28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 requires a viable claim arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties of the United States for federal-question jurisdiction.

Stark v. United States · filed 2018-06-14

Additionally, Stark argues that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the APA. However, Stark has not identified a viable federal claim arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over federal constitutional and statutory claims challenging a state water-quality certification.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC v. Grumbles · filed 2019-03-29

Without doubt, Exelon’s Complaint presents federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which grants jurisdiction to federal district courts over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a breach-of-contract claim that does not arise under the Constitution or federal law.

Global Carpet Cleaning v. Armstrong · filed 2019-04-29

The complaint here does not state a claim arising under the Constitution or federal law, but rather seek remedies for the defendant’s alleged breach of contract.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under federal law; a frivolous patent-search dispute does not meet that requirement.

Sampson v. Gray · filed 2019-05-28

Sampson’s frivolous patent search claim does not even approach a claim “arising under” federal law.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under federal law; a complaint alleging only claims under state law does not satisfy that requirement.

Dopson v. Steverson · filed 2019-06-11

Dopson’s complaint fails to allege a claim that arises under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction based on the U.C.C., which is not federal law.

Agarwal v. United States of America · filed 2019-06-13

Because the U.C.C. is not a federal law, see Motorola, Inc. v Perry, 917 F. Supp. 43, 48 n.5 (D.D.C. 1996), it cannot be used to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction only when the well-pleaded complaint raises an issue of federal law.

Williams v. Indiana Department of Child Services · filed 2019-07-09

The Plaintiffs state that all parties are citizens of Indiana, so federal question jurisdiction does not apply to their state-law claims. These claims do not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “It is long-settled law that a cause of action arises under federal law only when the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law.” Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. at 63. The Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to do so.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction when a complaint alleges a federal cause of action or the right to relief necessarily depends on a substantial question of federal law.

Arnett v. The Metropolitan Museum of Art · filed 2019-07-25

Plaintiff invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, but he fails to allege any facts suggesting a matter involving federal constitutional or federal statutory law. Federal question jurisdiction is available when a plaintiff’s claims arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A case arises under federal law if the 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.” Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Kain, 485 F.3d 730, 734-35 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 690 (2006)). Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants denied him admission to the Met do not suggest a plausible federal claim and must be dismissed.

Section 1331 requires facts showing that the claim arises under federal law.

Brown v. Microsoft Corporation · filed 2019-08-09

Plaintiff does not invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction or plead facts showing that her claim arises under federal law.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction when a properly pleaded complaint presents a claim arising under federal law.

Miller v. Bounds · filed 2019-08-13

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... In this instance, Plaintiff does not allege any violation arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because their evidence comes from federal agencies.

Schumacher v. Sterigenics U.S., LLC · filed 2019-08-15

Section 1331 grants federal courts jurisdiction in cases arising under federal law, not cases involving facts considered or relied on by federal agencies.

Section 1331 requires claims to arise under federal law; merely mentioning federal Indian preference law, federal mineral leases, or federal trust lands does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Johnson v. Phelan · filed 2019-08-28

The mere reference in the complaint to “federal Indian preference law” and “federal mineral leases,” or “federal trust lands” is insufficient to trigger federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint does not allege an action arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.

Quiroz-Arguello v. TLC Plumbing Utility · filed 2019-08-29

Nor is there any properly alleged federal question jurisdiction because there are no allegations that this action “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires an action to arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States for federal-question jurisdiction.

White v. McCasland · filed 2019-09-10

Though he filed the complaint on the form used for commencing actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, there is no allegation that the action arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” as required for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

(PS) Bledsoe v. Facebook · filed 2019-09-30

Federal question jurisdiction is lacking as plaintiff only alleges state law claims.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over an employer’s federal common law claim to recover mistaken contributions to an ERISA benefit plan.

Tutor Perini Building Corp. v. New York City District Council Carpenters Benefit Funds · filed 2019-09-30

For all the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claim pursuant to federal common law and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim based solely on a local government’s alleged misinterpretation of federal case law, without facts suggesting a violation of federal law.

Johnson v. Kootenai County · filed 2019-10-17

An alleged misinterpretation of federal case law, without more, does not cause a claim to “arise under the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States”3 and therefore cannot give the Court jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when the complaint does not allege an action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Hidalgo v. Hidalgo · filed 2019-10-18

Nor is there any properly alleged federal question jurisdiction because there are no allegations that this action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 requires a civil action to arise under federal law; a complaint alleging no federal-law or constitutional violation and no other federal basis does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Carter v. Bigelow · filed 2019-11-07

With respect to “federal question jurisdiction,” Carter does not allege in her Complaint that Bigelow violated any federal laws or constitutional provisions.

Section 1331 covers a case when federal law creates the cause of action or resolution of a state-law right necessarily turns on construing federal law.

(PS) Howard v. City of Sacramento · filed 2019-11-13

A case “arises under” federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or “where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a breach of contract claim merely because the licensed software is copyrightable.

Open Text Corporation v. SAS C6 · filed 2020-01-07

On its face, Open Text’s complaint does not state a federal question. Although Open Text’s breach of contract claim is related to copyright law insofar as the contract licensed a copyrightable software, this does not automatically satisfy the “arising under” requirement.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the claimed damages include harm to a credit rating, absent an allegation of unlawful reporting practices.

Ormsby v. Cellco Partnership · filed 2020-02-12

Simply seeking damages associated with a negative credit rating—where there is no allegation that the rating is the result of unlawful reporting practices—does not convert an otherwise state law claim into one arising under federal law.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over claims governed by federal common law, including contract claims to enforce a consent decree to which the United States is a party.

E.O.H.C. v. Secretary United States Depart · filed 2020-02-13

And because federal common law is federal law, disputes governed by it “aris[e] under the . . . laws . . . of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. So there is subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide original federal-question jurisdiction over an Ohio teacher-licensing proceeding arising under state law merely because a party characterizes it as a § 1983 case.

Watkins v. Columbus City Schools · filed 2020-03-18

Plaintiff argues the claim before the ODE is a § 1983 case, and thus, it could have been brought in this Court originally with federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. As Defendant points out, however, this is incorrect. The action in front of the ODE arises under Chapter 19, Title 33 of the Ohio Revised Code and Chapter 3301-73 of the Ohio Administrative Code, which allows the State Board of Education to suspend, revoke, or deny a teaching license. ... This action, thus, could not have originally been filed in this Court, and thus, cannot be removed to this Court.

Section 1331 requires an action to arise under federal law; a defendant’s alleged federal employment or D.E.A. number alone does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Parker v. Settle · filed 2020-03-25

Even if defendant was a federal government employee – which there is no evidence of – this alone would not establish federal jurisdiction over this matter. Nothing in plaintiff's complaint or responsive filing indicates that this action arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. Therefore, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an action to enforce a subpoena issued solely under state law.

Ohio Department of Commerce v. Jarvis · filed 2020-03-26

Here, the State of Ohio seeks to enforce a subpoena issued pursuant to state law. See State Court Action, Application for Enforcement of Subpoena (Ohio Com. Pl. May 30, 2019). Its application to enforce the subpoena does not arise under any federal authority. The Court lacks federal question jurisdiction as a result.

Section 1331 requires facts permitting a court to construe the claims as arising under federal law to confer federal-question jurisdiction.

Davis v. Kemper Life Insurance Company · filed 2020-04-02

Plaintiff has also failed to alleged facts permitting this Court to construe his claims as arising under federal law, as necessary to confer jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim in the complaint; a passing reference to § 1983 in a jurisdictional paragraph is insufficient.

Mega Vape, LLC v. The City of San Antonio · filed 2020-04-22

Here, Plaintiff does not even purport to assert a federal claim; it merely references § 1983 in a jurisdictional paragraph. ... Because the Court finds that Plaintiff does not include any federal claim in its complaint, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is lacking, and Defendant improperly removed this action based on federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under federal common law, including claims under a settlement agreement to which the United States is a party.

J.S.G. v. Stirrup · filed 2020-04-26

Because the United States is a party to that agreement, Petitioner’s claim arises under the federal common law. Claims arising under the federal common law invoke the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Without any provision of the Flores Settlement Agreement expressly limiting a district court’s exercise of jurisdiction, this Court adopts the rationale of the Third Circuit in EOHC, and concludes that subject matter jurisdiction exists over Petitioner’s claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state municipal tax lien foreclosure that does not arise under federal law.

Benchmark Municipal Tax Lien Services, LTD v. Lewis · filed 2020-05-08

Because the underlying action does not arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” Mr. Lewis cannot invoke the federal question jurisdiction of this Court.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; alleging no specific federal violation fails to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Breyan v. Greenville County Detention Center · filed 2020-05-22

Although Plaintiff alleges the court has jurisdiction pursuant to federal question, he fails to allege the case is one “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 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 state subrogation claim merely because the health plan touches Medicare; the complaint must present a claim arising under federal law.

Amaya v. Los Burritos, Inc. · filed 2020-06-29

The Court cannot find anything in the complaint to suggest that Plaintiffs claim “arises under” federal law such that it could have originally been brought in federal court, or even requires reference to or interpretation of any federal statute. The bare fact that the plan itself touches the Medicare system at some level is not enough to make any claim involving the plan an issue of federal law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a federal common law successor-liability claim when the complaint alleges the successor had notice of the predecessor’s liability and continued its business.

East Central Illinois Pipe Trades Health & Welfare Fund v. Prather Plumbing & Heating, Inc. · filed 2020-07-17

The Complaint alleges Defendant’s officers had notice of PPI’s liabilities, including the ERISA liability underlying the 2013 default judgment, and Defendant is essentially a continuation of PPI. (Doc. 1 at 4–6). These allegations are sufficient to invoke the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a possessory dispute when the federal issue arises only if state law defeats the plaintiff’s right to possess the property.

World Heritage Animal Genomic Resources v. Stull · filed 2020-08-14

Any claim WHAGR has to injunctive relief depends first on whether it has a right to possess the property in question. The Court turns to state law to answer this question. See Curry v. McCanless, 307 U.S. 357, 363 (1939). Only if that inquiry were determined in the negative would the Act be implicated at all in this matter.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to state a claim under federal law or depend on resolving a substantial federal-law question to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Jones v. Jones · filed 2020-09-30

The SAC alleges jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, but its factual allegations do not expressly state a claim under federal law or depend on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 is not satisfied by passing references to federal law when federal law neither creates the claim nor supplies a substantial question that must be resolved to grant relief.

Garber v. City Of Fairhope · filed 2020-10-26

A bare mention of the words “Fourteenth Amendment” or “federal law” in a pleading, without more, does not necessarily mean that federal law creates the cause of action asserted or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends upon the resolution of a substantial question of federal law, so as to satisfy the “arising under” test for federal jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the pleaded action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Durham v. Arnold · filed 2020-11-18

As currently plead, the instant action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, so federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action or vindicating a state-law right necessarily turns on federal law; a state mandamus petition with no cognizable federal claim does not qualify.

(PS) Paskiewicz v. Garcia-Brower · filed 2020-12-03

District courts have original jurisdiction over “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “A case ‘arises under’ federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or ‘where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law.’” ... There is no basis for federal jurisdiction here, for the reasons that follow.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint raises a claim under federal common law concerning the scope of tribal sovereign authority.

Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe v. County of Mille Lacs, Minnesota · filed 2020-12-21

Accordingly, Plaintiffs have raised issues of federal common law on the face of their well-pleaded Complaint. As a result, they have adequately pleaded a federal question over which this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint’s allegations fail to show that the case arises under federal law.

Alexander v. SC Dept. of Transportation · filed 2021-01-21

Second, the essential allegations contained in the complaint are insufficient to show that the case is one “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint’s allegations fail to show that the case arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Gist v. Jordan/Dunn, LLC · filed 2021-02-08

First, the essential allegations contained in Plaintiff’s complaint are insufficient to show that the case is one “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action or the claim necessarily requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Brar v. Dhaliwal · filed 2021-02-25

An action “arises under” federal law pursuant to § 1331 if the cause of action (i) is created by federal law, or (ii) necessarily requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under federal law; listing federal statutes or cases without explaining how the claim arises under them does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Serna v. BBVA Compass Bank · filed 2021-03-29

Although Plaintiff lists various statutes or cases in her compliant, this is not sufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not state in her complaint or response how her claims “arise under” those statutes or cases.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a claim is based on federal law or necessarily requires construction of federal law.

Poorsina v. Zhang · filed 2021-03-31

Poorsina has not asserted any claim that is based on federal law or requires construction of any federal law. Therefore, it is clear from the face of the Complaint that there is no federal question jurisdiction over his claims.

Section 1331 requires a cause of action arising under federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Labranche v. Louisiana Department of Justice · filed 2021-04-01

With regard to federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Plaintiff must state a cause of action arising under federal law, which Plaintiff’s Complaint currently fails to do.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Reed v. Smith · filed 2021-04-19

At this time, even liberally construing the plaintiff’s pleading, she does not state any claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction over a copyright dispute only if the claims arise under the Copyright Act.

Jones v. Glad Music Publishing & Recording LP · filed 2021-04-21

For purposes of the subject matter jurisdiction analysis in this case, because the plaintiffs do not allege that any other federal question governs their claims, federal question subject matter jurisdiction exists if the plaintiff’s claims against the Maddox defendants arise under the Copyright Act.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a complaint seeks a declaration of rights as a matter of federal law.

Basic Water Company v. South West Enterprise Holdings, LLC · filed 2021-04-28

Just because it seeks a declaration of rights “as a matter of federal law” does not mean there is a federal question.

Section 1331 ordinarily provides federal-question jurisdiction only when federal law creates the cause of action asserted in the complaint.

Bowens v. Cross · filed 2021-05-17

With few exceptions not relevant here, a case “aris[es]” under federal law only when federal law creates the cause of action the plaintiff asserts in their complaint. See Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986). Although Bowens has not provided the complaints in the two state court actions, her description of them does not suggest that they involve a federal claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an action that does not appear to arise under the Constitution or federal law.

Yenovkian v. Gulian · filed 2021-05-21

As to federal question jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “[t]he district courts 8 shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or 9 treaties of the United States.” However, Plaintiff’s action does not appear to arise under 10 the Constitution or any federal laws.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint invokes no federal constitutional or statutory provision and its allegations do not appear to involve federal law.

Lewis v. Ford · filed 2021-06-01

But Lewis does not invoke any specific federal constitutional or statutory provision in her complaint. And it does not appear that federal law applies to the allegations described in the pleading. Therefore, the Court lacks federal-question jurisdiction over this matter.

Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; being subject to federal regulation in the course of business alone is insufficient.

Westchester Fire Insurance Company v. Star Leasing Company · filed 2021-07-17

But merely being subject to federal law in the course of business is not enough to confer jurisdiction onto this Court. The cause of action must arise under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based solely on an executive order that creates no federal cause of action.

Humphrey v. US Army Corps of Engineers · filed 2021-07-22

Plaintiff has not established that the amended complaint arises under a federal law. The sole federal law that plaintiff invokes is Executive Order 12,898. See Am. Compl. at 7-10. But that order does not create a federal cause of action.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under the Constitution or federal law; merely labeling a claim federal without identifying its federal source does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Woodruff v. Crain Per ORDER of 8/27/2021: "...The Clerk of the Court shall return to unfiled any othe · filed 2021-08-12

He alleges “federal conspiracy and collusion,” but does not identify a federal statute or constitutional provision from which his claim(s) arises.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a complaint asserts a colorable claim under a federal law that supplies a cause of action, even if the claim may fail on the merits.

Boim v. American Muslims for Palestine · filed 2021-08-16

All that matters for § 1331 jurisdiction is that the amended complaint “pleads a colorable claim ‘arising under’ the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction for claims founded on federal common law, including a valid claim for trespass on Indian lands.

JoAnn Chase v. Andeavor Logistics, L.P. · filed 2021-09-13

The statutory grant of jurisdiction in § 1331 “will support claims founded upon federal common law as well as those of a statutory origin.” Nat’l Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845, 850 (1985). In this case, we see no serious question of subject matter jurisdiction because if the Allottees have a valid claim for Andeavor’s alleged trespass on Indian lands, without question it is a claim under ... federal law.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint does not permit the court to conclude that the claim arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

TORO v. FEDERAL DEPT. AGRICULTURE PREGNANCY TEST · filed 2021-09-15

The complaint fails to state a claim, to the point that it falls short of permitting the Court to conclude that it arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over federal common law claims implicating clear federal interests in interstate shipping and commerce.

MITSUI SUMITOMO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA v. HELLMANN WORLDWIDE LOGISTICS INC. · filed 2021-09-20

First, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the claim raised in the Complaint arises under federal common law and implicates clear federal interests regarding the regulation of interstate shipping and commerce.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal question; a defamation claim based entirely in state law does not qualify.

Adu-Beniako v. Medical Board of California (MDC) · filed 2021-09-30

A federal court has the authority to adjudicate controversies “arising under” federal law, that is, that involve a substantial federal question. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. But the plaintiff’s defamation claim is based entirely in state law.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action or a state-law right necessarily turns on construing federal law.

(PS) Young v. Burlingham · filed 2021-10-15

A case “arises under” federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or “where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law.”

Section 1331 requires a cause of action arising under federal law for federal-question jurisdiction.

Mills v. Dollar General Corporate Office · filed 2021-10-18

To assert federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Plaintiff must state a cause of action arising under federal law, which Plaintiff’s Complaint currently fails to do.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction merely because a complaint cites the Constitution or federal statutes when its allegations sound in state law.

O'Neal v. Allstate Indemnity Insurance Company Inc. · filed 2021-10-19

Plaintiff’s adornment of his complaint with references to the Constitution and federal statutes does not create federal ques- tion jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges no violation of federal law and does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Gabar v. Patterson · filed 2021-10-25

Despite Plaintiff’s suggestion otherwise, there is no indication that the allegations of her complaint are based on any violation of federal law. The instant action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Therefore, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction only when an action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Graville v. United States · filed 2021-11-01

The instant action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Therefore, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 grants jurisdiction over federal-law claims and state-law claims raising a substantial federal question; SEQRA and illegal contract zoning claims arise under state law despite being labeled federal claims.

Eisenbach v. Village of Nelsonville · filed 2021-11-01

Federal courts possess original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under” federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This includes any state-law cause of action that raises a “substantial federal question.” ... Although plaintiffs style their allegations of SEQRA violations (Count I) and illegal contract zoning (Count III) as federal claims (see Am. Compl. at 21 (“Federal claims for relief”)), the Court finds these claims arise under state law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action or the complaint necessarily depends on a substantial question of federal law.

Sorace v. Orinda Care Center, LLC · filed 2021-11-09

Causes of action “arise under” federal law in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1331 if federal law creates the cause of action or the complaint necessarily depends on a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to show that the claim arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Hawkins v. Riley Pope and Laney, LLC · filed 2021-12-15

As such, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that his claim arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” as required by § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when an EEOC charge attached to a complaint alleges a Title VII violation, because the charge becomes part of the pleading.

Hairston v. Sun Belt Conference Inc. · filed 2021-12-16

Because Plaintiff attached the EEOC Charge asserting federal claims to the Complaint, it became a part of his pleading for all purposes. As a result, removal based on federal question jurisdiction was proper.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over tribal council claims pleaded as common law tort and conversion when federal law neither creates the claims nor supplies a substantial question necessary to resolve them.

Newtok Village v. Patrick · filed 2021-12-22

In the case now before us—examining the particular facts of the claims asserted and applying the well-pleaded complaint rule—we hold that subject matter jurisdiction has not been shown. The New Council’s claims as pleaded simply do not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 requires a cause of action created by federal law or a claim whose outcome depends on the validity, construction, or effect of federal law.

Basic Water Company v. South West Enterprise Holdings, LLC · filed 2022-02-17

In sum, it is not apparent from the face of the complaint that Basic Water’s cause of action was created by federal law, see Merrell Dow, 478 U.S. at 808, or that the validity, construction, or effect of federal law is determinative.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to show that federal law creates the cause of action or that relief necessarily depends on resolving a substantial question of federal law.

Harradon v. Chase Bank · filed 2022-02-23

Plaintiff’s complaint does not identify any federal law on which his claim is based or a substantial question of federal law. The Court finds, then, that it has no federal question jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; allegations that suggest no viable federal claim do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Vaughn v. Ryan Health Care Center · filed 2022-03-07

Because Plaintiff’s allegations do not suggest a viable claim arising under federal law, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint seeks remedies created by federal law or relief depends on a substantial question of federal law.

HUDNALL v. STATE OF TEXAS · filed 2022-03-21

Thus, it is clear on the face of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint that he seeks remedies created by federal law and dependent on the resolution of substantial questions of federal law.

Section 1331 requires claims to arise under federal law on the face of the complaint; apparent medical malpractice and conspiracy claims do not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Toussaint v. Venante · filed 2022-03-25

Accordingly, it does not appear facially that his claims “arise under” federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction over a breach of contract claim that does not arise under federal law.

Person v. Training Services, Inc. · filed 2022-03-28

Count II, Aviation Institute’s only remaining claim against Higher Ed, does not “arise under” federal law; therefore, the Court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction over it.

Section 1331 requires a civil action to arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States for federal-question jurisdiction.

Stanberry-Sproles v. Arizona Department of Child Safety · filed 2022-04-08

The complaint also fails to establish that this is a civil action “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” as required for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim that does not arise under federal law.

Robl v. Pennsylvania State Police · filed 2022-04-12

Since all that remains in this lawsuit is a state law contract claim, it is evident that the complaint does not allege any “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, giving rise to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; unsupported references to civil rights or constitutional rights do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Fenton v. Kirk · filed 2022-04-20

Plaintiff broadly claims that Defendants’ actions implicate “civil rights” and her constitutional rights, see id. at 3, but Plaintiff fails to plead any facts to support any claims arising under the Constitution or the Civil Rights Act. ... Accordingly, it does not appear facially that Plaintiff’s claims “arise under” federal law.

Section 1331 requires facts showing that a claim arises under federal law; vague allegations do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Walker v. Brookdale Plaze University Hospital and Medical Center · filed 2022-04-20

Nor does the plaintiff allege facts to show that his claims arise under the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim or another basis for the action to arise under federal law.

JW Seals v. Itex Group, LLC · filed 2022-04-26

Nor does the action appear to assert any viable federal claim or otherwise arise under federal law.

Section 1331 gives a district court original jurisdiction over a civil action alleging violations of federal statutes.

Taveras v. U.S. Bank National Association · filed 2022-05-06

The Court has original jurisdiction over this civil action as provided for by 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and it has been properly removed to this Court by the Defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c). The allegations set forth in the complaint render this action a civil action “arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States,” as Taveras alleges that the Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962, among other federal statutes.

Section 1331 requires an action to arise under federal law for federal-question jurisdiction to exist.

Johnson v. South Bend Housing Authority · filed 2022-05-27

First, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction. For federal question jurisdiction to exist, the action must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States for federal-question jurisdiction.

Mayer v. Feickert · filed 2022-05-31

Further, Mr. Mayer does not assert that his claim arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” as required for federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States for federal-question jurisdiction.

Onni Real Estate IX, LLC v. Edwards · filed 2022-06-01

The Complaint does not invoke federal question jurisdiction, as it does not assert 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 over these state-law nursing-home claims because they do not arise under federal law.

Rivera v. Eastchester Rehabilitation and Health Care, L.L.C. · filed 2022-06-21

Plaintiff's claims do not “arise under” federal law.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction when federal law creates the claim or the well-pleaded complaint necessarily depends on a substantial question of federal law.

Ramani v. Facebook LLC · filed 2022-07-06

A case “arises under” federal law where federal law creates the plaintiff’s cause of action, or where “the well-pleaded complaint necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law tort claim that does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Alleyne v. Gonzalez · filed 2022-07-27

A review of the Complaint reveals no federal question jurisdiction over Alleyne’s claims against defendants Rosa Gonzalez and Daniel Rudolpho Gonzalez because the averments do not arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §1331. Rather, Alleyne pleads a state-law tort claim against his former cellmate and the cellmate’s mother.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action or an essential element raises a substantial federal question.

Lamar Central Outdoor, LLC v. Mike · filed 2022-08-10

A court possesses federal question jurisdiction only if federal law creates the cause of action or an essential element of the cause of action raises a substantial question of federal law. ... Plaintiff's Complaint reveals that the causes of action do not raise a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; a party’s status as a national bank alone does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. v. ARSENIS · filed 2022-08-19

But Bank of America’s mere status as a national bank fails to confer jurisdiction on the Court through a federal question. Instead, the proper inquiry is whether the matter at hand arises under federal law. It does not.

Section 1331 is not satisfied by passing references to federal law in a complaint alleging state-law claims.

Hunter v. City of Jacksonville · filed 2022-09-13

These passing references to federal law do not establish federal question jurisdiction, and a plain reading of the complaint does not lead to the conclusion that Plaintiffs are alleging federal claims.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject-matter jurisdiction only over cases arising under another source of federal law.

Karam v. Garland · filed 2022-09-30

Similarly, the federal question statute vests federal courts with subject-matter jurisdiction only in cases “arising under” some other source of federal law.

Section 1331 requires more than an invocation of federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Colvin v. Tako LLC · filed 2022-11-07

While Colvin is correct that under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, United States district courts have original federal question jurisdiction “of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” not every invocation of federal law will suffice to make the claim subject to federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction merely because defendants participate in interstate commerce.

Smulley v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois · filed 2022-11-08

Defendants’ participation in interstate commerce is not enough to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.

Bey v. State of New Mexico · filed 2022-12-20

Furthermore, Bey has not shown that the Court possesses original subject-matter jurisdiction over his case in Bayard Magistrate Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because he has not shown that his case arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

A complaint that states no basis under a federal statute or the Constitution fails to establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Vazquez v. Hometown Health Center · filed 2023-03-14

With respect to federal question jurisdiction, the complaint fails to state what, if any, federal statute or provision of the Constitution this action arises under.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when an action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Blanchard v. Miller · filed 2023-04-04

The instant action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treatises of the United States, so federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that raises no substantial question of federal law.

DeCamp v. Picone · filed 2023-04-24

The complaint does not raise any substantial question of federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action or a substantial federal question arises in a state-law claim.

Tule Lake Committee v. Faa · filed 2023-05-01

A case can “arise under” federal law in two ways: either (1) the federal law creates a cause of action, or (2) a “substantial federal question” arises in a state-law claim.

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

Cobra 28 No 8 LP v. Aguilar · filed 2023-05-03

First, no basis for federal question jurisdiction has been identified. The Complaint does not include any claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Rather, the underlying action is an unlawful detainer proceeding, arising under and governed by the laws of the State of California.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates the asserted cause of action.

Ritrovato v. Eastern Bank · filed 2023-05-04

For purposes of § 1331, a case arises under federal law when “federal law creates the cause of action asserted.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction under the Grable doctrine over these state-law nursing-home claims arising from COVID-19 health and safety policies.

Abel v. Rutland Nursing Home, Inc. · filed 2023-05-11

As argued in similar cases both in this district and across the country, Defendant Rutland Nursing Home, Inc. here premised removal on three grounds: ... (3) that Plaintiff’s claims “arise under” federal law, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the Grable doctrine, see Grable & Sons Metal Prod., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 312 (2005). ... For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to remand is GRANTED because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action.

Section 1331 requires a civil action to arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Rothschild v. Gildred · filed 2023-06-21

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a civil action to arise under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ... Accordingly, the Complaint does not allege a basis for either federal question or diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a federal common-law rule governs because a uniquely federal interest requires displacement of conflicting state law.

Ray v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association · filed 2023-07-11

That requirement brings the case within the purview of 1331 and, by extension, 1441(a).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges a cause of action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Krueger v. Wells Fargo · filed 2023-07-12

Krueger’s complaint does not allege a cause of action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.1 Because federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable, the court must determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists.

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

Krueger v. Vichich · filed 2023-07-12

Krueger’s complaint does not allege a cause of action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.1 Because federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable, the court must determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Smith v. Burgess · filed 2023-07-13

The instant action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, so federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to identify a federal basis for jurisdiction; an unidentifiable statutory reference and a state statute do not suffice.

Rajkarnikar v. Azia · filed 2023-08-08

The first law to which the plaintiff refers, “§ 4107” is not identifiable as a relevant federal statute, and she provides insufficient information for the court to ascertain whether there is a federal statute to which she is attempting to refer. The second law to which she refers is clearly a Connecticut statute. Even when the court construes the Complaint as raising the strongest arguments it suggests, it fails to show that this court jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the complaint mentions federal law.

Harris v. City of San Diego, San Diego Police Department · filed 2023-08-14

Based on the Court’s review of the FAC, it alleges only state law causes of action. Defendants have not met their burden to show that the FAC still alleges multiple violations of federal rights. The mere mention of federal laws in a paragraph of the complaint captioned as a state law cause of action is not enough to convert that cause of action into a federal count.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint, even liberally construed, identifies no federal statute or constitutional provision at issue.

Mungamuri v. City of Brentwood, MO · filed 2023-08-15

Plaintiff fails to further elaborate on that assertion, and nothing alleged in the Complaint, however liberally construed, suggests that a federal statute or Constitutional provision is at issue in this matter. Thus, Plaintiff has also failed to carry her burden of establishing the existence of federal question jurisdiction, and Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.

Section 1331 requires a civil action to arise under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties of the United States.

Moen v. Moen · filed 2023-09-15

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a civil action to arise under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the cause of action is not federal and no actually disputed, substantial federal issue is raised.

Thomas -El v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Company, LLC · filed 2023-09-29

This case does not arise under any of these laws. The cause of action is not federal and there are no federal issues that are “actually disputed and substantial.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges only a state law claim and no facts suggesting a violation of federal law.

McDowell v. Manhattan Medical Associates LLC · filed 2023-11-07

Here, Plaintiff invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction but does not state facts suggesting that MMA violated any federal law. Rather, the facts alleged suggest state law claims of fraud. The Court therefore cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction of any state law claim Plaintiff may be asserting.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law; an appeal arising under state zoning law does not qualify.

Spaulding NOV - Decision on Motion · filed 2023-11-15

Federal district courts lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Arguably relevant here, federal district courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This is otherwise referred to as “federal question” jurisdiction. Id. This appeal is not a civil action arising out of federal law, the United States Constitution, or federal treaties.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action or the right to relief necessarily depends on resolving a substantial question of federal law.

Tao v. Elite Cold Storage, LLC · filed 2023-11-15

But the Complaint, on its face, does not establish either that “federal law creates the cause of action or that [ P]laintiff[s’] right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action or the claim necessarily requires resolution of a substantial federal question.

Singh v. Hyundai Motor America · filed 2023-12-01

An action “arises under” federal law pursuant to § 1331 if the cause of action is (1) created by federal law, or (2) necessarily requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff’s claim to arise under federal law for federal-question jurisdiction.

Chandler v. Kentucky Automotive Enterprises LLC · filed 2023-12-05

In this case, Plaintiff has failed to provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction and complete diversity does not exist. As a result, this court lacks jurisdiction over this case and must dismiss it.

Section 1331 requires the right being enforced to arise from federal law; identifying a federal issue alone does not establish jurisdiction.

Healy v. Supreme Court of South Dakota · filed 2023-12-14

Merely identifying a federal issue, however, is not enough to confer federal jurisdiction; rather, the right being enforced must arise from federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a slip-and-fall claim with no discernible connection to federal law, a treaty, or the Constitution.

Richardson v. Dalasta · filed 2023-12-27

Here, as with the Court’s earlier consideration of Plaintiff’s case and the parties’ filings, Plaintiff does not make, and even under a liberal construction, the Court is unable to decipher a connection between Plaintiff’s factual allegations of personal injury due to a slip and fall and any federal question arising under any federal law, treaty, or the Constitution.

Section 1331 requires allegations showing that an action arises under federal law; using a civil rights complaint form alone does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Mendez v. Cano · filed 2024-01-23

Nor is there any properly alleged federal question jurisdiction. Although Plaintiff Raymond F. Mendez filed the Amended Complaint using the form “Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,” there are no allegations showing that this action "aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States for federal-question jurisdiction.

Tosun v. Wyatts Towing · filed 2024-01-31

He also has made no attempt to show (nor does it appear he could) that his claim arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Thus, federal question jurisdiction is also lacking.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim with a federal issue only when that issue is necessarily raised, actually disputed, substantial, and resolvable in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance.

University of Puerto Rico Retirement Board v. University of Puerto Rico · filed 2024-02-07

A case arises under federal law: (1) “when federal law creates the cause of action asserted;” and (2) in a “special and small category” of cases where state law creates the cause of action, as long as the federal issue is: (i) necessarily raised; (ii) actually disputed; (iii) substantial; and (iv) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a complaint cites federal statutes.

Slocum v. Value Max Finance Company S-Corp. · filed 2024-02-12

Merely citing federal law does not confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint shows that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolving federal law.

Domann v. Frontier Airlines, Inc. · filed 2024-02-15

Plaintiffs’ complaint establishes that their right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of federal law. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that it has federal question jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint’s passing reference to a federal statute establishes neither a federal cause of action nor a substantial federal question.

Rogers v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. · filed 2024-03-14

And the passing reference does not clearly establish a federal cause of action in this matter or present a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint’s ambiguous references to federal law fail to establish a federal claim.

Gillespie v. Google LLC · filed 2024-03-26

At least on this record, Gillespie’s conclusory and ambiguous references to federal law are insufficient to establish what claims Gillespie seeks to assert, much less the actual legal basis upon which he relies.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action or the right to relief necessarily depends on a substantial federal-law question.

Mugabo v. Wagner · filed 2024-04-15

A case arises under federal law within the meaning of § 1331 if the complaint “establishes either that federal law creates a cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”

Section 1331 grants jurisdiction over disputes arising under federal law; state-law eviction actions typically do not qualify.

9 ROSA PARKS LLC v. SAMKOGH · filed 2024-04-29

Federal question jurisdiction exists when a dispute “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Federal courts typically lack subject matter jurisdiction over state eviction actions and other landlord-tenant matters.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a rental dispute based solely on allegations of state-court judicial bias under 28 U.S.C. § 144.

Saul v. Thomas · filed 2024-05-01

Plaintiff has not shown that the Court has federal question jurisdiction over this case. ... Accordingly, this case cannot be said to “arise” from § 144 such that the Court has federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint does not arise under federal law.

Grate v. State of South Carolina · filed 2024-05-13

In her Report, the Magistrate Judge carefully and liberally outlined Plaintiff’s claims and found that this action is subject to summary dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amended complaint does not arise under federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and diversity jurisdiction does not exist, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ... After review, the Court finds no merit to Plaintiff’s objections, and the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when an amended complaint asserts state law claims and makes only passing references to federal law.

Stewart v. Truist Financial · filed 2024-06-13

Stewart’s vague, passing reference to a “violation of Federal law” does not constitute a claim under a federal statute or otherwise give rise to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law rent action merely because the defendant cites federal criminal statutes.

Monument City Rentals, LLC v. Thompson-Mckoy · filed 2024-07-03

Defendant cites to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and various criminal statutes, such as conspiracy against rights (18 U.S.C. § 241), deprivation of rights under color or law (18 U.S.C. § 242), and receiving proceeds of extortion (18 U.S.C. § 880). It is clear that the instant case does not arise under any federal law cited to by Defendant in her Notice of Removal.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction for civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Barnett v. Travis County, Texas · filed 2024-07-30

Federal question jurisdiction may be established in civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. But nothing in the record provides a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over a claim sounding in negligence and common law.

Pearson v. Bowser · filed 2024-09-23

First, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the court may exercise federal question jurisdiction. ... He does, however, describe the suit numerous times as sounding in negligence and the common law. ... Such a claim does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when an issue arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Evergreen South, LLC v. Travelers Indemnity Company (CONSENT) · filed 2024-10-04

Nor has the court’s independent review of the record uncovered any issue that reasonably could be construed as “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a cause of action arising under federal law for federal-question jurisdiction to attach.

IRVING v. JACK DANIELS AUDI · filed 2024-10-21

Federal question jurisdiction exists when a dispute “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. While Plaintiff’s Complaint indicates that this case involves theft, “trickery,” and “deception,” the Complaint does not set forth any facts that identify a cause of action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States such that federal question jurisdiction would attach.

Section 1331 requires facts supporting a federal claim; alleging constitutional violations does not establish federal-question jurisdiction when the requested relief arises from state property tax law.

Abraytis v. Indiana Tax Court · filed 2024-11-06

Here, although in reading the Plaintiff’s claims generously she appears to allege violations of her rights under the United States Constitution for “discrimination” and a “civil rights violation,” the Plaintiff does not allege any facts to support such claims. But even if her allegations were sufficient, the Plaintiff’s requested relief arises from Indiana property tax laws, as she requests that this Court revise the Porter County Assessor’s 2020 and 2021 tax assessments on her residential property. ... Thus, the Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a civil action to arise under federal law, the Constitution, or a treaty for federal-question jurisdiction.

Carter v. Wells Fargo & Company · filed 2024-11-18

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a civil action to arise under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ... Plaintiff does not claim any federal law violations that would confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to establish that the action arises under federal law; a complaint identifying no federal law fails to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Ortega v. America First Credit Union · filed 2024-11-19

As to bringing a claim under federal law, Ms. Ortega does not cite or mention any federal law under which his action is brought.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States for federal-question jurisdiction.

Taylor v. Baker · filed 2024-12-05

Taylor’s complaint also does not assert any claims “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” as federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Tucker v. First York Capital, LLC · filed 2024-12-05

To begin with, Tucker cannot invoke federal question jurisdiction because none of his allegations “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a federal statute creates the cause of action or the cause of action presents a substantial question of federal law.

Rahaman v. Boedeker · filed 2024-12-19

A claim arises under federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when (i) the cause of action is created by a federal statute or (ii) the cause of action presents a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 requires more than invoking a federal statute or constitutional right to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Myles v. Thompson · filed 2024-12-27

Additionally, Plaintiffs’ invocation of a federal statute or constitutional right is insufficient to confer federal court subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim under Idaho’s medical-parole statute because the claim does not arise under federal law.

Sivak v. Pardons and Parole Commission · filed 2024-12-30

The Court also lacks federal question jurisdiction because an action brought pursuant to Idaho Code § 20-1006 does not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under federal common law.

Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe v. Madore · filed 2025-02-12

First, the district court and this court plainly have federal question jurisdiction because the Band’s claims arise under federal common law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Shahrokhi v. Boutos · filed 2025-02-18

he brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, so federal question jurisdiction applies as this action arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal cause of action or a state-law claim whose resolution necessarily turns on a question of federal law.

Griego v. CHAPS Housing Assistant Program · filed 2025-02-18

As to federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Plaintiff must demonstrate that her claim “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” To meet this requirement Plaintiff must plead a cause of action under federal law or show that “the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law.” Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Fran. Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr. for S. California, 463 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1983)).

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

Twardy v. Ocwen Financial Corporation · filed 2025-03-19

But the Court lacks federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 since the claims do not arise under federal law, and it lacks diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) since there is no complete diversity.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the alleged facts do not show that the case arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Robinson v. Butler · filed 2025-03-26

Although Plaintiff objects to the Report, Plaintiff does not identify any facts that refute the Report’s finding that the facts stated are “insufficient to show that the case is one ‘arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.’” (DE 38 at 5) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1331.) The objection also does not address the Report’s other jurisdictional impediments. The Court, therefore, overrules Plaintiff’s objection.

Section 1331 requires a federal cause of action or a right to relief that necessarily depends on a substantial question of federal law; reliance on state law alone does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

White v. State of Oklahoma · filed 2025-04-10

Petitioner cites state law, rather than federal law, as the authority purportedly permitting his requested relief and has therefore failed to affirmatively plead federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when an action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Germany v. US Bank · filed 2025-04-15

The instant action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, so federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable.