a federal question or establish diversity jurisdiction.

Federal-question jurisdiction requires a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; allegations of state-law violations alone do not establish it.

Robinson v. BMO Harris Bank NA · filed 2024-05-09

Federal question 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) (citation omitted). ... To start, Plaintiff has not pled a violation of any federal right. Plaintiff only alleges violations of state statutes—namely, A.R.S. §§ 6-181, 6-231—which will not do.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a removed unlawful detainer action when no federal claim is properly pleaded.

Madera v. American Real Estate & Property Management · filed 2024-05-22

Madera’s pleadings are difficult to comprehend, and the Court is unable to ascertain any properly pled federal claims in this action. It appears that Madera seeks relief from a state law unlawful detainer action, which is not an appropriate basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to present a question of federal or constitutional law on its face; an unspecified assertion of violated constitutional rights does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Deskin v. G.P. Boschetti · filed 2024-05-24

Federal question jurisdiction exists if the complaint on its face presents a question of constitutional or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The first amended complaint generally alleges that Taylor’s “constitution[al] rights were violated.” ECF No. 6, at PageID.27. But it does not identify which constitutional rights were allegedly violated. And the factual allegations—which generally appear to be about injuries incurred at an apartment building—do not clearly implicate a constitutional provision or other federal law.

Section 1331 requires the complaint on its face to present a question of constitutional or federal law; a state law invasion-of-privacy claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Taylor v. Higashi · filed 2024-05-28

Taylor also relies on federal question jurisdiction, which exists if the complaint on its face presents a question of constitutional or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... This claim, therefore, does not give rise to a federal question.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to present a federal question for federal-question jurisdiction.

Kim v. Darnell Card · filed 2024-06-03

To the extent Card sought to remove under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, the district court properly remanded because the complaint did not present a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an underlying state nuisance complaint that presents no federal question.

GRIVAS v. CITY OF LANCASTER · filed 2024-06-07

While Irene’s notice of removal appears to invoke diversity and federal question jurisdiction, the underlying state nuisance complaint implicates neither.

Section 1331 requires the plaintiff’s complaint to state a claim arising under federal law.

Moon S. Chang v. SJ Capitol Investment Inc. · filed 2024-08-05

Here, federal question jurisdiction is lacking because the Complaint does not state a claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Complaint [Dkt. No. 1-2, pp. 1–3].

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; a complaint that invokes no federal law and reveals no federal question does not establish jurisdiction.

AZOG, INC. v. GOLDEN INTERGRITY, INC · filed 2024-08-05

Plaintiffs do not invoke any federal law, nor is any federal question apparent from the face of the Amended Complaint.2 The Court therefore finds that there is no basis to find federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.

Rios v. Sound Exchange Inc. · filed 2024-08-16

Here, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint makes no reference to any federal law. ... The Court thus concludes that it lacks either diversity or federal question subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts state-law replevin and breach-of-contract claims that present no federal question.

Ally Bank v. Godar · filed 2024-08-28

It is clear that no federal question is presented in Ally Bank’s complaint. Its causes of action for replevin and breach of contract were not created by federal law but by state statute, in the case of replevin, or state common law, in the case of breach of contract.

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

Jackson v. State of New Mexico · filed 2024-08-30

Federal question jurisdiction exists when “a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). ... Jackson’s Complaint mentions federal claims, and it 1s reasonable to interpret Jackson’s mention of the Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights Act in his Objections as another indication that his Complaint may state federal claims.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a holdover eviction petition that raises no federal claim does not satisfy that requirement.

HSBC Bank, USA v. Hum · filed 2024-09-12

Removing Defendants failed to otherwise identify any issues or claims which arise from the Petition and are based on federal law.

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

Foothills Resource Group, Inc. v. Darts Rentals, LLC · filed 2024-10-07

The Court finds that a federal question is not raised on the face of the Complaint and that it thus lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to be apparent on the face of the complaint.

Trinh v. Trinh · filed 2024-10-16

The District Court correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Trinh’s claims, because her complaint had failed to allege a question of federal law. For federal question jurisdiction to exist, “the party asserting jurisdiction must satisfy the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which mandates that the grounds for jurisdiction be clear on the face of the pleading that initiates the case.” Goldman v. Citigroup Glob. Mkts. Inc., 834 F.3d 242, 249 (3d Cir. 2016).