28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction over Oil Pollution Act claims because the Act creates a new federal cause of action.

Tanguis v. M/V WESTCHESTER · filed 2001-04-12

Interpreting OPA as creating federal question claims is also consistent with the text of OPA’s jurisdictional provision. ... This language is consistent with federal question jurisdiction because it uses the “arising under” language of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, expressly obviates the need for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and does not invoke “admiralty or maritime jurisdiction” under 28 U.S.C. § 1333. ... For all of these reasons, the Court concludes that OPA claims arise under the “Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States” and are removable to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because it cites federal statutes; the claim must arise under federal law or necessarily present a substantial, disputed federal question.

Sandoval v. New Mexico Technology Group LLC. · filed 2001-05-01

Thus, the law that creates the cause of action is state law, and original jurisdiction is unavailable unless it appears that some substantial, disputed question of federal law is a necessary element of the well-pleaded state claim, or that the claim is “really” one based on federal law. ... I find that Plaintiffs claims do not “arise under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 does not give federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because federal law may inform its analysis when federal law is not an essential component of the claim.

Dean v. Compass Receivables Management Corp. · filed 2001-06-27

Moreover, although the FDCPA may inform analysis of Chapter 93A claims, it is not an essential component of such claims. Accordingly, there is no FDCPA claim hidden behind plaintiffs’ complaint and this Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when resolving it necessarily requires construing federal law and the federal interest is sufficiently substantial.

John R. D'alessio, D'Alessio Securities, Inc. v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., Richard A. Grasso, Edward A. Kwalwasser, · filed 2001-07-19

In sum, because D’Alessio’s claims necessarily require a court to construe both the federal law governing securities trading on a national exchange and the NYSE’s role, as defined under federal law, in enforcing and monitoring a member’s compliance with those laws, we conclude that the federal interest underlying D’Alessio’s claims is sufficiently substantial to “arise under” federal law within the meaning of section 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim based on an embedded federal question only when a substantial question of federal law is essential to the claim.

Samples v. Conoco, Inc. · filed 2001-08-07

Because Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges state-law claims, federal question jurisdiction only exists if a substantial question of federal law is an essential component of each claim. Upon a review of Florida law, the Court concludes Plaintiffs’ right to relief does not depend on the construction or application of the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a substantial federal issue is an essential element of the claim.

U.S. Express Lines, Ltd. v. Higgins · filed 2002-02-15

We are persuaded that in the unique circumstances here, the federal issue set forth in the complaint is an essential element of the plaintiffs' cause of action. Accordingly, the case was properly removed and the District Court did not err in denying the motion to remand.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over claims that do not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Clark v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF COLUMBUS, MS · filed 2002-03-04

It is undisputed that neither federal question jurisdiction nor federal diversity jurisdiction are proper bases for the removal of this action to this court: the Plaintiffs' claims do not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States so as to invoke federal question jurisdiction, nor does complete diversity exist between the parties so as to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when resolving federal law is unnecessary, even if the complaint cites federal law.

Scaccia v. Lemmie · filed 2002-05-06

Count Eight of Plaintiffs Complaint does not arise under federal law, because resolution of federal law is not necessary or essential to that claim. In addition, Plaintiffs repeated citations to federal case law, as indications of the elements of his state law discrimination and retaliation claims, do not render them federal in nature.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when an alternative theory can resolve the claim without deciding a federal question.

Mitchell v. Lemmie · filed 2002-05-06

Thus, on its face, Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint states alternate theories supporting his state-law claims of breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and of wrongful retaliation and discharge in violation of public policy, at least one of which does not involve a federal question. Therefore, it is clear that the resolution of federal law is not necessary or essential to the resolution of those state law claims. Federal law does not predominate in this case. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ state law claims do not “arise under” federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because a federal statute without a private right of action supplies a standard for judging the defendant’s conduct.

In Re bridgestone/firestone Tires Products Liab. · filed 2002-06-12

In the absence of such authority, we find that the presence in this case of the Safety Act as a standard against which Defendants' actions could be judged is not the kind of "substantial" question of federal law required by Franchise Tax and Merrell Dow in order to confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a state-law complaint mentions a federal statute.

Nisbett v. Bridgestone Corp. · filed 2002-06-12

A rule providing that mere mention of a federal statute in a complaint based on a state cause of action confers federal question jurisdiction would be a simple rule to apply, but it is not the law and cannot aid Ford’s removal effort.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the complaint references federal law when independent state-law grounds support recovery.

Greer v. Crown Title Corp. · filed 2002-07-18

The fact that the complaint references, or is in some part based upon, federal law does not mean that this case “arises under” federal law as contemplated by § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law damages claim merely because a federal-law violation is an element of the claim when Congress excluded a federal damages remedy for that violation.

Doug Wander v. Jack S. Kaus Irene B. Kaus · filed 2002-09-20

We hold today that there is no federal-question jurisdiction over a lawsuit for damages brought under California’s Disabled Person’s Act, even though the California statute makes a violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act a violation of state law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state quiet-title claim that invokes federal statutes only as a factual standard for invalidating a property sale, without requiring their construction or interpretation.

Tempelman v. Colsia · filed 2002-09-26

In other words, while the Tempelmans rely on the application of § 2001 and § 2002 as the standard for invalidating the Marshal’s Deed, their asserted right does not depend on the particular construction or interpretation given to the statutes. Therefore, as pled, the Tempelmans’ complaint does not allege a claim arising under federal law, despite their reliance on federal statutes.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when proving a federal violation is unnecessary and the federal issue is not very substantial.

E.S. Bankest, LLC v. United Beverage Florida, LLC (In Re United Container LLC) · filed 2002-10-08

The facts in these proceedings do not satisfy either of these two prongs. First, it is not “necessary” for Bankest to prove federal law violations since non-federal predicate acts are included in both complaints. Second, proof of the federal predicate acts does not raise a “very substantial” federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because proof of a state-law claim may refer to federal law and rules to establish a standard of conduct.

New York v. Justin · filed 2002-11-12

Second, although Plaintiff acknowledged in its papers and at oral argument that proof of its claim may involve reference to federal law and SEC/NASD rules in establishing the relevant standard of conduct, this is not sufficient to confer federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because proving them may require establishing a violation of federal law.

Shields v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. · filed 2002-11-18

Even if it were true that Plaintiff would have to establish a violation of the Safety Act in order to prevail on her state law claims, that would not be sufficient to satisfy federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim supported by an independent state-law theory, even if another theory requires federal law.

Myhre v. AT & T · filed 2002-12-19

Chris-tianson, therefore, instructs that if a claim is supported not only by a theory establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction but also by an alternative and independent theory that does not establish such jurisdiction, then federal subject matter jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a complaint seeking recovery under a federal statute when it alleges facts directly related to the statutory claim.

Williams v. Swanson · filed 2003-01-09

In light of this standard, it is clear that the district court had jurisdiction to hear the instant dispute. Williams’ complaint was drawn so as to seek recovery under, among other things, the Federal Odometer Act, and he alleged facts directly related to his claim arising under that statute.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that require deciding whether a carrier’s recovery of universal service fund contributions violates federal law.

Hill v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. · filed 2003-01-28

Therefore, it concludes that any claims which contest the legality of Bell-South’s recovery of USF contributions, independent of any allegations of misrepresentation, implicate substantial questions of federal law and thus are completely preempted by the Communications Act. Accordingly, the court finds that it has jurisdiction over those claims which require a finding that BellSouth’s alleged practice of overcharging customers in the recovery of its USF contributions is unlawful.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when relief does not depend on construing or applying federal law.

Carson v. H & R BLOCK, INC. · filed 2003-01-29

There is no complaint by the plaintiffs that the rate of interest is usurious under state law or federal law, and their right to relief does not depend upon the construction or application of federal law. Thus, this Court’s removal jurisdiction cannot be invoked on this basis.

Section 1331 permits federal jurisdiction over a state-law claim that necessarily turns on a disputed, substantial federal issue when hearing it would preserve the congressionally approved division of work between state and federal courts.

Nicodemus v. Union Pacific Corp. · filed 2003-02-13

We agree that the contested interpretation of the federal land-grant statutes as between these parties involves a substantial federal issue. ... Finally, we are confident that providing a federal forum for the resolution of this issue will not disrupt “the sound division of labor between state and federal courts.”

Section 1331 provides original jurisdiction over a state law claim when an essential element requires resolution of a substantial federal question, including interpretation of a federal consent judgment.

Lessard v. City of Allen Park · filed 2003-02-25

Therefore, since the resolution of the “cause and control” elements turn on the resolution of federal law, as mandated by the Consent Judgments, a federal question appears on the face of the complaint and this court has original jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over APA claims that arise under federal law.

Howard v. Ashcroft · filed 2003-02-27

Because both of these claims state a cause of action “arising under” the laws of the United States, the court has jurisdiction to hear these claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over state law claims when proof of a meritorious federal claim is essential to establishing causation and damages.

Menoken v. McNamara · filed 2003-02-27

Because proof of a meritorious federal claim is an essential element of proximate causation and damages for each of his claims, the plaintiffs complaint presented a federal question within 28 U.S.C. § 1331 within this Court’s original jurisdiction, and it was therefore properly removed.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a claim that a territorial tax assessment method violates federal law.

Bluebeard's Castle v. Govt of VI · filed 2003-02-28

Because plaintiff ’s claims "arise under"S 1401a, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the District Court under 48 U.S.C. S 1612 and 28 U.S.C. S 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state law claim based on violation of a federal statute that provides no private federal remedy.

Neel v. Pippy · filed 2003-03-06

Because “a private federal remedy for violating a federal statute is a prerequisite for finding federal question jurisdiction,” Smith, 957 F.2d at 94, this Court must conclude that it has no subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims based upon the alleged violation of 10 U.S.C. § 973.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because a court must examine federal law to decide whether the claims may proceed.

Frazier v. Turning Stone Casino · filed 2003-03-31

The fact that the Court must review federal statutory and case law to determine whether Plaintiffs may pursue their state law claims against Defendants in federal court does not transform Plaintiffs’ action from one arising under New York law into one arising under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a state-law claim implicates a federal statute that creates no private right of action.

In Re bridgestone/firestone, Inc · filed 2003-04-21

For the reasons discussed at length in Nisbett, the fact that the plaintiffs' state law claims may implicate certain provisions of the Safety Act is not sufficient to create federal question jurisdiction, especially in light of the fact that the Safety Act does not create a private right of action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because they implicate a federal statute that creates no private right of action.

Turnage v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 2003-04-21

For the reasons discussed at length in Nisbett, the fact that the plaintiffs’ state law claims may implicate certain provisions of the Safety Act is not sufficient to create federal question jurisdiction, especially in light of the fact that the Safety Act does not create a private right of action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because a state court may need to interpret federal law when the federal statutes at issue provide no private cause of action.

Guckin v. Nagle · filed 2003-04-28

The fact that the state court may need to inquire into federal statutes or apply federal law, in the absence of a private cause of action under the FDCA and MDA, renders any federal question or issue that may exist insufficiently substantial to confer federal question jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the underlying dispute presents no claim arising under federal law.

McLaughlin v. Kickham, et al. · filed 2003-05-13

Nor does the underlying litigation appear to...involve any claims “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. As a result, the court lacks both diversity and federal question jurisdiction - a defect which, unlike some of the others associated with the notice of removal, may not be waived by the parties.

Section 1331 can cover a state-law claim when the right to relief requires resolution of a substantial disputed question of federal law.

Couloute v. Hunt, Leibert, Chester & Jacobson, LLC · filed 2003-07-02

Even if the complaint pleads a state cause of action it can still arise under the federal law for jurisdictional purposes if the “right to relief under state law requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law in dispute between the parties.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when federal law supplies only an alternative theory and an independent state-law theory supports the claim.

Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission · filed 2003-09-05

Because proof of a federal equal protection argument is only one alternative theory of the state cause of action, under Ninth Circuit precedent there is no federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when an alternative theory of relief rests entirely on state law.

Cavette v. Mastercard International Inc. · filed 2003-09-17

Furthermore, even if federal law could form a basis for Plaintiffs TCPA claim, the presence of an alternate theory of relief based entirely on state law is sufficient to block federal court jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the complaint refers to federal regulatory statements or disciplinary action as examples of alleged misconduct.

Lippitt v. Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. · filed 2003-09-22

It should be obvious, then, that mere references by way of example to statements made by the chairman of a federal agency or from a disciplinary action issued by a registered exchange are not enough to confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state common-law claims merely because federal statutes without private causes of action may be relevant as elements of those claims.

Barrientos v. UT-BATTELLE, LLC · filed 2003-09-26

To the extent that those federal statutes will become relevant to Plaintiffs’ state common-law claims, they will only be relevant as an element of a state-law claim. The fact that these federal statutes do not create private causes of action demonstrates that they are not sufficiently important to Plaintiffs’ common-law claims to create federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims based on federal statutes, including RICO.

Deborah Baker and Richard Enyeart v. Ibp, Inc. · filed 2004-02-04

RICO is a federal statute, and a claim based on it therefore arises under federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when resolving the claim requires examination of federal law.

Pressman v. MERIDIAN MORTG. CO., INC. · filed 2004-04-01

Federal question jurisdiction can exist where resolution of state claims requires examination of federal law.

Section 1331 gives federal question jurisdiction over state-law claims seeking monetary damages when those claims implicate the federal filed rate doctrine and thus raise substantial questions of federal law.

Hill v. BellSouth Telecommunications · filed 2004-04-02

We therefore hold that Hill's two remaining claims implicate the filed rate doctrine because she seeks purely monetary damages as relief. Thus, these two claims raise substantial questions of federal law, and federal question jurisdiction should have attached.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims whose resolution does not necessarily depend on a substantial question of federal law.

Estate of Rath v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. · filed 2004-04-14

Rath’s complaint alleges two causes of action based squarely on state law — one for violation of the Illinois consumer fraud statute, the other for unjust enrichment. Rath’s right to relief on both claims does not depend necessarily on any substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 permits federal jurisdiction over a state-law claim when vindicating the asserted state-law right necessarily requires construing a substantial question of federal law.

Bracey v. Board Of Education Of City Of Bridgeport · filed 2004-05-11

We therefore conclude that the vindication of Bracey's state-law rights as asserted in his well-pleaded section 31-51q cause of action requires that a court "construe" federal First Amendment law and "evaluate [its] scope." D'Alessio v. N.Y. Stock Exch., Inc., 258 F.3d 93, 101 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1066, 122 S.Ct. 666, 151 L.Ed.2d 580 (2001). The federal question raised by Bracey's claim is thus substantial. Id. at 101-02. The district court was therefore correct in exercising jurisdiction over the claim.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a state-law claim whose resolution necessarily requires construction of a substantial question of federal law.

Bracey v. Board of Education · filed 2004-05-11

We therefore conclude that the vindication of Bracey’s state-law rights as asserted in his well-pleaded section 31-51q cause of action requires that a court “construe” federal First Amendment law and “evaluate [its] scope.” ... The federal question raised by Bracey’s claim is thus substantial. ... The district court was therefore correct in exercising jurisdiction over the claim.

Section 1331 permits federal jurisdiction over a state-law claim when resolving it requires interpreting federal law that presents a substantial federal interest.

Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing · filed 2004-07-27

In sum, Grable’s quiet title action presents a federal question because it is rooted in the Internal Revenue Code, the correct interpretation of which represents a substantial federal interest.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the only remaining claims sound in state law.

McNiff v. Asset Management Specialists, Inc. · filed 2004-09-30

Having determined that all claims against the United States of America and its agencies must be dismissed, the only remaining claims sound in state law. We conclude that there is no federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when an essential federal obligation must be interpreted to resolve a substantial question of federal law.

Bobo v. Christus Health · filed 2005-01-31

After conducting a pragmatic assessment of the nature of the federal interest at stake, the court concludes that federal-question jurisdiction exists. A federal obligation is an essential element of the plaintiffs claims, an interpretation of that obligation is necessary to resolve the case, and the question of federal law is substantial.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that can succeed without resolving a federal question.

Mangum v. Child Abuse Prevention Ass'n · filed 2005-02-22

In short, the complaint’s cause of action for gross negligence does not rely exclusively on a First Amendment violation to establish the Defendants’ liability. The Plaintiff could prove every other allegation, such as failing to see that she was adequately cared for and failing to take any action to intervene in a sexual battery their agents witnessed, and not invoke religious freedoms at all. As such, this Court does not have original jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim that state enforcement violates a tribe’s sovereignty and self-governance rights under federal law.

Aroostook Band of Micmacs v. Ryan · filed 2005-04-13

For § 1331 purposes, Count I adequately alleges that, pursuant to federal common law and the Federal Micmac Settlement Act, the Band possesses both inherent tribal sovereignty and a statutory right to self-governance, and that the enforcement of state law against the Band violates these rights.

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

Robertson v. Meinig · filed 2005-06-07

Moreover, Robertson has not asserted any claims arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties of the United States as required for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supports federal question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a substantial, disputed federal issue is a necessary element of that claim.

Becnel v. KPMG LLP · filed 2005-06-21

Federal question jurisdiction may also exist where a substantial and disputed question of federal law is a necessary element of the state claims. ... Accordingly, removal of the case was proper as federal question jurisdiction is present under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Com. of Kentucky v. China Tob. Anyang Cig. Factory · filed 2005-08-04

The only reason that federal law will be considered is because Defendants will raise it. This, in the Court’s view, is not sufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law case when at least one distinct claim necessarily raises a disputed, substantial federal issue that a federal forum may hear without upsetting the congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Broder v. Cablevision Systems · filed 2005-08-11

A single claim over which federal-question jurisdiction exists is sufficient to allow removal. ... The complaint in this case therefore satisfies all three prongs of the Grable test for federal-question removal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal jurisdiction over a state-law claim presenting a substantial and disputed federal question only when exercising jurisdiction preserves the balance of responsibilities between federal and state courts.

State of Wisconsin v. Abbott Laboratories · filed 2005-09-29

Although plaintiffs claims present a substantial and disputed question of federal law, removal of the present case is proper only if it will not disturb the balance struck by Congress between the federal and state courts. ... Because this case does not implicate an overriding federal interest and because removal would disturb the balance of judicial responsibilities between state and federal courts, I conclude that removal of this action was improper.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over a state-law claim raising a disputed and substantial federal issue only when hearing it is consistent with Congress’s intended division of responsibility between state and federal courts.

Buis v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2005-11-18

In deciding this issue, the court must determine whether the exercise of “federal jurisdiction is consistent with congressional judgment about the sound division of labor between state and federal courts” as it relates to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim that raises substantial, contested federal issues when a federal forum does not disturb the balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

McMahon v. Presidential Airways, Inc. · filed 2006-01-24

This case presents no danger of interference with the balance between federal and state judicial responsibilities. As noted above, the federal issues are quite substantial and exercise of jurisdiction by this federal district court does not offend the traditional state-federal judicial balance. Thus, removal jurisdiction is properly based on the presence of substantial federal questions in this suit.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over claims under § 1983, but not over a state-law claim for attorney-fee indemnification that alleges no violation of federal law or rights.

Pierce v. Gilchrist · filed 2006-02-10

Because § 1983 is a federal law, the district court had jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which states “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... The district court therefore did not have original jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims unless a claim necessarily depends on interpreting or applying federal law.

Sung Ex Rel. Lazard Ltd. v. Wasserstein · filed 2006-02-17

No cause of action here necessarily stands or falls based on a particular interpretation or application of federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that would significantly shift routine state disputes into federal court, even if the claim involves a disputed federal issue.

Evans v. COURTESY CHEVROLET II, LP · filed 2006-02-24

Even if this court found that Evans’s state-law claims necessarily involved disputes as to TILA requirements, Courtesy Chevrolet has not met the second prong of Grable. That prong requires the federal court to determine whether it may entertain the lawsuit without “disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when none necessarily requires resolving a disputed issue of federal law.

Samuel Trading, LLC v. Diversified Group, Inc. · filed 2006-03-01

In the instant case, as in Cantwell, there is no claim that necessarily requires the interpretation of federal law. Accordingly, there is no substantially disputed federal question in this case.

Section 1331 permits federal jurisdiction over a state-law claim that necessarily turns on a disputed, substantial federal issue when a federal forum is consistent with the division of responsibility between federal and state courts.

Nicodemus v. Union Pacific Corporation · filed 2006-03-14

We agree that the contested interpretation of the federal land-grant statutes as between these parties involves a substantial federal issue. ... Thus, federal jurisdiction to resolve genuine disagreement over the scope of a right granted to the railroads pursuant to federal law "will portend only a microscopic effect on the federal-state division of labor." Grable & Sons, 125 S.Ct. at 2368.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when resolving the claim does not require deciding the federal regulatory issue it mentions.

Orbitz, LLC v. Worldspan, L.P. · filed 2006-04-03

Orbitz’s equitable estoppel claim also does not require the resolution of a federal issue. This claim is based upon the same allegedly deceptive conduct as its ICFA claim, which I already have determined does not require a finding that the agreement violated the DOT regulation.

State-law claims that permit recovery independently of TILA or RESPA do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

King v. Provident Bank · filed 2006-04-06

In the present case, however, King asserts valid state law claims which would permit recovery independent of any TILA violation. ... Therefore, the Court finds that there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction pursuant to TILA. ... Because King has stated valid state law claims independent of RESPA, the Court finds that there is also no basis for federal question jurisdiction pursuant to RESPA.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolving a substantial question of federal law.

Harrison v. Christus St. Patrick Hospital · filed 2006-05-04

Congress has given the lower federal courts jurisdiction to hear, originally or by removal from a state court, only those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law declaratory judgment claim that raises a substantial question requiring interpretation of federal law.

PNC Bank, N.A. v. PPL Electric Utilities Corp. · filed 2006-06-23

We find that PNC’s state-law declaratory judgment act claim raises a substantial federal question– the interpretation of section 501(c)(21) of the Internal Revenue Code– over which the District Court properly exercised removal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because they are said to raise important federal questions.

Deep v. Boies · filed 2006-06-26

What Deep has left is state claims. Deep admits as much in his response, but says: “the state law claims themselves raise important federal questions.” ... Whatever that may mean, it does not provide federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint pleads no federal claim and resolving its state-law claims does not necessarily require resolving a federal issue.

Hansard v. Forsyth County, Georgia · filed 2006-07-06

Because the complaint, on its face, did not plead a federal claim and resolution of the state law claims does not necessarily require resolution of any federal issues, the County did not have an objectively reasonable basis for removal.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over state-law securities claims that do not implicate federal law.

Bricker v. Martin · filed 2006-07-21

There is no federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over Bricker’s state law securities claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when their resolution does not require deciding an alleged federal regulatory violation.

Atanus v. S & C Electric Co. · filed 2006-08-04

Where the basis of removal is federal question jurisdiction, the plaintiffs cause of action must “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Even though defendants’ actions may have arguably violated the regulation, the determination of whether that regulatory violation occurred is not necessary to the resolution of any of Atanus’ claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law flood-policy procurement claims when the complaint does not necessarily raise a substantial federal issue.

Seruntine v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · filed 2006-08-07

Because plaintiffs’ claims relating to flood policy procurement do not arise under federal law and plaintiffs do not make any claims related to the handling of their flood policies in their petition, the Court finds that there is no basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that can be proved without establishing a violation of federal law.

Highland Capital Management LP v. Schneider · filed 2006-08-16

Initially, we hold that we lack federal question jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... We agree with Highland that its claim against the defendants for tortious interference with prospective business relations, as pleaded in its Third Amended Complaint, does not necessarily require Highland to prove a violation of federal law because the defendants’ “wrongful” conduct, at least as pleaded, may presumably be demonstrated without showing that the defendants violated federal securities laws.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because they share language and facts with federal claims; the state-law claims must be inherently federal or depend on a federal question or claim.

Contreras v. Host America Corp. · filed 2006-09-05

Thus, even though plaintiffs use in their Complaint some language identical to that of the complaints in the federal action, and the factual predicate of each action is identical, the claims asserted in this case cannot be said to be inherently federal in nature, or dependent on a federal question or federal claim, such that removal would be justified.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state law claims merely because the FTC Holder Rule lets a plaintiff assert them against a subsequent holder.

Glovier v. Barton Homes, LLC · filed 2006-09-13

Plaintiffs’ allegation in their petition that the FTC Holder Rule serves as a conduit by which they may assert state law claims does not convert their causes of action to ones that arise under federal law, so removal is not permitted.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a Medicaid eligibility claim that requires interpretation of federal Medicaid law.

James Ex Rel. James v. Richman · filed 2006-11-21

As such, this ease requires the Court to apply or interpret provisions of the federal Medicaid Act in order to determine whether the remedies sought by Plaintiff are warranted. ... Therefore, this case presents a federal question, vesting this Court with jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that do not necessarily require resolution of a substantial federal issue.

Blankenship v. Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc. · filed 2006-12-18

In this case, this court concludes that Plaintiffs’ claims are based solely on state law and do not turn on “substantial questions of federal law.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because a franchise agreement references federal law.

Lindstrom v. City of Des Moines, IA · filed 2007-01-16

First, the mere fact that Franchise Agreements reference the Federal Cable Act does not mean that the action arises under federal law, or even necessarily implicates federal law to any substantial extent.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim unless the right to relief necessarily depends on a substantial question of federal law.

Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC v. Bloomberg · filed 2007-01-29

Defendants have not established that Plaintiffs’ right to relief necessarily depends on a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over state-law suits that present substantial and disputed federal issues.

West Virginia Ex Rel. McGraw v. Eli Lilly & Co. · filed 2007-03-06

The motion to remand is denied. West Virginia’s suit poses substantial and disputed federal issues sufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim to enforce a privately negotiated interconnection-agreement term that is not derived from federal law.

Verizon New York Inc. v. Choice One Communications of New York, Inc. · filed 2007-03-27

It is difficult to see how this implicates a federal question sufficient for the invocation of subject matter jurisdiction under section 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the defendant is a state actor and the plaintiff asserts a state-created property interest.

Goros, Louis v. Cook County · filed 2007-06-11

The reason Moor was important is that §1983 and §1331 in combination do not allow state-law claims to be litigated in federal court just because the defendant is a state actor and the plain- tiff takes care to assert that state law creates a “property interest.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that lack a disputed and substantial federal question when exercising jurisdiction would upset the balance between state and federal courts.

Pennsylvania v. Eli Lilly & Company, Inc. · filed 2007-06-27

Because the Defendants have failed to satisfy their burden of demonstrating that the state law causes of action presented here raise a disputed and substantial question of federal law, and because the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction would contravene principles of federalism and comity, the Court must grant the Motion to Remand.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when an independent state-law theory can establish liability without resolving a federal issue.

De Pacheco v. Martinez · filed 2007-06-29

In the alternative, if Plaintiffs state-law claim could indeed hinge on interpretation of the cited sections of Title 8 of the CFR, the Court holds that this case does not necessarily raise a federal issue because the Texas UPL statutes act as alternative and independent theories of liability.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an action alleging only state-law claims that do not arise under federal law.

Avery v. GE Auto Insurance Program · filed 2007-07-16

The district court also properly found no federal question jurisdiction because the Averys’ action, which alleged breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, bad faith, unfair and deceptive practices, fraud on the court, malice, and failure to defend, does not arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the plaintiff can prevail on a theory that requires no interpretation of federal law.

Beechwood Development Group, Inc. v. Konersman · filed 2007-07-23

Accordingly, because Plaintiff can support its claim under Section 35 — 1— 509 with a theory of liability that does not call for an interpretation of federal law, no federal subject matter jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the alleged conduct is regulated by federal law; an embedded federal issue must be necessary and substantial.

Hirschbach v. NVE BANK · filed 2007-07-24

A state law cause of action does not give rise to a substantial and disputed question of federal law simply because it is predicated on conduct regulated by federal law.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because it contains a disputed federal issue; the federal interest must be substantial, and jurisdiction must preserve the congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Mikulski v. Centerior Energy Corp · filed 2007-08-21

The mere presence of a federal issue in a state law cause of action does not automatically confer federal question jurisdiction, either originally or on removal. ... The balance here weighs against the propriety of federal jurisdiction, and this case “cannot be squeezed into the slim category [of cases that] Grable exemplifies.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that do not necessarily turn on a substantial federal issue.

Utah v. Eli Lilly and Co. · filed 2007-09-04

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs Complaint does not raise significant federal issues or turn on substantial questions of federal law.

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

Mitchell v. Johnson · filed 2007-09-05

However, it is well settled that a defendant cannot create federal question jurisdiction by raising federal defenses to state law claims. ... As such, this court is not vested with subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not give federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the same conduct may also create federal liability.

In Re Pharmaceutical Ind. Aver. Wholesale Price · filed 2007-09-17

However, the fact that a defendant's allegedly fraudulent conduct may give rise to both state and federal liability, does not federalize the state law claims. ... Section 1331 does not provide a proper basis of removal for defendants.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the same conduct supports federal liability or another statute provides a federal forum.

In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation · filed 2007-09-17

Section 3732(b) does not federalize the state law claims; it merely provides a federal forum where they can be pursued. Section 1331 does hot provide a proper basis of removal for defendants.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when federal law supplies only an alternate theory and state law independently supports relief.

People of the State of New York v. Dell, Inc. · filed 2007-10-16

In this case, Petitioner’s right to relief does not necessarily depend upon federal law; Petitioner’s claims are fully actionable under the state laws asserted. Accordingly, there is no federal question jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because a plaintiff also seeks relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act.

Good v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. · filed 2008-01-18

There is no jurisdiction over this case under § 1331, the federal-question statute, because plaintiffs’ claims all arise under state law. The only federal law relevant to this action is the Declaratory Judgment Act, and it is well settled that the Act is not an independent basis for jurisdiction.

Section 1331 reaches state-law claims involving contested and substantial federal issues that implicate serious federal interests only in exceedingly rare circumstances.

Alberto San, Inc. v. Consejo De Titulares Del Condominio San Alberto · filed 2008-03-28

There is a limited exception extending § 1331 coverage to state law claims involving "contested" and "substantial" federal issues that implicate "serious federal interest[s]." Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 313 (2005). That exception is exceedingly rare and clearly not applicable here.

Section 1331 permits federal jurisdiction over a state-law claim only if resolving the claim necessarily requires deciding a substantial question of federal law.

Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. an Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold & Easement in the Cloverly Subterranean Ge · filed 2008-05-09

Here, we cannot say that a court would need to resolve a disputed provision of the NGA in order to resolve Williston’s state law conversion or negligence claims, because no provision of the NGA constitutes an essential element of those claims.

Section 1331 does not grant jurisdiction over state-law claims lacking a substantial federal issue.

Moore v. Young Bros. · filed 2008-07-07

Nor do we have federal question jurisdiction over Moore’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state-law claim that requires no construction or application of federal law.

Shanks v. Dressel · filed 2008-08-27

Logan Neighborhood’s state-law claim turns entirely on Spokane’s compliance with its own municipal code, and does not require the construction or application of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because a federal defense or other federal issue might arise during litigation.

Luckett v. First Midwest Bank · filed 2008-09-18

Even if a federal defense or other issue may arise during the course of the litigation — though this Court cannot foresee how it would — that is not sufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that do not require proof of a violation of federal law.

Wood v. Option One Mortgage Corp. · filed 2008-09-30

Here, none of these causes of action asserted by the Woods requires proof of a party’s violation of a federal law as a predicate act.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction when federal law arises only as an affirmative defense to state law claims.

California Ex Rel. Brown v. Native Wholesale Supply Co. · filed 2008-10-08

Although resolution of this issue will require application of federal law, defendant’s argument is essentially an affirmative defense to the plaintiffs causes of action. As such, this does not give rise to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the defendants raise federal-law defenses.

Butler v. Google LLC · filed 2022-03-08

Further, while Moving Defendants’ defenses rely on federal law, the presence of a federal-law defense does not supply subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the claims arise under state law, even if a defense relies on federal law.

Butler v. Google LLC · filed 2022-06-22

In the present case, Butler’s claims do not arise under federal law. He brings contract and defamation claims, which fall under state law. Further, while Defendants’ defenses rely on federal law, the presence of a federal-law defense does not supply subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1331.

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

Group XIV Properties LP v. Coleman · filed 2022-08-29

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

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that do not depend on interpreting federal law merely because the defendant plans to assert a federal immunity defense.

Druckman v. Morningside Acquisition I, LLC · filed 2022-11-30

Here, none of the claims in the complaint invoke or depend on an interpretation of the PREP Act. ... A defendant’s intention to argue an affirmative defense of immunity does not transform the nature of the claims against it.

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

Ghias v. Sirnaomics, Inc. · filed 2022-12-19

But the mere invocation of federal law as a defense to a state common law claim does not render a federal question “necessarily raised” for purposes of § 1331 jurisdiction.

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

City of Annapolis v. BP P.L.C. · filed 2024-02-26

The First Amendment issues in these cases are not necessary elements of the local governments’ state-law claims: they are (constitutional) defenses.

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

Anne Arundel County Maryland v. BP P.L.C. · filed 2024-02-26

The First Amendment issues in these cases are not necessary elements of the local governments’ state-law claims: they are (constitutional) defenses. And to establish federal-question jurisdiction, “[i]t is not enough that federal law becomes relevant by virtue of a defense,” even if it is “anticipated in the plaintiff ’s complaint.” Burrell, 918 F.3d at 381 (quotation marks removed).

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

M&T Bank v. Arsenis · filed 2024-03-19

She mentions several affirmative defenses she sought to bring under federal law, but, subject to exceptions not relevant here, a case may not be removed to federal court solely on the basis of a federal defense to a state law cause of action.

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

Garfield Sacred Heart Housing LLC v. Santos · filed 2024-10-10

Here, the removal notice is insufficient to establish the existence of federal jurisdiction because it at most shows that Defendant intends to assert federal defenses to Plaintiff’s state-law claims.

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

Arcs Aligned, LLC v. Combined Capital Investment, LLC · filed 2025-03-07

The fact that federal law may provide a defense to a state claim is insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction.

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

American Yofoto Investment LLC v. Sushian Styles · filed 2025-04-25

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges one claim for unlawful detainer under state law. ... Moreover, to the extent that Defendant alleges there are defenses based on federal law, “the existence of federal jurisdiction depends solely on the plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to those claims.” ... As a result, there is no federal question jurisdiction presented by Plaintiff’s action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because a potential defense to a remedy raises a federal issue.

Pelagio v. Modern Floor Specialists · filed 2026-01-06

Defendants’ argument misses the mark because the principal basis for jurisdiction proffered under ICRA/Hoffman involves a potential defense to a financial remedy—an issue that is not yet implicated, much less one that is “necessarily raised.” Indeed, the caselaw is clear that defenses raising federal issues do not, by themselves, create a basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law unlawful detainer claim based on anticipated federal defenses.

MMP South Park Owner, LLC v. Glasser · filed 2026-01-21

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges a claim for unlawful detainer under state law. ... Moreover, to the extent that Defendant alleges there are defenses based on federal law, “the existence of federal jurisdiction depends solely on the plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to those claims.” ... As a result, there is no federal question jurisdiction presented by Plaintiff’s action.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over an independent federal claim even when that claim could also serve as a defense in a state court action.

Rath Packing Co. v. Becker · filed 1976-04-19(a)

We find neither factor present and consider that Rath has stated claims which are within the federal jurisdiction conferred on the district court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when federal law governs the parties’ rights, even if state-law defenses are available.

Hohenberg Bros. v. Anderson Logistics Service Corp. · filed 1998-05-08

Although the Warehouse Act does allow for state law defenses, this in no way alters the basic fact that these cases involve a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because federal law may supply a defense.

People Of The State Of Illinois v. Sterigenics U.S., LLC · filed 2019-03-11

Because the Court concludes that the State’s complaint raises issues only of state law under the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, the Pollution Control Board regulations, and Illinois common law, remand is necessary.

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

Meadowbrook Housing Partners, LP v. Thompson · filed 2023-09-22

As for federal-question jurisdiction, no claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint deal with a federal question. Instead, this unlawful detainer action is grounded in state law.

Section 1331 requires a court considering a state-law bid challenge tied to a federal consent decree to determine whether the complaint, decree, and court’s role raise a substantial federal question in dispute.

Walbridge Aldinger Co. v. City of Detroit · filed 2008-10-17

The district court should consider the allegations set forth in Walbridge’s complaint, the terms of the consent decree, and the court’s role related to the consent decree and bid process to determine whether such allegations raise a substantial federal question in dispute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim supported by an independent state-law theory, even if the claim also alleges federal-law violations.

Glanton v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. · filed 2008-10-29

Indeed, Glanton alleges violations of state statutes and regulations that prohibit the same or similar conduct as their federal counterparts and do not depend on their federal counterparts. Because there are alternative and independent theories, the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over Glanton’s claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction over a state law claim merely because it requires applying settled federal law; the embedded federal issue must be substantial.

Finch v. Wisconsin Auto Title Loans, Inc. · filed 2008-11-05

In the present case, plaintiffs complaint does not raise a substantial federal question. ... Rather, the federal question is already well-settled, and all that remains is to apply it to the facts of the present case.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim with an embedded federal issue when that issue is a pure question of federal law dispositive of the entire suit.

CenturyTel of Fairwater-Brandon-Alto, LLC v. Charter Fiberlink, LLC · filed 2008-11-22

Therefore, the proper standard for determining whether a state-law claim presents a federal question is whether the embedded federal question in a plaintiffs claim presents a pure question of federal law that will be dispositive on the entire suit.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when references to federal law are merely contextual allegations and the pleaded claims can be resolved entirely under state law.

Segal v. Varonis Systems, Inc. · filed 2009-02-23

This case is analogous to Caggiano, in that the references to federal law in both cases are merely “contextual allegations” in the complaint that do not themselves assert federal causes of action. Both cases can be resolved entirely on state law.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; a request to declare rights under state law and citations to the Declaratory Judgment Act, procedural rules, or the Seventh Amendment do not themselves establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Mead v. City First Bank of Dc, N.A. · filed 2009-03-05

Mead also suggests that federal question jurisdiction may be invoked here under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54, 57, and 58, and the Seventh Amendment. None of these sources is a federal law under which his civil action arises and they cannot establish this court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Count Six seeking a declaratory judgment regarding state law claims does not establish federal question jurisdiction, and his amended complaint asserts no claim arising out of the Seventh Amendment or the federal rules.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when a disputed federal issue is merely an alternative, non-dispositive theory of liability.

Lane v. CBS Broadcasting Inc. · filed 2009-04-28

Accordingly, any disputed federal law that Defendants identify cannot serve as the basis for federal-question jurisdiction since it is not dispositive of the claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because a federal issue is one element of that claim.

Mulholland v. Subaru of America, Inc. · filed 2009-05-11

As no such exceptional circumstance is present here, this ease is subject to the general rule that the presence of a federal issue in a state cause of action is not, by itself, sufficient to confer federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that do not necessarily raise a disputed, substantial federal issue when exercising jurisdiction would upset the congressionally approved balance between state and federal courts.

Joseph v. Baxter International Inc. · filed 2009-05-27

I found that “[fjederal question jurisdiction cannot lie over the Arnolds’ state-law claims since they do not necessarily raise federal law issues, no federal issues involved are actually disputed or substantial and granting jurisdiction would abrogate the congressionally approved balance between state and federal judiciaries with regard to cases and claims of this sort.” ... For the same reasons detailed in Arnold, I conclude that the Josephs’ allegations do not establish federal question jurisdiction.

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

DeBartolo v. Healthsouth Corp. · filed 2009-06-26

After all, a federal defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, but a complaint asserting only local debt and eviction claims does not qualify.

Government of the Virgin Islands v. Skif Corp. · filed 2009-09-25

Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, section 1331, district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law, and such cases may be removed to federal court. ... The Government’s complaint is therefore patently derived from Virgin Islands law. ... As such, this Court does not have original jurisdiction over the Government’s debt action, and removal was improper.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims based only on state statutory and common law.

Ramirez v. Dollar Phone Corp. · filed 2009-11-10

There is no basis for federal question jurisdiction over plaintiffs state-law statutory and common law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim for damages under the SCRA when that Act provides no damages remedy and the claim instead arises under state law.

Gordon v. Pete's Auto Service of Denbigh, Inc. · filed 2009-11-17

Consequently, the plaintiffs claim for damages presents no federal question, and this court does not have the jurisdiction to grant the plaintiff relief which Congress has not authorized under the SCRA.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law fraud and negligent-misrepresentation claims based on state-created duties when resolving them requires no construction or interpretation of federal law.

Glazer Capital Management, LP v. Electronic Clearing House, Inc. · filed 2009-11-23

Here, by contrast, the gravamen of plaintiffs’ complaint is that defendants made materially false statements to them in a manner prohibited by New York law and in violation of duties created by New York law. No construction or interpretation of federal law is required.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that raises a disputed and substantial federal issue a federal court can hear without disturbing the congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

SAIS v. Maldonado · filed 2010-02-01

Because Plaintiffs claim raises a disputed and substantial federal issue, which this Court can entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities, federal-question jurisdiction is present.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because they share facts with federal securities claims or concern SEC filings; the claims must present a substantial federal question requiring interpretation of federal law.

FLYNN EX REL. MOODY'S CORP. v. McDaniel · filed 2010-02-23

However, the Second Circuit has made clear that a plaintiff may not purposefully avoid removal "by framing in terms of state law a complaint the real nature of [which] is federal," Marcus, 138 F.3d at 55, and has identified limited circumstances in which a state law claim may nonetheless trigger a federal court's jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Accordingly, defendants fail to establish the presence of a federal claim or substantial question that could support removal.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over claims labeled as state-law claims when complete preemption, a substantial federal question, or artful pleading supplies a federal basis.

Yousif v. OCWEN MORTG. CO., LLC · filed 2010-08-16

Although Plaintiffs attach state-law labels to their claims, jurisdiction is proper in this Court under the doctrines of complete federal preemption, substantial federal question, and artful pleading. ... Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 existed at the time of removal, and this matter is properly before the Court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that present no federal claim on the face of the complaint and neither require resolution of a substantial disputed federal question nor qualify for complete preemption.

Garduno v. National Bank of Arizona · filed 2010-09-07

It is not clear from the face of the complaint that any of Plaintiffs claims arise under federal law, and Defendants have failed to convince the Court that the claims should be recharacterized under the artful pleading rule because they are preempted or because they require resolution of a disputed federal question.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim that necessarily requires resolution of a substantial federal question when the federal interest supports a federal forum and jurisdiction will not disrupt the balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Muhammad v. Comanche Nation Casino · filed 2010-09-28

The fact that a necessary step in the adjudication of Plaintiffs state-law claim will involve the resolution of a substantial federal question does not end the jurisdictional inquiry. The Court must also consider the nature of the federal interest at stake and any potential disruption of the balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities. Upon consideration of these issues, the Court finds that this case warrants an exercise of federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the conduct might also violate federal law, when resolving the claim does not require deciding a substantial and disputed federal question.

California v. Pinnacle Security Ca. LP · filed 2010-09-30

The fact that it might also have violated TILA or Regulation Z does not mean that the determination of the state claim “necessarily turns” upon a resolution of a substantial and disputed issue of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law Medicaid fraud claims when alleged off-label drug marketing does not present a substantial federal issue.

Hood Ex Rel. Mississippi v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP · filed 2010-10-07

Additionally, applying the Grable test discussed above, the Court finds that any references to “off-label” uses in this case are not “substantial enough” to justify the exercise of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a federal claim is entirely derivative of state-law issues.

Landmark Credit Union v. Doberstein · filed 2010-10-20

The Seventh Circuit case law is clear: when a federal law claim is “entirely derivative” of state law issues, the dispute in question does not “arise under” federal law and the court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint presents no claim arising under the Constitution, federal law, or a U.S. treaty.

Tran v. Fairfax Public Access Corporation · filed 2011-01-18

Tran, unfortunately, does not establish subject matter jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or § 1332 because his complaint does not present a cause of action arising under the Constitution, federal law, or U.S. treaties.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state tort claims when the complaint raises no federal question and the claims do not require resolution of a substantial federal issue.

Taylor v. Lewis · filed 2011-02-23

Plaintiff thus fails to raise a federal question on the face of her well-pleaded Complaint, and so removal on this basis is not authorized by § 1441. ... For the foregoing reasons, the Court holds Plaintiff's claims do not "arise under" federal law, and so Plaintiff's Motion to Remand must be granted.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim challenging the validity of a waiver of significant federal rights because federal law governs that claim.

Y.G. v. Riverside Unified School District · filed 2011-02-28

The Court finds that plaintiffs’ first claim for relief arises under federal law. Even if, as defendants argue, plaintiffs’ claim is wholly premised upon the validity of the Agreement waiving plaintiffs’ rights under the IDEA, “[t]he validity and interpretation of a release of significant federal rights is governed by federal law.” ... Accordingly, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claim under the IDEA and supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367(a).

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over state-law claims whose success depends on violations of federal law.

Cordon v. WACHOVIA MORTG., a DIV. OF WELLS FARGO · filed 2011-03-04

Because the success or failure of Plaintiffs UCL claims is contingent upon violations of federal law, the Court finds that subject matter jurisdiction is present with respect to the FAC.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a state-law claim that raises a substantial, contested federal issue when exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the division of responsibility between federal and state courts.

City of Detroit v. Comcast of Detroit, Inc. · filed 2011-03-18

The Court finds that the complaint raises a substantial federal question and subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because it raises a disputed federal issue; the issue must also be substantial.

Main & Assocs. Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala. · filed 2011-03-22

Thus, under the Grable test, Southern Springs’s claims do not provide a sufficient basis for the exercise of federal jurisdiction because although they raise a disputed federal issue, they do not raise a “substantial issue of federal law” as is required.

Section 1331 permits original jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the claim turns on a substantial question of federal law.

Cunningham v. University of New Mexico Board of Regents · filed 2011-04-20

Federal courts do not have independent jurisdiction over state law claims, unless such claims “turn on substantial questions of federal law.” ... Unlike Grable, where the state-law claim at issue turned on federal law regarding IRS short sales, Plaintiffs breach of contract claims do not turn on federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over ordinary state-law claims merely because HAMP is an element of the dispute.

Melton v. Suntrust Bank · filed 2011-04-21

Federal courts are not bestowed with subject matter jurisdiction over ordinary state law claims merely because HAMP is an element of the dispute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law foreclosure claims that do not implicate federal law, despite a conclusory allegation of a federal question.

Sanderlin v. Hutchens, Senter & Britton, P.A. · filed 2011-05-03

Specifically, for this Court to have subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiffs must satisfy the requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides the district courts with jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... Although Plaintiffs do not assert subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to a specific statute, Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants arise under state law and do not implicate a federal question, despite Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegation to the contrary.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts no claim under the Constitution or federal law.

Pucci v. Brown · filed 2011-05-31

Here, Pucci’s complaint suggests no basis for federal question jurisdiction, as he is not suing under the Constitution or any federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state common-law claim that uses OSHA violations to prove its elements when OSHA supplies no federal cause of action.

Daniels v. Potomac Electric Power Co. · filed 2011-06-10

Therefore, because OSHA does not provide a federal cause of action, and because alleged violations of OSHA were asserted by plaintiff simply to prove elements of a state common law claim, the Court concludes that Count V does not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state law claims when federal law is not a necessary element and its possible relevance is minor and fact-bound.

Little Rest Twelve, Inc. v. Visan · filed 2011-07-20

In this case, federal law is not a necessary element of any claim; any conceivable relevance of federal trademark law is fact-bound and minor in the context of an alleged fraudulent scheme that spanned several years and mostly involved activity that has no purported relationship to federal law whatsoever. There is no independent federal law element that would support removal.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that merely reference HAMP guidelines and procedures without alleging a federal HAMP violation.

Mosley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2011-08-05

Therefore, because Plaintiffs Complaint merely references HAMP guidelines and procedures, and does not attempt to allege directly a federal HAMP violation cause of action, the Court concludes that there is no federal-question subject-matter jurisdiction.