28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the defendant anticipates raising federal defenses.

Bundy v. St. Lukes Health System LTD · filed 2023-05-19

In its complaint, St. Luke’s brings claims solely based on state law. For this reason, the Court is unable to exercise federal question jurisdiction. This is true, even though Bundy’s Petition anticipates raising federal defenses—defenses that are also available in state court.

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

Columbia Tech Center LLC v. Jennings · filed 2023-06-15

To the extent that Defendants assert federal defenses or counterclaims, such do not confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s complaint; federal defenses or counterclaims do not confer jurisdiction.

ESA Management LLC v. Ragen · filed 2023-06-26

To the extent Defendant assert federal defenses or counterclaims, such do not confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when federal law arises only as a possible defense to a state-law claim, including a preemption defense.

Breathe Dc v. Juul Labs, Inc. · filed 2023-07-13

The only respect in which FDA regulations are set to make an appearance in this litigation is as a potential defense. But “a ‘federal defense, including the defense of preemption,’ does not suffice to create federal question jurisdiction.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction merely because a defendant may raise a federal defense to a state-law claim.

Cagle v. NHC Healthcare · filed 2023-08-28

The potential availability of a federal defense does not create federal question jurisdiction.

Federal-question jurisdiction does not arise from a federal defense to a state-law unlawful detainer claim.

Bridge WF CA Crystal View LP v. Salazar · filed 2023-10-02

The PTFA is at most a defense to the unlawful detainer action, and thus does not confer subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on an anticipated federal defense.

Locklear v. NTY Franchise Company, LLC · filed 2023-10-23

A corollary is that a federal defense is insufficient to establish original jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer original jurisdiction over a state-law claim based on a defendant’s federal defense or counterclaim.

Bhalla v. Goodman · filed 2023-10-30

Any rights based in federal law that Defendant believes Defendant has by way of a defense or a basis for a counterclaim does not give this Court original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer case.

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

Nardone v. Edee · filed 2023-11-03

Further, to the extent Defendant is attempting to defend the partition proceeding by contending that Plaintiffs’ actions constitute violations of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 3604, such a defense would not support the exercise of federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because a federal-law defense may apply.

Alter Business Advisors, LLC v. The Doc App, Inc. · filed 2023-11-13

But the problem for Defendants is that, at most, these arguments are federal defenses to the breach of contract claim that do not establish a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on a defendant’s potential federal defenses or counterclaims.

Bire II LLC v. Horowich · filed 2023-12-06

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 she is “a tenant protected under the Obama’s ‘Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009,’” (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 does not permit a defendant to establish federal-question jurisdiction by raising a federal defense or counterclaim to a state-law claim.

G & I IX Steeplechase v. Collins Case remanded to Precinct 4, Place 1 Harris County, Texas.< · filed 2024-01-09

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

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the plaintiff’s own claim; a defendant’s federal defenses, counterclaims, and crossclaims do not establish federal-question jurisdiction for removal.

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA v. BRADLEY · filed 2024-02-01

Ms. Bradley’s intention to raise federal defenses to the claims against her, including counterclaims and crossclaims, does not establish a basis for removal.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction cannot be based on a federal defense or counterclaim when the plaintiff’s complaint presents no federal question.

Rogers v. Jackson · filed 2024-02-12

Moreover, even if Jackson intends to assert a defense or counterclaim based on federal law, this would not provide a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Federal-question jurisdiction requires a federal question in the complaint; a potential federal defense is insufficient.

First and Rosemary Senior Housing, LP v. Pierre · filed 2024-04-03

Federal question jurisdiction is also lacking because there are no federal questions presented in the complaint, which asserts only an unlawful detainer claim under California state law. ... Pierre’s potential federal defenses are therefore insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a removed state-law action merely because the defendant raises federal defenses.

LACY v. BACCI · filed 2024-04-05

Federal defenses to state-created actions like foreclosure and ejectment actions do not establish federal question jurisdiction for removal purposes.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on federal defenses or counterclaims to a state-law unlawful detainer action.

FC Broadway and Hill, LLC v. Kang · filed 2024-04-18

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

Federal claims raised as a defense or counterclaim do not establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Montanez v. Gagosian · filed 2024-06-12

And while it may be that Stpiette identified the existence of federal claims in the Notice because he intends to rely on those federal statutes as a defense or counterclaim, his reliance on these statutes would not provide a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.

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

First Casa de Marina v. Clark · filed 2024-06-18

At most, this Act may be asserted as a federal defense to a state-law claim, but a federal defense is insufficient to invoke the Court’s federal-question jurisdiction.

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

Louisiana v. AbbVie Inc · filed 2024-08-21

The defendant’s assertion of a defense—even a federal defense—generally does not support federal question jurisdiction over state law claims absent complete preemption or some other basis for federal court jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on an actual or anticipated federal defense.

Orange Kangaroo LLC v. Solano · filed 2024-10-29

To the extent that Solano expects to rely on federal law in his defense of this action, that is an improper basis for removal. It is axiomatic that federal jurisdiction cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the defendant asserts a federal immunity defense.

Dicasimirro v. GETMYBOAT, INC. · filed 2024-11-14

So, the question becomes whether GMB’s assertion of an immunity defense under federal law (Section 230) is sufficient to confer jurisdiction. It is not.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal constitutional issues raised are defenses rather than essential elements of the claims.

People of the State of California v. Pomona Lodge LLC · filed 2024-12-17

The Patel Defendants fail to show that either constitutional issue they raise is an essential element of any of the City’s state law claims. Therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and the Patel Defendants’ removal based on federal question jurisdiction was improper.

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

Jenkins v. Howard University · filed 2024-12-20

Howard may choose to highlight what it views as conflicts between the bylaws and charter to defend against the allegation that the Board acted inconsistently with its fiduciary duties and authority, but invoking federal law in a defense does not create federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not permit a federal defense to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Natural Offspring One v. Orange County Family Court · filed 2025-01-28

But “a federal defense cannot serve as a basis for federal jurisdiction.” ... Murphy therefore has not satisfied her burden of demonstrating that the Court has federal question jurisdiction of this matter.

Section 1331 requires a basis for federal-question jurisdiction in the complaint; federal counterclaims and defenses cannot supply one.

American Express National Bank v. Alili · filed 2025-03-10

The Complaint does not provide a basis for the Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Defendants filed Counterclaims against Plaintiff, including claims arising under the United States Code, and prayed for relief in an amount greater than $75,000. (Doc. 3.) However, “it is well settled that federal counterclaims and defenses are inadequate to confer federal jurisdiction.”

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

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lewis · filed 2025-03-10

To the extent that defendant alleges a federal defense or counterclaim, such defenses or counterclaims are not bases for this Court's jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the federal issues are only defenses to a state-law claim and are not necessarily raised by that claim.

City of Prescott v. Leo's Landing, Inc. · filed 2025-03-19

But the federal issues Leo’s Landing identifies are at most defenses to the city’s state-law riparian rights claim; they are not necessarily raised by the plaintiff’s riparian rights claim, nor do they preempt the city’s riparian rights claim. The complaint does not raise a federal question, so the court will remand the case to state court for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law eviction action based on a defendant's potential federal defense.

EQUITY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC v. SMITH · filed 2025-03-27

However, as the Court explained in its remand Order, even if she is raising "a potential federal defense" in response to the state-law eviction complaint against her, that "is not enough to create federal jurisdiction under § 1331."

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for removal based on a federal defense, including a preemption defense.

County of Volusia v. Ward · filed 2025-04-10

Accordingly, Defendant appears to claim federal question jurisdiction on the basis of a federal defense, but, as stated, “a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense, including the defense of pre[]emption.” Williams, 482 U.S. at 393.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a federal issue is raised only as a defense to a state-law claim.

MaGuire v. Polanco · filed 2025-04-16

This is the assertion of a federal defense to a state-law claim, but a federal defense is insufficient to invoke the Court’s federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when federal law supplies only a defense, rather than the plaintiff’s cause of action.

THE MCCLATCHY COMPANY v. TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA · filed 2025-06-30

Federal question jurisdiction does not exist as the DPPA, is used as a defense, not as a cause of action.

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

Bank of America, NA v. Public Administrator of Suffok County as Administrator of the Estate of Alice G. Zahnd · filed 2025-07-14

None of them provide a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction because the presence of a defense based on federal law is not a basis for removing a state court action to federal court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when federal issues arise only as defenses to state-law claims.

Oneida County v. Bangstad, Kirk · filed 2025-07-21

The only federal issues in this case are issues that defendants are asserting as defenses, and it is well established that federal defenses do not provide a basis for exercising jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on a federal defense to state-law claims.

APC v. United Healthcare Insurance Company · filed 2025-10-02

The fact of the matter is that federal issues may very well require resolution as they relate to Defendant’s defenses to Plaintiffs claims, but it is well settled that a federal defense cannot be the basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.

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

CP6 Eastown LLC v. Weatherford · filed 2025-10-02

To the extent Defendant’s defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law (see NOR at 2–3), those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

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

Billing · filed 2025-10-15

A defense based on federal law cannot convey federal question jurisdiction over a dispute sounding in state law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state domestic violence and child custody dispute merely because a party asserts federal defenses.

Lukes v. Bishoff · filed 2025-11-07

That case is a domestic violence and child custody dispute—a quintessential state matter that does not present a federal question, even if he asserts federal defenses under the VAWA and CVRA.

Federal defenses to an unlawful detainer action do not provide federal-question jurisdiction.

CP6 Eastown LLC v. Noguera · filed 2026-01-05

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

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on federal defenses to a state-law unlawful detainer claim.

Prime Park Labrea Titleholder LLC v. Eryoldas · filed 2026-01-16

To the extent Defendant’s defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law (see NOR at 2–4), those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law mandamus claim merely because the defendant may invoke a federal consent decree as a defense.

The Merrillville Conservancy District, et al. v. The Gary Sanitary District · filed 2026-01-22

Moreover, there is no equivalent of a federal mandamus power to compel the GSD to act—this case could not have been brought originally in federal court, and removal is not appropriate on the mere fact that GSD may use the consent decree as a defense to its inaction.

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

Willis · filed 2026-04-02

Although Respondent argues that the petition violates her Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, the argument is a defense, which is not a basis for removal to federal court.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction cannot support removal based on a defendant’s federal defenses or counterclaims.

Simpkins · filed 2026-04-09

Regardless of whether Ms. Booker can plead federal defenses or counterclaims on these grounds against Plaintiffs, she cannot use them as a basis for removal under federal question jurisdiction.

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

Ngo v. Curtis Boswell, Jr. · filed 2026-06-17

To the extent that Boswell removed the case because he wished to present a federal defense to the ejectment action, his case could not be removed on the basis of a federal defense.

Section 1331 jurisdiction cannot be established by a federal defense or counterclaim to a state-law claim.

Culver v. Nair · filed 2022-12-12

To the extent Defendant [Susheelkumar] raises defenses or ... counterclaims under federal law, it is well-established that such defenses or counterclaims cannot create federal question jurisdiction such that removal is proper.

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

Tom Lazio Fish Co., Inc. v. Castle & Cooke, Inc. · filed 1983-02-28

It is well established that the assertion of a federal defense is an insufficient basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on a federal defense to a state-law claim.

Southeast Texas Environmental, L.L.C. v. BP Amoco Chemical Co. · filed 2004-05-17

The well-pleaded complaint rule dictates that subject matter jurisdiction cannot rest on a federal defense.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when federal constitutional issues arise only as defenses to state-law claims.

The People of the State of California v. Hoffman · filed 2019-12-12

The Court concludes that the underlying action does not include a federal issue and that removal is not permitted.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the plaintiff asserts a constitutional right of access to the courts.

Gefen ex rel. Gefen v. Upjohn Co. · filed 1995-05-02

Simply because Plaintiff asserts her federally guaranteed right of access to the courts does not raise a federal question sufficient to grant subject matter jurisdiction in this Court. We find, therefore, that there is no subject matter jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not support a Rule 22 interpleader action when the stakeholder’s well-pleaded complaint asserts no federal claim and every anticipated coercive action arises under state law.

Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Board of Equalization · filed 1988-06-14

We have concluded that jurisdiction over the Band’s complaint in interpleader was improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1335, because the adverse claimants are not of diverse citizenship; improper under 25 U.S.C. § 345 and 28 U.S.C. § 1353, because Miller’s right to an allotment of land is not at issue; improper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, because those sections do not grant jurisdiction to the district courts; and improper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1362, because the Band’s well-pleaded complaint alleges no claim under federal law and the coercive actions anticipated by the Band’s complaint would arise under state law.

Section 1331 does not support a Rule 22 interpleader action when the stakeholder’s well-pleaded complaint asserts no federal claim and every anticipated coercive action arises under state law.

Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Board of Equalization · filed 1988-09-20

We have concluded that jurisdiction over the Band's complaint in interpleader was improper under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1335, because the adverse claimants are not of diverse citizenship; improper under 25 U.S.C. Sec. 345 and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1353, because Miller's right to an allotment of land is not at issue; improper under 28 U.S.C. Secs. 2201-2202, because those sections do not grant jurisdiction to the district courts; and improper under 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331 and 1362, because the Band's well-pleaded complaint alleges no claim under federal law and the coercive actions anticipated by the Band's complaint would arise under state law.

A state wrongful-discharge claim does not arise under Section 1331 when its federal issues are collateral, the federal statutes provide only administrative remedies, and state-law theories independently support the claim.

Donald J. Willy, and George A. Young v. The Coastal Corp., Coastal States Management Co., Inc., Defendants · filed 1988-09-29

We conclude that Willy’s wrongful discharge claim is not one that “arises under” federal law for purposes of section 1331, and is hence not removable on that basis. We have previously concluded that possible federal preemption does not serve as a ground for removal here.

Section 1331 does not supply original jurisdiction when a properly pleaded complaint asserts only state-law claims and states no federal issue.

El Gran Video Club Corp. v. E.T.D., Inc. · filed 1991-02-26

We have before us a properly pleaded cause of action by a citizen of Puerto Rico against a citizen of Puerto Rico. No federal issue is stated. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over viable state-law claims when the plaintiffs elect to pursue only state-law relief and disclaim remedies available exclusively under federal law.

Herrington v. J.R. Pounds, Inc. · filed 1995-01-18

The “artful pleading” circumstance occurs where plaintiffs sole claim is a federal one; it does not apply where plaintiff has a viable state law claim and a federal claim, but plaintiff simply opts to pursue the state claim. This latter circumstance falls outside of the “artful pleading” limitation and is one which would not support removal on federal question grounds. ... Therefore, in view of the foregoing, this court finds that there is no federal question and no basis for this court’s jurisdiction.

Federal-question jurisdiction depends on the claims appearing on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a defendant cannot create a federal claim by recasting a state-law claim where no exception applies.

Blake v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. · filed 1995-03-02

The plaintiff was free to choose not to state a cause of action under federal law, and the defendants may not state such a cause of action for her. With exceptions not applicable in this case, the causes of action which may be determined from the face of the plaintiffs complaint dictate whether this civil action belongs in a Tennessee or a federal forum.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state unfair competition claim merely because it involves issues similar to a federal trademark claim; a purely state-law complaint that raises no federal question must be remanded.

Passalacqua Corp. v. Restaurant Management II, Inc. · filed 1995-03-29

It is clear that plaintiffs state law claim cannot be recharacterized as a federal trademark claim. The “artful pleading” exception to the “well-pled complaint” rule is inapplicable here. There is no disputed question of federal law. Plaintiff has pled a purely state law claim. Under the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and the matter must be remanded to the state court.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction only when a federal question appears on the face of the complaint; a plaintiff may rely on state law alone even if federal law could also supply a claim.

Austin v. American General Finance, Inc. · filed 1995-09-13

Therefore, the fact that the plaintiffs in this case have selected to pursue their claims under state law alone, does not justify removal even if the plaintiffs also have an unpursued claim under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because the subject matter of a state-law action could also support a federal claim.

Shapiro v. Middlesex County Municipal Joint Insurance Fund · filed 1996-05-02

Federal question jurisdiction does not exist simply because the subject matter of the action could give rise to a Federal law claim as well as a state law claim.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a claim pleaded under state law when the asserted action cannot be brought under state law and is federal in substance.

Cassel v. WEBCO Industries, Inc. · filed 1996-10-10

The proper case, however, exists only where it is not possible to bring the action asserted by the Plaintiff in state court. ... As a result, applying the authorities cited above, the Court deems federal question jurisdiction to be proper in this matter.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff chooses to plead only state-law claims, even if a federal claim was available.

Knestrick v. International Business MacHines Corp. · filed 1996-11-19

The defendants’ argument that: “Plaintiffs have only a Title VII retaliation claim notwithstanding the rest of what the Complaint states or does not state,” is unavailing and baseless in light of the abundance of caselaw which establishes a plaintifPs right to select between federal and state remedies.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a complaint asserting state law claims does not establish federal-question jurisdiction merely because its allegations might also support a federal claim.

Green v. Deposit Guaranty National Bank · filed 1997-02-07

Whether a cause of action presents a federal question depends upon the allegations of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint. ... Therefore, this court holds that defendant has failed to show that plaintiffs complaint rests on claims falling within the realm of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims concerning a carrier’s advertising when the claims do not depend on federal law for their resolution.

Bauchelle v. AT & T CORP. · filed 1997-11-17

The claims relate solely to Defendant’s alleged misrepresentations in its advertising and marketing and do not depend on any provision of federal law for their resolution. Because this Complaint cannot satisfy the requirements of the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint rests entirely on state law, even if the defendant raises federal issues in its answer.

C.C. Mid West, Inc. v. McDougall · filed 1998-01-14

Federal question jurisdiction does not exist where the complaint is based entirely on state law, even if issues of federal law will undoubtedly be raised in the defendant’s answer.

Section 1331 does not support federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim resting on multiple state-law theories of recovery unless each theory raises a sufficiently substantial federal question.

Danfelt v. BD. COUNTY COM'RS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY · filed 1998-03-19

In this case, the Court holds that where, under § 1331, multiple state-law theories of recovery exist supporting the same claim for relief (here, wrongful discharge), all the state-law claims must allege a sufficiently substantial federal question under § 1331 to support removal under § 1441(a).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law age-discrimination claim based solely on an admission outside the complaint that the employer sought to deny ERISA benefits.

Donald v. Virginia Electric & Power Co. · filed 1998-06-08

After closely studying case authority on this issue, specifically Ingersoll-Rand, Warner and Rokohl, this court concludes that plaintiffs admissions, which fell outside the scope of the age discrimination claim he asserted in his complaint, are insufficient to trigger ERISA preemption and federal jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over viable state-law claims when the plaintiffs expressly rely only on state law, even if the allegations resemble federal claims.

Allen v. City Finance Co. · filed 1998-07-13

While the Complaint does state claims which appear to be based upon TILA, the Plaintiffs have expressly stated in their submissions to this Court that they are not relying on any law other than state law to support their causes of action. For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have stated viable state causes of action in their Complaint. ... The only jurisdictional basis this Court has over the case is the bankruptcy of the dismissed Plaintiffs. Thus, there is no jurisdictional basis other than § 1334.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a state-law complaint presents no federal question on its face and neither exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule applies.

State of NJ v. City of Wildwood · filed 1998-10-06

Therefore, because I have found that no federal question is presented on the face of the State’s well-pleaded complaint, and that the narrow exceptions to the well-pleaded complaint rule do not apply, I hold that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and removal was improper.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint based entirely on state law when no federal cause of action appears and the plaintiff has not artfully pleaded around federal law.

City of Camden v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp. · filed 2000-01-27

In this case, there is nothing on the face of plaintiffs complaint that suggests any federal cause of action, and it is manifest that plaintiff has not engaged in artful pleading to avoid giving rise to federal question jurisdiction. Hence, according to the usual operation of the well pleaded complaint rule, federal question jurisdiction would be lacking where, as here, the complaint is based entirely on state law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims pleaded solely under state law merely because federal law might provide a viable alternative claim.

Greer v. MAJR Financial Corp. · filed 2000-06-22

Particularly in view of the Fifth Circuit’s explication of the limited role of the artful pleading doctrine in the federal question jurisdiction analysis, and the express recognition of the plaintiffs right, as master of his complaint, to avoid federal jurisdiction by electing to proceed solely under state law, even where there may be no viable claim as a matter of state law and regardless of the availability of a right to proceed based upon federal law, the court cannot conclude that plaintiffs’ claims in this case, or any of them, “arise under” federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a plaintiff could have pleaded a federal claim, so long as federal law is not essential to the pleaded state-law claim.

Bishop v. Alabama Department of Environmental Management · filed 2000-08-17

Simply because the Plaintiffs could have asserted a federal claim, but chose not to, does. not give this court federal question jurisdiction, as long as federal law is not essential to the state law claim which is advanced.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction when a complaint states only state law claims and no substantial federal question is necessary for relief.

Chester Smith v. GTE Corporation · filed 2001-01-04

The complaint in this case establishes neither basis for federal question jurisdiction, because it contains only state law causes of action and does not show that any "substantial question of federal law" is necessary for the plaintiffs to obtain their requested relief.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a state-law complaint merely references a federal statute without seeking relief under federal law.

Caldwell Trucking PRP Group v. Caldwell Trucking Co. · filed 2001-05-07

This Court disagrees with Defendants’ position. Although Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ reference to CERCLA in count III of its complaint confers federal jurisdiction, Plaintiffs persuasively argue that its complaint only asserts state law claims and it does not specifically seek relief under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim apparent on the face of the complaint; pleading state-law claims does not establish federal-question jurisdiction merely because a federal cause of action may also exist.

Rosenthal v. United Van Lines, LLC · filed 2001-07-17

On its “face” the complaint in totality purports to assert state law causes of actions. As a plaintiff is the “master of the claim” and can choose to rely on state law, although a cause of action may exist under federal law as well, the court concludes that it does not possess federal-question jurisdiction based on the allegations as pled.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that can be resolved without necessarily construing federal law.

Walker v. Atwood Chevrolet-Olds, Inc. · filed 2001-12-28

Instead, the complaint asserts state law claims, and the plaintiff can maintain a cause of action based on her claims of fraud and/or negligent misrepresentation without the state court necessarily having to construe federal law in order to reach a conclusion. Under such circumstances the artful pleading doctrine does not apply, and the exercise of this court’s removal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 simply is not warranted.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law complaint merely because it anticipates the defendant’s federal claims.

Wiener v. Wampanoag Aquinnah Shellfish Hatchery Corp. · filed 2002-09-30

Anticipation of the Tribes’ federal claims in plaintiffs complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief does not present a well-pleaded complaint for the purposes of federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the properly pleaded complaint; a state-law discovery petition tied to state-law litigation does not satisfy that requirement.

Adell v. Whall · filed 2003-12-03

There is no hint that this discovery action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ... On the contrary, it arises under the laws and court rules of Michigan.

Section 1331 jurisdiction does not necessarily follow from a significant conflict between state law and uniquely federal interests; the federal question must appear in the plaintiff’s well-pleaded claim.

Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. Finn · filed 2005-01-14

By finding that satisfaction of the two-prong Boyle test does not necessarily create federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, we again part ways with the Fourth Circuit's holding in Caudill. The Caudill court conflated the preemption and jurisdiction analyses by holding that a significant conflict with uniquely federal interests was sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the federal court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law special education review petition merely because the underlying rights are also protected by the IDEA.

Evergreen School District v. N.F. · filed 2005-05-04

Plaintiffs deliberate choice to plead only state claims does not warrant the allegation of “artful pleading.” Accordingly, the well-plead complaint does not give rise to a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded complaint presenting a federal cause of action or a right to relief that necessarily depends on a substantial federal question; a claim to a fee simple challenging a state-law foreclosure does not qualify.

Debiasse v. Chevy Chase Bank Corp. · filed 2005-08-04

Federal question jurisdiction exists only when a plaintiff’s “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.” ... It appears from DeBiasse’s filings that he intends to claim what amounts to a fee simple in his land, a claim that does not raise a federal question. ... Thus, no federal question exists.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts state-law claims and raises no substantial, disputed federal question on its face.

Texas v. Merck & Co., Inc. · filed 2005-08-29

Generally, a suit arises under federal law if there appears on the face of the complaint some substantial, disputed question of federal law. ... Here, based on Texas’s state-court petition, Texas clearly has asserted against Merck only Texas state-law claims under a Texas statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the complaint refers to compliance with state or federal notice law.

Burbage v. Richburg · filed 2006-01-12

Applying the well-pleaded complaint rule to the present case, the court finds that Plaintiffs Complaint asserts no federal question. First, the court agrees with Plaintiff that his reference to complying with “[a]ny notice required by the terms of the Mortgage or by state or federal law” in Paragraph 9 of his Complaint is not sufficient in itself to confer federal question jurisdiction over the action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when no federal question appears on the face of the complaints.

Nielsen v. Archdiocese of Denver · filed 2006-02-07

As in a labyrinth, the pursuit of a substantial federal question in these cases, leads inexorably back to the beginning: no federal question appears on the faces of the plaintiffs’ complaints. Remand is therefore required.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction when a fair reading of a complaint presents constitutional claims, even if the plaintiffs say they intended only state-law review.

Thiel v. Nelson · filed 2006-03-24

Claims that arise under federal law or the federal Constitution fall within the original jurisdiction of federal courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Despite plaintiffs’ insistence that they intended only to initiate a review of the smoking ban at Sand Ridge under Wisconsin’s declaratory judgment statute, Wis. Stat. § 227.40, their complaints raise several constitutional claims.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; an ambiguous claim that may rest solely on state law does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Lorenz v. Texas Workforce Commission · filed 2006-10-30

The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which states that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. ... When we do so, we are left with no allegations on which to base federal question jurisdiction and must turn to whether federal subject matter jurisdiction can be sustained on some other ground.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a state-law complaint requests relief that might be unavailable under the state statute it invokes, when the complaint expressly relies on state law.

Firefighters' Retirement System v. Regions Bank · filed 2008-10-21

Because FRS’s claim for “lost investment profits and opportunities” in Count One explicitly relies upon Louisiana’s securities law, whether or not that law actually allows for such recovery, federal question jurisdiction does not exist in this case based upon the “well-pleaded complaint” rule.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a defendant says state-law claims are intertwined with a prior federal court order.

Williams v. Pegnato & Pegnato Roof Management, Inc. · filed 2008-12-01

The Removing Defendants’ mere contention that the Amended Complaint is “inextricably intertwined with a previous Order of a Federal Court” does not establish that Williams has invoked federal law as the basis for his relief and therefore is an insufficient rationale to prove that this Court can exercise federal question jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a complaint alleging only state law causes of action does not qualify.

Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp. v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection · filed 2010-10-14

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, a cause of action "arises under” federal law, and jurisdiction is proper, only if a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. ... The instant Complaint alleges only state law causes of action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a state-law eviction claim presents no federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint.

Federal National Mortgage Association, Plaintiff v. Judith Tompson, Defendant · filed 2012-05-03

Plaintiff’s eviction action is based on New Hampshire law, and does not implicate a federal question on its face.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff asserts a tenable state-law claim that requires no federal question to resolve.

Noel v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A. · filed 2013-01-11

Because there is no federal question necessary to resolve plaintiffs claim, he is free to assert only his state law claim, which is precisely what plaintiff has done.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when no claim based on federal law appears on the face of the well-pleaded complaint.

In Re DEEPWATER HORIZON · filed 2014-02-24

Appellees’ reliance on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 “arising under” jurisdiction is unpersuasive because no claim based on federal law appeared on the face of the Parishes’ well-pled complaints.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a state-law property complaint merely refers to federal claims being pursued in separate litigation.

Toney v. Lasalle Bank National Ass'n · filed 2014-08-04

The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that, read in context, Plaintiff is not ... asserting a claim under the Truth-in-Lending Act, inasmuch as she was awaiting a ruling from the Supreme Court.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint expressly asserts a federal claim, regardless of the plaintiff’s subjective intent to rely only on state law.

Leaumont v. City of Alexandria · filed 2014-09-18

But the petition, fairly read, asserts independent claims under both the LEDL and the ADA. Leaumont’s subjective intent is irrelevant, as the jurisdictional analysis depends on the “face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc., 482 U.S. at 392.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that pleads only state-law claims and seeks no federal relief merely because it mentions constitutional violations in passing.

Park Southern Neighborhood Corporation v. Vesta Management Corporation · filed 2015-02-20

Likewise, not once does the plaintiff here assert a constitutional claim or seek any relief based on the Constitution.9 Rather, the only claims that have been “well-pleaded” are District of Columbia common law claims of unlawful conversion of personal property, tortious interference, and civil conspiracy. Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 36-56. Consequently, it is improper for this Court to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over the case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the face of the complaint presents only claims cognizable under state law.

Morgan v. Suite 12, Inc. · filed 2016-05-26

Because Plaintiffs wrongful' discharge and sexual harassment causes of action are cognizable under the SCHAL, S.C. Code Ann. § 1-13-80, the Court holds that the face of Plaintiffs Complaint does not present a federal question, and the Court consequently does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

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

Rainero v. Archon Corporation · filed 2016-12-21

Because Rainero did not assert a federal claim, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the well-pleaded complaint; prefatory references to federal rights do not confer jurisdiction when the pleaded state-law claims present no substantial federal question.

Smith v. Pickens · filed 2017-10-27

Because the Complaint does not comport with the well-pleaded complaint rule for federal question jurisdiction, no § 1331 jurisdiction exists here.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because facts alleged in a state-law complaint could support a federal claim.

Griffith v. Alcon Research, Limited · filed 2017-12-06

However, Griffith’s reference to facts that could support a federal claim does not, standing alone, create federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a state-law foreclosure complaint presents no federal question on its face.

BANK OF NEW YORK v. FAZIO · filed 2019-09-05

Because the plaintiff’s complaint does not present a federal question sufficient to support jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the removal notice does not sufficiently aver the citizenship of any party to enable us to determine if there is diversity jurisdiction, we shall remand this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction based on the claims actually pleaded; a provider’s independent state-law claims do not create jurisdiction merely because it could have asserted assigned ERISA claims.

Crescent City Surgical Centre v. Humana Health Benefit Plan of Louisiana, Inc. · filed 2019-09-13

Federal District Courts have original subject matter jurisdiction over all cases “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The existence of such jurisdiction is determined solely by analyzing whether “the Plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law.” Metro. Life. Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63. ... To sum, Crescent is not asserting derivative ERISA claims because it has affirmatively chosen not to do so, as is its right. Instead, Crescent has chosen to assert its own claims rooted in state law, which potentially give rise to legal obligations of Humana independent of ERISA.

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

U.S. Bank National Association v. Hannonen · filed 2019-09-27

Accordingly, the face of the complaint does not present a federal question justifying removal.

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

L & M Development Corporation of S.D v. Gregory · filed 2019-10-08

Here, federal question jurisdiction is absent because no “federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts state-law claims and makes only an isolated reference to the U.S. Constitution without clearly asserting a federal claim.

Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza v. Royal Palace Royal Girls Cabaret, LLC · filed 2019-10-30

Rather, all of Plaintiff's causes of actions are based on state law and it is not “clear” from the face of the Complaint that Plaintiff is attempting to assert any federal claims at all. Accordingly, Defendants have failed to meet their burden to establish that this action “arises under” any federal law.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law unlawful detainer complaint that presents no federal question on its face.

939 Lofts v. Simmons · filed 2019-11-01

Because a claim for unlawful detainer does not by itself present a federal question or necessarily turn on the construction of federal law, no basis for federal question jurisdiction appears on the face of the Complaint.

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

(UD)(PS) Li v. Duncan · filed 2019-11-13

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

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a state-law unlawful detainer claim does not satisfy that requirement.

U.S Bank National Association v. Somo · filed 2019-11-26

Here, federal question jurisdiction is absent because no “federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”

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

(PS)(UD)Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. McMahon · filed 2019-12-09

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 a complaint asserting only state-law foreclosure claims and no federal cause of action.

Girod LoanCo, LLC v. Heisler · filed 2019-12-23

The state court petition filed by Plaintiff does not provide a basis for this Court to exercise federal question jurisdiction over this case because it raises foreclosure claims that arise purely under Louisiana law and involve no federal cause of action.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the well-pleaded complaint; references to federal constitutional rights as a basis for state-law negligence do not suffice.

Mack v. Williams · filed 2019-12-30

This action will be remanded to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as I do not find that the defendants have satisfied their burden of demonstrating federal-question jurisdiction. 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 plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.

Federal-question jurisdiction requires a federal claim on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a state-law summary process claim does not qualify.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Reddy · filed 2019-12-31

Deutsche Bank’s Complaints do not present any federal claims on their face. The only claim is a state-law claim for summary process.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the original complaint raises only state-law claims and a federal issue appears solely in a third-party claim.

MK Electric Man, L.L.C. v. Maillot · filed 2020-02-11

No federal question is presented by the original petition, and Brown Greer’s invocation of the Knauf Settlement Agreement does not transform this state law dispute into a federal question. Accordingly, federal question jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only a state-law unlawful-detainer claim.

(UD)(PS) U.S. National Bank Association v. Viriviri · filed 2020-02-28

In short, because the state court Complaint indicates that the only cause of action is one for unlawful detainer, which arises solely under state law, this action does not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 jurisdiction cannot rest on federal causes of action first raised in an opposition brief when the complaint pleads only state-law claims.

Terry v. Quijote · filed 2020-04-23

In short, although the MMWA and the CPSA create a private right of action sufficient to invoke Section 1331 jurisdiction, Terry has not alleged these claims in the complaint. As such, this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s complaint asserts only state-law causes of action and presents no federal question.

Pennymac Home Loan Services LLC v. Mesi · filed 2020-06-24

First, the Court finds that it lacks federal question jurisdiction because Pennymac’s complaint does not present a question of federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a well-pleaded complaint; a passing reference to federal rights does not establish federal-question jurisdiction when the pleaded claims arise solely under state law.

DEEUGENIO v. BOROUGH OF GLASSBORO · filed 2020-07-08

Defendants have not met their burden as the removing party to demonstrate subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; vague references to constitutional concepts in a state-law claim do not suffice.

MCCRAE v. HAENCHEN · filed 2020-07-08

Vague references in a state law civil conspiracy claim do not present a federal question sufficient to support jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the well-pleaded complaint; state-law claims do not create jurisdiction merely because their facts connect to federal law.

Mayo v. Pest Services Co. · filed 2020-07-09

It is, therefore, well settled that where the plaintiff pleads “only state-law claims for relief, notwithstanding any vague connection the underlying fact pattern may have to federal regulations,” no federal question has been presented.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges only state-law negligence under the well-pleaded complaint rule.

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

Here, Plaintiffs have alleged negligence under state law. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, then, there is no federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the well-pleaded complaint alleges only a state-law negligence claim.

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

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

Section 1331 generally requires a federal claim on the face of the well-pleaded complaint; state-law negligence allegations alone do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

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

Here, Plaintiff has alleged negligence under state law. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, then, there is no federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal-law basis for federal-question jurisdiction; a complaint alleging only state-law negligence does not satisfy the well-pleaded complaint rule.

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

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

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule when the complaint alleges only state-law negligence.

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

Here, Plaintiff has alleged negligence under state law. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, then, there is no federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits a plaintiff to plead only state-law claims even when federal claims are available, thereby avoiding federal-question jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Mitchell v. Reliance Health Care Inc · filed 2020-08-28

A plaintiff is entitled to plead only state-law claims even if it will ultimately result in less of a recovery than it would have had the plaintiff also pleaded available federal claims.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; a letter asserting a federal claim does not create jurisdiction when the complaint pleads only state-law claims.

Vince's Crab House, Inc. v. Olszewski, Jr. · filed 2020-09-17

Here, as in Blanding, the Complaint does not state a claim under federal law, and there is no federal preemption issue justifying removal. ... As such, absent amendments to make the representations in Plaintiffs’ letter a reality, the Court lacks jurisdiction and must remand.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint pleads clear state-law claims and a separate memorandum merely mentions federal law without asserting a federal claim.

Childs v. The Kroger Co. · filed 2020-10-15

Defendants' argument that this Court has federal-question jurisdiction because Mr. Childs mentioned federal law and specifically cited the LMRDA in his Memorandum is not persuasive.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the well-pleaded complaint; state-law claims without a federal issue do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Cannady v. Desdin · filed 2020-10-27

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 federal question to appear in the well-pleaded complaint; a response to a state-law petition does not create federal-question jurisdiction.

Edwards v. Edwards · filed 2020-11-03

Moreover, Respondent’s contention that a state trial court order violated his due process rights does not raise a federal question under the well-pleaded complaint rule because it is effectively a response to the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage; it is not an element of the Petition itself.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim on the face of the complaint or a state-law claim that necessarily depends on a substantial question of federal law.

Williams 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Yokeno, 973 F.2d at 809.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a cover sheet references federal law when the complaint alleges only a state-law unlawful detainer claim.

(UD) (PS) Love v. White · filed 2021-01-15

To the extent that Defendant asserts that references to 85 Fed. Reg. 55292 and 15 U.S.C. § 9057 on Plaintiffs’ standardized cover sheet (UD-101) provided to litigants by the Judicial Council of California amounts to federal question jurisdiction (ECF No. 1 at 4), he is incorrect.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint presents a federal cause of action or necessarily depends on a substantial federal question; state-law contract and fraud claims alone do not qualify.

Banerjee v. Vivint Solar Developer, LLC · filed 2021-01-21

Specifically, federal question jurisdiction arises only from “those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. of the State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr. for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 27–28 (1983). This case involves no such causes of action; rather Plaintiff’s Complaint only includes state law claims, including breach of contract and fraud.

Section 1331 generally requires a federal question in the well-pleaded complaint; state-law claims do not confer federal-question jurisdiction unless an exception to that rule applies.

Robertson v. Big Blue Healthcare, Inc. · filed 2021-02-26

Here, Plaintiff has alleged a negligence and wrongful-death claim under state law. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, then, there is no federal-question jurisdiction unless Defendants can establish subject-matter jurisdiction under an exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law negligence and wrongful-death claims unless an exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule applies.

Saunders v. Big Blue Healthcare, Inc. · filed 2021-02-26

Here, Plaintiff has alleged a negligence and wrongful-death claim under state law. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, then, there is no federal-question jurisdiction unless Defendants can establish subject-matter jurisdiction under an exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a few words in a state-law petition suggest a federal claim.

Gilbert v. Cates · filed 2021-03-02

However, the Court refuses to conclude that a few choice words used in Mr. Gilbert’s Petition are sufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction over his claims.

Federal-question jurisdiction can extend to claims that sound in state law under limited exceptions to the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Thomas v. Watson Woods Healthcare Incorporated · filed 2021-05-10

However, the well-pleaded complaint rule is a rule of inclusion rather than an exclusive and absolute boundary on the Court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction cannot rest on a federal counterclaim when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint states only a state-law claim.

Progress Residential Borrower 7 LLC v. Bradley · filed 2021-05-17

Consequently, a counterclaim may not be considered to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint pleads only state-law claims, despite references to federal standards.

VOLZ v. SOMERSET COUNTY JAIL · filed 2021-05-18

For these reasons, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that her Complaint pleads claims that arise solely under state law, and thus there is no basis for federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 or removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441(a).

Section 1331 requires a federal cause of action to appear on the face of the complaint for federal-question jurisdiction; stray references to federal constitutional concepts in state-law claims do not suffice.

(PC) Cramer v. Lynch · filed 2021-06-09

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction, in pertinent part, over “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... This court will not construe a pro se claim as an attempted federal constitutional claim on the basis of stray words invoking federal constitutional concepts—especially where, as here, plaintiff has objected to removal. ... Because no federal cause of action appears on the face of the complaint, it appears to the undersigned that this case properly belongs in state court.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when a complaint alleges only state-law claims and raises no federal issue.

FUNG v. WELLS FARGO BANK · filed 2021-07-23

Based on the well-pleaded complaint rule, because Fung does not allege any federal causes of action, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is improper.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when the properly pleaded complaint presents an essential federal question; a complaint containing only state-law claims with no such question does not qualify.

Scherer v. Pacific City Hotel, LLC · filed 2021-08-26

Plaintiff’s cause of action and prayer for relief do not present an essential question of federal law, and the First Amended Complaint contains only state law causes of action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts only state-law claims, even if it mentions a federal statute.

LABARBIERA v. VARTOLONE · filed 2021-09-15

And even if the reference to Section 1983 was not an oversight, Plaintiff still did not raise a federal question because no Section 1983 (or other federal) claims are asserted.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s complaint raises only a state-law claim and no federal question appears on its face.

West Coast Group Enterprises, LLC v. Darst · filed 2021-09-22

West Coast’s complaint neither asserts a federal claim nor references any federal statutes on its face, including under 28 U.S.C. § 2409a. And the United States does not dispute that West Coast’s complaint fails to raise an issue of federal question under the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges only state-law claims and no federal question appears on its face.

CATALANO v. PAYPAL INC. · filed 2021-09-30

Thus, on its face, the well-pleaded complaint rule is not satisfied, and this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the matter.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint; allegations equally consistent with state law claims do not suffice.

(PC) Cramer v. Lynch · filed 2021-10-14

The fact that plaintiff’s allegations and choice of words are consistent with an attempted federal claim does not meet the standard of the well-pleaded complaint rule, because the allegations and language are equally consistent with attempted state law claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law mortgage foreclosure claim when no federal question appears on the face of the complaint.

U.S. Bank, National Association v. Titans Group of Seminole County, Florida · filed 2021-10-26

Thus, when considering the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint, no federal question is presented proscribing jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Federal-question jurisdiction requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a complaint alleging only a state-law unlawful-detainer claim does not qualify.

(UD)(PS) Singh v. Segovia · filed 2021-11-24

In sum, because the Complaint indicates that the only cause of action is one for unlawful detainer, which arises solely under state law, this action does not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction only when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint presents a federal question; a complaint alleging only state-law unlawful detainer does not qualify.

(UD)(PS) Cap Holding, LLC v. Alvarez · filed 2021-12-09

Because the Complaint indicates the only cause of action is one for unlawful detainer, which arises solely under state law, this action does not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the well-pleaded complaint; a petition relying solely on state law does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Jet Homeloans Ventures LLC v. PrimeLending Inc. · filed 2021-12-14

The federal question must be present on the face of the complaint (i.e., the state court petition). ... No federal claim is present on the face of Jet’s original petition (i.e., its well-pleaded complaint).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s statement of the claim presents only a state-law cause of action.

Jahen v. WellsFargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2021-12-20

Thus, federal-question jurisdiction is inapplicable because Jahen’s statement of his case does not present a federal question.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint presents a claim arising under federal law.

Thomas v. Bank of America · filed 2022-09-09

For these reasons, federal-question jurisdiction is clear where, as here, “plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon federal law.” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009).

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

Hood v. Powerpay · filed 2023-01-13

As these federal claims appear “on the face of the complaint” filed by Hood, the court agrees that PowerPay could properly seek removal based on federal question jurisdiction.

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

Just Between Friends Franchise System, Inc. v. Samone Gibson Enterprises, LLC · filed 2023-03-14

Here, JBF brings federal claims for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq., as well as for violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(A). Dkt. No. 2. These satisfy both conditions necessary for the jurisdictional requirements of § 1331.