28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims alleging only violations of state law.

Poole v. Marks · filed 2011-08-08

Since Poole’s claims against the Scabillonis are for violations of state law, the District Court did not have federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when federal issues arise only as defenses rather than as essential elements of the claim.

St. Bernard Port, Harbor & Terminal District v. Violet Dock Port, Inc., LLC · filed 2011-08-25

Yet, unlike Grable, these federal issues are defenses to St. Bernard Port’s expropriation, not essential elements to the cause of action. Put differently, whereas the basis for Grable’s quiet title action was an alleged failure to receive the notice required by federal law, St. Bernard Port’s expropriation action itself does not depend on the interpretation of a federal statute or regulation.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the plaintiff can obtain relief on a theory that does not require resolving a federal issue.

In Re Oxycontin Antitrust Litigation · filed 2011-09-26

The Court need not decide whether the Commonwealth's direct theory of fraud necessarily raises a federal issue because the Court has already found that the Commonwealth's indirect theory of fraud does not. Federal question jurisdiction is not created "[w]here a federal issue is present as only one of multiple theories that could support a particular claim."

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

Masoud v. Suliman · filed 2011-10-06

None of these causes of action purport to present a claim for relief under federal law. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s invocation of federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is misplaced.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only for claims arising from another applicable federal constitutional or statutory provision.

Singh v. Napolitano · filed 2011-10-19

Instead, Section 1331’s jurisdiction “extends only to claims that arise from some other applicable federal constitutional or statutory provision.”

Federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim requires a contested and substantial federal issue; an alternative federal basis for liability does not satisfy the disputed-issue requirement.

Doe v. Sunflower Farmers Markets, Inc. · filed 2011-12-13

Thus, the federal issue is an alternative, but not exclusive or necessary element of the Plaintiffs ease. For this reason alone, the federal issue here fails to meet the “disputed” requirement.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a technical battery claim premised entirely on state law.

Keitz v. Unnamed Sponsors of Cocaine Research Study · filed 2011-12-16

such, this claim, unlike the plaintiffs § 1983 claims, fails to invoke the court’s federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation · filed 2011-12-20

Given that in the removal context the Court’s federal question jurisdiction cannot rest on federal defenses of preemption, the Defendants’ reliance on ordinary preemption concepts cannot win the day.

A complaint asserting only a claim under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act does not establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Bangura v. Elwyn Inc · filed 2012-02-22

Nor does the District Court’s ruling suggest any basis for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... A claim under that state statute does not create a federal question. ... Thus, if Bangura’s complaint is construed to include only a claim under the PHRA, then the District Court appears to have lacked jurisdiction to address it on the merits.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims against crop-insurance agents under the FCIA when those claims are neither completely preempted nor present a substantial federal question.

Skymont Farms v. North · filed 2012-03-22

Accordingly, the Court CONCLUDES the FCIA is not an “extraordinary statute” to which the doctrine of complete preemption applies. ... Instead, the FCIA mandates federal jurisdiction only over a case involving the FCIC or the Secretary of Agriculture, and complete preemption will not provide the basis for federal jurisdiction over this case against the insurance agency and its agents. ... The Court CONCLUDES that Plaintiffs’ Complaint raises no substantial question of federal law and, indeed, this case merely— and barely — touches on federal law. As such, Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not satisfy the requirements for federal question subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under state law.

Vela v. Manning · filed 2012-03-27

These causes of action arise under state law, and therefore cannot support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim supported by independent federal and state-law theories when the federal issue is unnecessary to relief.

Gardiner v. St. Croix District Governing Board of Directors · filed 2012-03-30

Because Count I provides independent federal and state-law theories for the Wrongful Termination of Hospital Privileges — “violations of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution” and a “breach[ ] [of] the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing” the Court concludes that under Christianson, federal jurisdiction is not properly exercised over Count I.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a Tennessee retaliatory-discharge claim based on alleged FCPA violations when the FCPA affords the plaintiff no private cause of action.

Nollner v. Southern Baptist Convention, Inc. · filed 2012-04-03

Accordingly, here, even if it were shown that the defendants violated the FCPA — a federal statute that does not afford the Nollners a private cause of action — and that the Nollners are protected by Tennessee law against retaliation for disclosing those violations, the Tennessee retaliatory discharge claim would not involve a federal question over which this court may exercise “arising under” jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to state a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Fleming v. Cape May County · filed 2012-04-05

The complaint, even read with the degree of liberality afforded to pro-se pleadings, see Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam), does not appear to state a claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over tort claims that are not based on federal law.

Lewis v. Government of District of the Columbia · filed 2012-05-24

The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over appellant’s complaint, because appellant brought tort claims that were not based on federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor was there diversity of citizenship (appellant and appellees are residents of the District of Columbia), see 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 permits federal jurisdiction over state-law claims whose resolution necessarily requires deciding a substantial, disputed federal question without disrupting the balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Hughes v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Co., et · filed 2012-06-01

Though Hughes has tried to frame his claims as sounding only in state law, any judicial consideration of those claims necessarily implicates substantial questions of federal law.

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

Chicago Tribune Co. v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois · filed 2012-05-24

The University may have a federal defense to the Tribune’s claim, but it is blackletter law that a federal defense differs from a claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising entirely under state law.

Campbell v. Dr. Alexander Stein & Burl, M. · filed 2012-07-13

The district court properly dismissed Campbell’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Campbell’s claims against the named defendant all arose under California state law and she conceded before the district court that there was no diversity of citizenship.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over contribution claims founded on New York C.P.L.R. § 1401.

Mar-Cone Appliance Parts Co. v. Mangan · filed 2012-07-20

Nor, as Mangan’s Contribution Claims are founded on N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1401 (“§ 1401”) do they constitute claims arising under federal law creating federal claim subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a private lender’s state-law action to collect a federally regulated student loan when the claim does not necessarily raise a disputed and substantial federal issue.

HICA Education Loan Corp. v. Danziger · filed 2012-08-10

The federal government’s interest in HICA’s collection of a defaulted student loan does not transform HICA’s state law claim into one that necessarily raises a disputed and substantial federal issue.

Section 1331 generally does not provide federal question jurisdiction over an MCCCDA claim alone; the plaintiff must expressly plead a federal TILA claim under section 1640.

McKenna v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2012-08-16

But we are not persuaded; our circuit has only found such federal question jurisdiction to exist where, unlike this case, the plaintiff explicitly pleads a federal section 1640 claim under TILA.

Section 1331 permits federal jurisdiction over a state-law claim that necessarily turns on a substantial and disputed federal question when hearing it does not disturb the federal-state balance of judicial responsibilities.

Gilmore v. Weatherford · filed 2012-09-04

Considering the numerous factors set forth in Grable and Empire, and our own precedent in Nicodemus, we conclude that plaintiffs’ conversion claim presents a substantial and disputed question of federal law sufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint raises no claim arising from federal law.

Loudin v. J.P. Morgan Trust Co. · filed 2012-09-05

Here, neither federal question nor diversity jurisdiction exists. The plaintiffs raise no claim arising from federal law and forfeit any relief obtained over $74,999.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over state-law claims when a substantial federal question is a necessary element of those claims.

Bowdrie v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. · filed 2012-11-09

The federal question at issue here is a sufficiently substantial and necessary element of Plaintiffs’ state-law claims to confer original jurisdiction upon this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a § 1983 suit seeking to enforce Equal Protection rights.

Board of Education v. Memphis City Board of Education · filed 2012-11-27

Because the Commissioners bring suit under § 1983 to enforce the Equal Protection rights of Shelby County school children, the Court has federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that can be resolved on an independent state-law theory without deciding a substantial, disputed federal question.

Boxer v. Accuray Inc. · filed 2012-11-29

Since Plaintiffs breach ... of fiduciary duty claim may therefore be resolved without involving “a substantial, disputed federal question,” ARCO, 213 F.3d at 1114, removal jurisdiction is lacking, see Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 345-46 (9th Cir.1996) (“When a claim can be supported by alternative and independent theories — one of which is a state law theory and one of which is a federal law theory — federal question jurisdiction does not attach because federal law is not a necessary element of the claim.”).

Section 1331 does not give a district court subject matter jurisdiction over a proposed amended complaint whose allegations state no claim arising under federal law.

Johnson v. Regions Mortgage · filed 2013-01-10

Because none of Johnson’s allegations state a claim that arises under federal law, the district court would lack subject matter jurisdiction over Johnson’s proposed amended complaint and amendment would be futile.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a Commerce Clause objection to a state-law claim is only a defense.

West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. Fast Auto Loans, Inc. · filed 2013-01-11

As an initial matter, the Court finds that to the extent the Defendants seek to argue that the relief sought by the Plaintiff conflicts with the Commerce Clause, such an argument merely constitutes a federal defense to the Plaintiffs Complaint, which is not grounds for removal.

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

Fastmetrix, Inc. v. ITT Corp. · filed 2013-01-31

In summary, FastMetrix has neither pled a federal cause of action on the face of the TAC nor does FastMetrix’s right to relief under state law for any of the state law claims asserted in the TAC necessarily depend on the resolution of a substantial federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state law claims that lack a substantial federal question whose resolution would be dispositive and controlling in numerous other cases.

Republic of Iraq v. AG · filed 2013-02-06

Nor do the remaining state law claims contain a “question qualified as substantial,” the resolution of which would be “dispositive of the case and would be controlling in numerous other cases” sufficient to create an independent basis of federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over claims arising under a federal statute, including FCRA claims.

Inetianbor v. Cashcall, Inc. · filed 2013-02-15

First, the Court has jurisdiction over the FCRA claim under § 1331, because such claim arises under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims whose federal issues are fact-bound, situation-specific, or raised as affirmative defenses.

Saybrook Tax Exempt Investors, LLC v. Lake of Torches Economic Development Corp. · filed 2013-03-11

Given that the question of whether the other offering documents are “management contracts” under IGRA is both fact-bound and situation-specific, and given that the other federal issues here are both raised as affirmative defenses and essentially undisputed, the court concludes that plaintiffs’ claims do not create federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that do not raise a substantial federal question.

CPC Livestock, LLC v. Fifth Third Bank, Inc. · filed 2013-04-08

The Court finds that the second element in the analysis is also satisfied because the Court has already found that there is no diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) or federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the requests for relief are not based on federal substantive law.

Manty v. Helal (In re Fifty Below Sales & Marketing, Inc.) · filed 2013-04-12

The Plaintiffs’ requests for relief were not based on federal substantive law, so federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 was not available.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the FSIA supplies jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign or treaty issues may arise as defenses.

Marshall v. Boeing Co. · filed 2013-04-17

The FSIA provides for federal jurisdiction on the basis of the parties involved, but does not convert the underlying claims from state law claims to federal law claims. Although the court may be called upon to interpret treaty provisions regarding LOT’s affirmative defenses, no claim within this action is a claim "arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States" as defined by § 1331.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims whose resolution necessarily requires deciding substantial federal issues concerning a national securities exchange’s duties under federal securities law and exchange rules.

NASDAQ OMX, Inc. v. UBS Securities LLC · filed 2013-06-18

Such claims necessarily implicate substantial federal questions that require “an inquiry as to whether NASDAQ’s conduct in connection with the Facebook IPO was or was not consistent with the duties imposed upon NASDAQ as a national securities exchange registered under the Exchange Act, the rules and regulations promulgated by the SEC under the Exchange Act and NASDAQ’s own rules.... ” Zack, 922 F.Supp.2d at 484 (citation omitted); see also Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1212 (9th Cir.1998) (holding that although plaintiffs “theories are posited as state law claims, they are founded on the defendants’ conduct in suspending trading and de-listing the offering, the propriety of which must be exclusively determined by federal law.”).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging breach of a confidentiality agreement without stating a federal claim.

Shelton-King v. Dc Crime Victims Fund · filed 2013-07-10

Federal district courts have jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... This complaint neither states a federal claim, nor establishes that the amount of controversy meets the $75,00() threshold, nor demonstrates that the parties are citizens of different states.

A complaint raising claims under the FDCPA and RESPA and seeking relief under the FDCPA establishes federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Fabre v. Bank of America Bank, NA · filed 2013-07-17

Here, removal was appropriate as the district court possessed subject matter jurisdiction over the suit. Fabre’s complaint raised violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e) et seq., and sought relief under the FDCPA. Therefore, Fabre’s complaint established federal question jurisdiction by raising federal law claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a challenge to a state court ruling based solely on state law, and the Declaratory Judgment Act supplies no independent basis for jurisdiction.

Nixon v. Atty Gen of the State of Texas · filed 2013-07-31

The district court properly determined that it lacked federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “The Declaratory Judgment Act is not an independent ground for jurisdiction; it permits the award of declaratory relief only when other bases for jurisdiction are present.” Jones v. Alexander, 609 F.2d 778, 781 (5th Cir. 1980). No other basis for federal jurisdiction is apparent. The complaint states that “[t]he federal question relates to civil practice and remedies code chapter 39.002.” The complaint does not elaborate how a state statute addressing default judgments—Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 39.002—gives rise to a federal question.

Federal-question jurisdiction may rest on remaining federal claims even if another federal claim is premature.

Patel v. Meridian Health Systems Inc · filed 2013-09-04

We see no reason to address Appellees’ arguments regarding the District Court’s jurisdiction. Even accepting, arguendo, Appellees’ assertions that the Sherman Antitrust Act claim is premature, the two remaining federal claims allow the District Court to exercise jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a medical-negligence claim arising under state tort law.

Bell v. Jendell · filed 2013-10-31

Because this claim does not present a federal question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and because Plaintiff has not alleged that he is diverse with respect to either Defendant, See id. § 1332, the Court may entertain this claim only pursuant to a theory of supplemental jurisdiction, See id. § 1367.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only violations of District of Columbia law and no federal law claims.

Banneker Ventures, LLC v. Graham · filed 2013-12-11

The Amended Complaint alleges only violations of D.C. law and does not allege any federal law claims. Thus, federal question jurisdiction does not apply. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Federal-question jurisdiction is absent when a complaint neither refers to federal law nor can reasonably be construed to allege a claim arising under federal law.

Harris v. Tulsa 66ers · filed 2014-01-22

In addition, as the district court held, Mr. Harris’s complaint, which alleges harassment and a “negotiated deal” that “turned false in 2010,” ROA, Vol. 1 at 3, “makes no reference to any federal law, and the complaint cannot reasonably be construed to allege a claim arising under federal law.” ROA, Vol. 1 at 13. Thus, there is no federal question jurisdiction.

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

Beshir v. Holder · filed 2014-01-27

The federal question statute also does not stand alone. It provides federal courts with subject-matter jurisdiction only in cases arising under some other source of federal law.

Section 1331 does not supply independent jurisdiction over a state-law unjust enrichment claim that does not turn on a substantial question of federal law.

Greenway Nutrients, Inc. v. Blackburn · filed 2014-03-26

A federal court does not have independent jurisdiction over state law ... claims unless those state law claims “turn on substantial questions of federal law....” ... The state law claim of unjust enrichment presented here does not turn on questions of federal law.

Claims arising under state common law and New York’s Human Rights Law do not present federal questions under § 1331.

Weslowski v. Zugibe · filed 2014-03-31

Because these claims do not present federal questions, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and because Plaintiff has not alleged that he is diverse with respect to Defendants, ... the Court may entertain these claims only pursuant to a theory of supplemental jurisdiction, ... § 1367.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a medical-malpractice claim alleging only negligence rather than a violation of federal law.

Contino v. HC DOC · filed 2014-04-23

For these reasons, Contino does not state a claim arising under federal law. This court does not, therefore, have federal question subject matter jurisdiction over Contino’s claim.

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

Wang v. Ng · filed 2014-06-10

Federal district courts have jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Plaintiff neither raises a constitutional claim, nor demands damages in excess of $75,000, nor establishes diversity of citizenship. Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims pleaded under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Sheikh v. District of Columbia · filed 2014-06-23

Plaintiff’s Complaint pleads multiple claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, clearly providing a basis for federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and providing a basis for removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over state-law claims necessarily raising disputed, substantial federal issues that can be resolved without disturbing the congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Board of Commissioners of Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. · filed 2014-06-27

However, the Court does find that it has federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiffs state law claims necessarily raise a federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing the congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state common-law claims arising from a real-property purchase and impending foreclosure that present no question of federal law.

Grant v. Arcure · filed 2014-07-01

Moreover, Grant's complaint appears to present no questions of federal law: she brings various state common-law claims arising out of the purchase of a piece of real property in South Carolina, and the impending foreclosure of that property. These claims belong in the South Carolina court system; this action does not "aris[e] under" any source of federal law.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim that necessarily raises a disputed, substantial federal question concerning regulatory authority over gaming on Indian lands and can be resolved without disrupting the federal-state balance.

Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head · filed 2014-07-01

Even if complete preemption does not apply, at a minimum the Court cannot decide this case without resolving a substantial question of federal law, and it therefore has subject-matter jurisdiction over this dispute.

State-law causes of action do not give rise to federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Thompson v. Michels · filed 2014-07-24

The causes of action in Thompson’s complaint arise under state law and therefore do not give rise to jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state-law fraud claim based on credit-rating agencies’ misrepresentations when adjudication requires no interpretation of federal law.

Varga v. McGraw Hill Financial, Inc. · filed 2014-08-04

No interpretation of federal law is required to assess whether Defendants did or did not engage in such misrepresentations, or whether Plaintiffs relied on those misrepresentations and suffered financial loss in doing so.

Claims to recover lost or converted property arising under state law do not supply federal-question jurisdiction for a suit to collect a judgment.

Williams v. Miller · filed 2014-08-19

no such basis exists here because claims concerning lost or converted property arise under state, not federal, law, ... Thus, federal-question jurisdiction is absent.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of the New York City Board of Correction’s Minimum Standards.

Little v. Municipal Corp. · filed 2014-09-30

Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint also asserts violations of the New York City Board of Correction’s Minimum Standards. Because these claims do not present a federal question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and because Little does not allege that his citizenship is diverse with respect to that of Defendants, see id. § 1332, “the Court may entertain [Plaintiffs New York City Board of Corrections minimum standards] claim[ ] only pursuant to a theory of supplemental jurisdiction.” Weslowski v. Zugibe, 14 F.Supp.3d 295, 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).

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

Kissi v. Bank of America · filed 2014-10-21

The district court properly determined that Kissi failed to allege facts sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction because he alleged only state law claims in his complaint and failed to allege diversity of citizenship.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that present no federal question.

Dukes v. New York City Employees' Retirement System · filed 2014-10-27

The district court properly determined that Dukes sought to bring only state-law claims in federal court. ... As a result, there was no federal question to establish jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over state-law claims alleging an exchange’s failure to provide a fair and orderly market for a major IPO when they necessarily raise disputed federal securities-law issues substantial to the federal system and federal adjudication preserves Congress’s approved federal-state balance.

NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. v. UBS Securities, LLC · filed 2014-10-31

Federal jurisdiction is properly exercised in this case because, although UBS’s challenged arbitration demand against NASDAQ asserts only claims created by state law, (a) the claims necessarily raise actually disputed issues of federal securities law, (b) those issues are of substantial importance to the federal system as a whole, and (c) the exercise of federal jurisdiction in these circumstances will not disrupt any federal-state balance approved by Congress.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law libel and slander claims merely because the alleged statements crossed state lines.

Lavergne v. Bergeran · filed 2014-11-03

The fact that Bergeran’s alleged statements crossed state lines does not support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging violations of federal statutes and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Petrano v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company · filed 2014-11-04

The Petranos argue that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain their original complaint, but we disagree. Old Republic was entitled to remove the action because the Petranos’ complaint alleged violations of federal laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1985, 1986, 12112, 12182, the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Const. Amend. 14. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a).

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint no longer alleges any claims arising under federal law.

Perkins v. Linkedin Corp. · filed 2014-11-13

In addition to relying on CAFA as a basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiffs erroneously assert jurisdiction under "28 U.S.C. § 1331,” the federal question statute. SAC ¶ 20. The Court assumes this assertion is a typographical error because Plaintiffs no longer allege any claims arising under federal law. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte STRIKES reference to § 1331 in the SAC.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over state-law wrongful-use-of-proceedings claims based on federal civil rights litigation when the embedded federal issue requires fact-bound, backward-looking determinations without importance to the federal system as a whole.

City of Greensburg v. Wisneski · filed 2015-01-08

Although resolution of the claims in this case involves some analysis of federal law, the court finds that the case does not present a pure question of law. Analysis of wrongful use of civil proceedings and the other state-law claims requires backward-looking factual determinations about the reasonableness of the underlying litigation and Defendants’ primary purpose in instituting and maintaining that litigation. Due to these backward-looking factual determinations, which do not implicate the validity of a federal law or the need to resolve a conflict in federal law, the sub-stantiality of the federal issue was not shown.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction only where a federal question is at issue and does not supply original jurisdiction over an emotional distress claim that alleges no basis in federal law.

Sudduth v. CitiMortgage, Inc. · filed 2015-01-28

Section 1331 “confers jurisdiction only where a federal question is at issue, it does not create federal jurisdiction.” ... Plaintiffs make no allegation that their emotional distress claim arises under any law of the United States.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a federal-law violation is only one possible way to prove it.

Bowen v. McKesson Corp. · filed 2015-05-15

Because the plaintiffs’ claims do not “depend necessarily upon a question of federal law,” the Court does not have federal-question jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 requires a substantial and disputed federal issue for federal jurisdiction over a state-law claim.

Land v. International Business Machines Corp. · filed 2015-05-26

For the reasons described in the previous sections, the Court concludes that it has neither federal question jurisdiction nor diversity jurisdiction over the present case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when no claim element necessarily raises a substantial federal issue and the asserted federal issue is only a defense or counterclaim.

Jasper v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. · filed 2015-06-02

As there is no original federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, removal jurisdiction was improperly exercised and the action must be remanded to state court, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Section 1331 requires a pleaded claim arising under federal law to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Coleman v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation · filed 2015-06-09

Second, Plaintiff has failed to plead any claim that arises under federal law that would establish federal question jurisdiction over this matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because it raises a federal issue; the issue must be substantial and federal jurisdiction must preserve the congressionally approved federal-state balance.

Wideman v. Watson · filed 2015-06-17

But the federal issue does not appear to be “substantial,” and even if it were, federal jurisdiction would disrupt the federal-state balance approved by Congress.

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

Mihok v. Medtronic, Inc. · filed 2015-08-10

Applying the four-part Gunn-Grable test, the Court concludes that the third prong, substantiality of the federal issue, is lacking, and thus finds that federal-question jurisdiction is absent.

Section 1331 does not supply jurisdiction over a state-law product-liability claim when no federal claim remains as a basis for the action.

Falls v. Eli Lilly & Co. · filed 2015-10-21

But the district court’s ruling overlooks a threshold matter: that the court, having expressly excluded § 1983 as a basis for its ruling, lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the state-law claim. Neither party has asserted that jurisdiction is supplied by the diversity statute (both parties are Indiana residents) or by some source apart from 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts only state-law causes of action.

Ketiku v. Mint Urban Infinity-Brittania Heights Apartments-Cardinal Group Management & Advisory · filed 2015-10-30

The two most commonly utilized forms of federal jurisdiction are diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Ketiku noted that the parties are domiciled in the state of Colorado, and thus has failed to show diversity as required by § 1332. And her only asserted causes of action are citations to “§ 38-12-503, § 38-12-505[, and] § 38-12- 507,” which appear to be referring to Colorado state law. See Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 38- 12-503, -505, -507 (concerning warranty of habitability).1 Ketiku has thus provided no basis upon which we can conclude that she has raised a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under federal law or the Constitution; a complaint asserting no such claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Theus v. Internal Revenue Service · filed 2015-10-30

Plaintiff’s complaint does not seem to assert any claims against defendant, let alone any claims that arise under a federal law or the Constitution.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint appears to assert only state-law claims.

Powell v. Delta Airlines · filed 2015-11-06

As Plaintiff only appears to assert claims under New York State, law, the Complaint fails to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not support federal jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the federal issue is merely tangential rather than substantial.

MJS and Associates, L.L.C., a Texas Limited Liability Corporation v. Judy Master, RN and Matthew Master · filed 2015-11-19

In other words, the court is far from conviled that the federal issue in this case is substantial, rather than simply tangential.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when resolving them requires applying the Copyright Act’s work-for-hire doctrine to determine ownership.

Swipe & Bite, Inc. v. Chow · filed 2015-11-23

As in JustMed, there is no written agreement as to ownership alleged, and ownership will turn on the application of the work-for-hire doctrine. ... The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim only when a federal statute creates a right of action or the claim presents a substantial question of federal law.

North v. Smarsh, Inc. · filed 2015-12-04

In the absence of a federal statute providing a right of action or a substantial question of federal law, it follows that Plaintiffs’ spoliation claims do not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the state statute references the First Amendment; the embedded federal issue must satisfy the requirements for arising-under jurisdiction.

Griffith v. Caney Valley Public Schools · filed 2016-01-05

Here, there is no indication that the federal issue allegedly involved in Griffith’s ORFA claim meets any of these requirements, particularly the requirement that the federal issue be "substantial in the relevant sense.” Gunn, 133 S.Ct. at 1066. The court thus concludes that the claim does not "aris[e] under” federal law within the meaning of § 1331.

Section 1331 permits original jurisdiction over a state-law claim when it necessarily raises a substantial federal issue that warrants a federal forum.

Funderburk v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. · filed 2016-04-15

As discussed above, because Plaintiffs’ negligence claim involves substantial federal issues under the FPA as it relates to the FERC, the court concludes that it has original jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 825p.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, the Constitution, or treaties; a complaint that states no federal claim does not establish that jurisdiction.

Hunter v. Angela · filed 2016-04-27

F ederal district courts have jurisdiction civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The complaint does not articulate a claim arising under the United States Constitution or federal law.

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

Funderwhite v. Joint Apprenticeship & Training Committee of Cleveland Journeymen Plumbers Local No. 55 · filed 2016-07-20

Upon review of the parties’ briefs, the relevant law, and the particular allegations in this case, the Court concludes that resolution of Plaintiffs state law claims does not depend on a substantial, disputed question of federal law. Therefore, because no other grounds for subject-matter jurisdiction exist, Defendants’ motion for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is granted.

Section 1331 reaches state-law claims that necessarily turn on a substantial, disputed federal issue when federal adjudication preserves the congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Anversa v. Partners Healthcare System, Inc. · filed 2016-08-30

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 encompasses a narrow swath of cases in which "a state-law claim necessarily raise[s] a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities." Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005). Given that all of the plaintiffs' claims turn on the interpretation of the federal regulations governing research misconduct investigations and the importance of those regulations to the Congressional scheme, this case plainly falls within the narrow swath of cases described in Grable.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim based entirely on a state statute and state foreclosure proceedings.

McDonald v. Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc. · filed 2016-09-07

First, he argues there is federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Here, there is no federal question because Mr. McDonald’s claim is based entirely on a state statute and state foreclosure proceedings.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim arising under federal law, including a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Farquharson v. Citibank, N.A. · filed 2016-10-31

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a federal court has federal question jurisdiction over a claim only if the claim arises from the laws of the United States of America, as opposed to the laws of one of the States. ... Because the FDCPA is a federal law, the district court had federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law conversion claim when no element requires resolution of a federal-law issue.

Enable Mississippi River Transmission, L.L.C. v. Nadel & Gussman, L.L.C. · filed 2016-12-23

Because no element of a Louisiana civilian conversion claim requires the resolution of a federal law issue, there is no federal question jurisdiction over this suit.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction over a state law riverbed title claim when navigability for title necessarily turns on federal law, including for an original State.

North Carolina Ex Rel. North Carolina Department of Administration v. Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. · filed 2017-04-03

Regardless of the allegations of a state law claim, “where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law,” the claim arises under federal law and thus supports federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Accordingly, even though North Carolina did enjoy sovereignty before its ratification of the Constitution, the nature of its sovereignty emanating from ratification formed the basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a state-law riverbed title claim when deciding navigability for title requires federal law.

State v. Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. · filed 2017-04-18

At bottom, we conclude that the district court did have subject matter jurisdiction over the issue of navigability for title under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and therefore did not err in denying North Carolina’s motion to remand to state court.

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

State v. Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. · filed 2017-05-03

Regardless of the allegations of a state law claim, “where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law,” the claim arises under federal law and thus supports federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when federal law is not a necessary element of the claim and federal law does not preempt it.

Gallo v. Unknown Number of Identity Thieves · filed 2017-05-31

In the instant case, Gallo’s claims are not preempted by federal law and there is no “necessary element” of federal law. Therefore, the Court does not have federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims whose resolution does not require deciding a substantial question of federal law.

Osceola Blackwood Ivory Gaming Group, LLC v. Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians · filed 2017-07-27

Having concluded that the FAC does not allege causes of action created by federal law, the court next considers whether plaintiffs claims implicate “a substantial question of federal law” sufficient to trigger subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The court therefore concludes that the addressing of plaintiffs claims does not require resolution'of a substantial question of federal law, and that the court therefore lacks original jurisdiction over any claims asserted in plaintiffs complaint.

Section 1331 requires a state-law claim invoking federal-question jurisdiction to raise a substantial federal issue; merely involving a subject regulated by federal law is insufficient.

Welch v. Atmore Community Hospital · filed 2017-08-18

Welch offers no facts showing whether, or how, the Controlled Substances Act creates a federal duty on the Hospital that is “substantial” to Welch’s wrongful death claim. ... Accordingly, we cannot say that the district court erred in declining to find federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a plaintiff asserts a claim arising under federal law.

Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation · filed 2017-08-25

To invoke federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a plaintiff must “assert a claim arising under federal law.”

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law; the substantiality and centrality tests apply to state-law claims that necessarily raise a federal issue.

Mehta v. Maddox · filed 2017-11-03

The Court finds that subject-matter jurisdiction is proper in this case because the Complaint raises claims that arise under federal law and related state law claims. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction over the two federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The substantiality and centrality tests raised by Ms. Maddox are evaluated only in cases arising only under state law, but which “necessarily raise a stated federal issue.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 258 (2013).

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a claim arising under a federal statute.

Guice v. Postmaster General, U.S. Postal Service · filed 2017-12-01

Ms. Guice’s complaint arises under 39 U.S.C. § 1208(b), a federal statute. Therefore, federal question subject-matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over claims alleging a violation of federal rights.

Henrichs v. Ill. Law Enforcement Training & Standards Bd. · filed 2018-01-26

A claim that a defendant violated a plaintiff's federal rights gives rise to federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims alleging only state-law causes of action.

Apache Corp. v. Castex Offshore, Inc. (In re Castex Energy Partners, LP) · filed 2018-02-01

All of the claims in the parties' original complaints allege state law ...causes of action and do not invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law deed claim when deciding whether a proposed use is unlawful necessarily requires applying federal law.

Pharmacann Penn, LLC v. BV Dev. Superstition RR, LLC · filed 2018-03-16

The deed to PharmaCann's property prohibits "unlawful" uses. That single term opens the door for federal question jurisdiction by teeing up a fundamental clash between state and federal law in this case. ... Similarly, here, the resolution of the federal question-namely, whether a medical marijuana dispensary is "unlawful" under the Controlled Substances Act-is necessary to decide whether the dispensary is an "unlawful" use under the deed.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting a claim based on a federal statute, despite a related state-court action asserting only state-law claims.

Olivarius v. Mermel · filed 2018-04-01

Although there may be a factual nexus between the two lawsuits, they are procedurally distinct. ... The case therefore presents a federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim against a health care provider for failing to seek VA reimbursement, because that claim does not arise under federal law.

Allis v. Sanford USD Medical Center · filed 2018-04-10

Therefore, the Court does not have jurisdiction over the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under a federal statute such as RESPA.

Madura v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP · filed 2018-05-08

Here, the district court had federal question jurisdiction in the underlying proceeding, as the Maduras raised claims under the RESPA, 4 a federal statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law retaliatory-discharge claim merely because it cites federal statutes as sources of public policy.

Daniels v. American Water Works Service Company, Inc. · filed 2018-05-16

The cause of action at issue is a state public policy claim. It merely references federal law as a source of that public policy.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state cause of action alleging a federal statutory violation unless Congress provided a private federal cause of action for that violation.

Crook-Petite-El v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC · filed 2018-05-24

A complaint alleging a violation of a federal statute as an element of a state cause of action does not confer jurisdiction under § 1331 unless Congress has provided for a private, federal cause of action for the violation. ... The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Crook-Petite-el and Bumble Bee Foods L.L.C. are Georgia citizens, and because the FDCA does not provide for a private cause of action.

Section 1331 covers only a narrow category of state law claims that arise under federal law.

Newton v. Duke Energy Florida, LLC · filed 2018-07-11

This claim is not within the “special and small category” of state law claims which arise under federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim arising under state law rather than federal law.

Isabella A. v. Arrowhead Union High Sch. Dist. · filed 2018-07-16

Second, the certiorari claim arises under state law, not federal law, so federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is likewise absent.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when no federal law gives rise to the claims.

Reid v. UBER Inc · filed 2018-09-26

Reid does not identify, nor can the court discern, a federal law giving rise to his claims.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that necessarily raises a disputed and substantial federal issue capable of resolution in federal court without disturbing the congressionally approved federal-state balance.

Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal. v. Kent · filed 2018-11-21

We conclude that the § 1085 Writ meets the requirements of the Gunn/Grable & Sons inquiry, and arises under federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Scotiabank De P.R. v. Halais-Borges · filed 2018-12-11

In actions premised exclusively on state law, litigants cannot invoke the Court's subject matter jurisdiction by asserting defenses pursuant to federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that can be supported without interpreting federal law.

Astarita v. Ameristar Casino Kansas City, LLC · filed 2019-01-15

These elements do not require a court to find that the defendants violated the FMLA. ... Accordingly, Astarita’s testimony that he believed his requests for FMLA leave constituted requests for accommodation do not confer jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction when the complaint shows a cause of action created by federal law.

Ebner v. The Bank of Nova Scotia · filed 2019-01-31

District courts have jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Ebner’s Complaint states that he brings the subject action pursuant to § 2605(g) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). Compl. ¶ 3; 12 U.S.C. § 2605(g). Accordingly, it is clear on the face of Ebner’s Complaint that the cause of action was created by federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that neither necessarily raise a federal issue nor are completely preempted by federal law.

Flinn v. Santander Bank N.A. · filed 2019-02-04

The Court thus concludes that Flinn’s complaint does not “necessarily raise” a federal issue, and federal law does not completely preempt his complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over D.C. contract and tort claims that raise no federal question.

Rgi Events & Public Relations, LLC v. Al Qurm Management Consultancy · filed 2019-02-26

RGI’s D.C. law claims for breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, and tortious interference do not remotely raise a federal question.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over claims created by federal law.

Louis v. Legal Sea Foods, LLC · filed 2019-03-19

These causes of action are created by, and therefore arise under, federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting only state-law claims merely because its facts could support an unpleaded federal claim.

Fin. Engines, LLC v. Susi · filed 2019-04-30

While the facts alleged might support a claim under a federal law such as the DTSA in addition to the specific state law claims asserted by plaintiff, the facts alleged do not necessarily present a federal question and do not require the construction or application of federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim arising under state environmental law merely because that law is part of a federally approved implementation plan.

Sterigenics U.S., LLC v. Kim · filed 2019-05-03

To the extent that Plaintiff asserts its Section 34(b) is a federal claim that provides a basis for federal question jurisdiction, the Court disagrees. Such jurisdiction cannot be premised on a Section 34(b) claim because, as addressed above and touched upon in Judge Lee's order, that claim arises out of state law.

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

Steele v. Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. · filed 2019-06-03

The allegations in the complaint do not suggest any claims arising under federal law, and therefore this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction when a plaintiff merely cites federal laws but states tort claims that do not arise under them.

Dentinger v. The Holy Church · filed 2019-06-26

Although Plaintiff cites generally various federal laws as the basis: for this Court’s jurisdiction, Plaintiffs statement of his own causes of action allege torts committed by the Defendants and do not arise under any of these federal statutes.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law mortgage foreclosure action that presents no federal question.

MTAG CUST ALTERNA FUNDING II, LLC v. FERGUSON · filed 2019-07-03

IT APPEARING that the underlying action is a state-law mortgage foreclosure, and that therefore there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and ... ORDERED that the case be REMANDED to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Essex County.

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

Kapitanova v. Ameriprise Trust Company · filed 2019-07-08

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.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff asserts only state-law claims.

State of Hawaii v. Kaiama · filed 2019-07-26

Federal question jurisdiction does not exist because OCP only asserts state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and diversity jurisdiction does not exist because Kaiama is a Hawai`i citizen for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), see mem. in supp. of Motion, decl. of John N. Tokunaga (“Tokunaga Decl.”), Exh. C1 at 6-7 (Kaiama’s passport application, stating he was born in Honolulu, Hawai`i, and his permanent address is in Kailua, Hawai`i).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts only state-law causes of action and no federal cause of action.

Quigley v. Sporting Kansas City Soccer Club · filed 2019-07-31

Here, plaintiff asserts no federal cause of action in his Complaint—instead plaintiff asserts state law causes of action in his Complaint. So, the court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the causes of action do not arise under federal law.

Johnson v. McDonald's · filed 2019-07-31

The causes of action Johnson identifies do not arise under any federal statute.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the pleaded causes of action do not arise under federal law.

Johnson v. Hoogendoorn Construction · filed 2019-07-31

The causes of action Johnson identifies do not arise under any federal statute. ... Accordingly, the Court concludes that federal question jurisdiction is lacking in Johnson’s cases.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over state-law claims that necessarily raise an actually disputed, substantial federal issue that can be resolved without disrupting the federal-state balance.

Riseboro Community Partnership Inc. v. SunAmerica Housing Fund No. 682 · filed 2019-08-07

Defendants’ removal of this case to federal court was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 because Plaintiff’s claims raise a necessary, disputed and substantial federal issue, which this Court can entertain without disturbing the federal-state balance of judicial responsibilities approved by Congress.

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

Clark v. Bay Park Center For Nursing and Rehabilitation, LLC · filed 2019-08-16

Under the plain language of this law, Plaintiff may prevail by establishing only the violation of state laws; he need not establish a violation of the FNHRA or any other federal law, so a federal issue is not “necessarily raised.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction over claims against a landlord that do not arise under federal law.

Bey v. Savoy Park Apartments · filed 2019-08-20

Plaintiff does not invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction or assert claims against his uncle’s landlord that arise under federal law. The Court therefore cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state unfair competition claim merely because it references the federal Mental Health Parity Act.

Sobertec LLC v. UnitedHealth Group Inc. · filed 2019-09-05

Here, Plaintiff alleged a UCL claim, and referenced violations of the federal Mental Health Parity Act (“MHPA”) along with the California Mental Health Parity Act, California’s Unfair Insurance Practices Act, California Insurance Code § 2695.7, and California’s Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 as the basis for unlawful conduct. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that there is no federal question jurisdiction on the basis of the UCL claim.

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

(PS) Selck v. County of Sacramento · filed 2019-09-06

Although the complaint states that jurisdiction is based on “federal question,” plaintiff only alleges state law claims.

Section 1331 supplies no federal-question jurisdiction over state law claims remaining after the federal claims are dismissed.

Brown v. Las Cruces Police Department, City of · filed 2019-09-11

After dismissal of Brown’s federal law claims, only the state law claims remain. They present no federal question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the Notice of Removal indicates that the only basis for subject matter jurisdiction in federal court is 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide original jurisdiction over these Nebraska tort claims; jurisdiction over them must rest on § 1367(a).

Smith v. Miller · filed 2019-09-16

This court’s ability to entertain Smith’s claims arising under Nebraska tort law cannot be predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (original jurisdiction) or 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction),15 but instead must depend on 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), which provides that “in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, not claims arising solely under state law.

Powell v. Circle K Store 7781 · filed 2019-09-23

Section 1331 requires that claims in a civil action must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The claims brought by Powell solely arise under state law, therefore, § 1331 is inapplicable.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when the claims arise under state law and no aspect of the litigation raises a federal question.

Littlestone, LC v. Chauvin · filed 2019-09-26

Although Defendants also cite 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which allows the Court to exercise jurisdiction over actions raising federal questions, Defendants have not identified any aspect of this litigation that raises a federal question and the Court sees none. Plaintiffs’ breach of contract as well as their breach of fiduciary duty and duty of loyalty causes of action are state law causes of action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted Section 1983 claim is inapplicable because the defendants are not state actors and the remaining claims do not arise under federal law.

Philips v. Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Inc. · filed 2019-09-30

Because the Defendants are not state actors, Section 1983 is inapplicable. All the other claims asserted by the Plaintiff do not arise under federal law. Accordingly, this court lacks federal question jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s claims.

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

Sarandos v. Singer · filed 2019-10-02

28 U.S.C. §1331 establishes Federal Question Jurisdiction. For a claim to qualify for Federal Question Jurisdiction the Plaintiff must allege a cause of action arising under federal law or statue.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law assault claim.

(PS) Iegorova v. Tsaricati · filed 2019-10-03

The basic federal jurisdiction statutes are 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, which confer “federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. ... Assault, however, is a state law cause of action which would not provide this court with subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint arises only under a state tort cause of action.

Tillman v. Procare Pharmacy Direct LLC, incorrectly sued as CVS Pharmacy INC · filed 2019-10-07

We note there is no federal question jurisdiction here, because the complaint arises only under a state tort cause of action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims based solely on state law.

Guillen v. Colombana · filed 2019-10-10

The remaining claims therefore do not provide grounds for federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over claims under § 1983 and other federal statutes alleging violations of federal rights.

Robert Gary, Jr. v. Workers Comp Appeals Board · filed 2019-10-16

In his Eastern District action, as in this one, Gary asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other federal statutes that defendants violated his federal rights. Thus, the Eastern District Court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not appear to provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges only state-law wrongful death and negligent employment or hiring claims.

Hadley v. Chaudhari · filed 2019-10-16

On the face of the complaint, therefore, neither claim appears to arise under the laws of the United States within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for a state-law claim challenging foreclosure remedies under a promissory note when no claim arises under federal law.

Crane v. Utah Housing Corporation · filed 2019-10-23

Challenging the exercise of foreclosure remedies under a promissory note is a contractual claim that would be governed by state law and does not support federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Neither her Complaint nor her Motion reveal any claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a claim can obtain all requested relief on independent state-law grounds without resolving federal law.

National City Puppy, LLC v. City of National City · filed 2019-10-28

In the Complaint as it stands now, Plaintiff’s right to relief does not depend on the construction or application of federal law. Plaintiff can prevail and obtain everything the Complaint is asking for solely on the basis of California law.

Section 1331 does not give a federal court original jurisdiction over claims governed solely by state law.

Danam v. Kelley · filed 2019-10-28

With regard to Plaintiff’s Nevada law-based claims - defamation, breach of contract, wrongful termination, and failure to pay last wages and penalties - this Court does not have jurisdiction as state law governs, not federal law, and the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction, as the court is dismissing plaintiff’s federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (a federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims if the court has original jurisdiction over related claims).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because resolving them may require interpreting a settlement agreement from a federal lawsuit.

HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA v. KNIGHT MOTORS, LP · filed 2019-10-28

As a result, federal question jurisdiction cannot support Defendants’ removal of this case. Hyundai’s claims do not “requir[e] construction of federal law” and thus do not “arise under” federal law (even if adjudicating those claims might require interpretation of a settlement agreement from a federal lawsuit).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state tort or contract claim that requires no resolution of a federal question.

(PS) Alfaro Buttany v. Greyhound Corporation · filed 2019-11-01

There is no federal question jurisdiction available because no federal law or constitutional right is at issue in this case.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of federal law, including claims under §§ 1983 and 1985.

Gilles v. The People of the State of California · filed 2019-11-01

Plaintiff alleges violations of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 in his first through fifth causes of action. These are claims under federal laws, which this Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over pursuant to § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction only when a claim arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Martin v. Swearingen · filed 2019-11-13

This Court does not have federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because plaintiff’s claims do not arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state Unruh Act claim merely because alleged ADA violations form part of its basis.

Mejico v. Minneapolis Rag Stock Company · filed 2019-11-19

However, the fact that plaintiff relies in part on ADA violations as the basis for her state claim, ... is insufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim when an ADA violation is only an alternative, unnecessary basis for liability.

Rutherford v. La Jolla Riviera Apartment House LLC · filed 2019-11-19

Although an ADA violation is an element of a claim under section 51(f) of the Unruh Act, it is not a necessary element as required for federal question jurisdiction.

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

Elliman v. JP Morgan Chase Bank · filed 2019-11-21

Elliman’s allegation of spying does not invoke either form of jurisdiction. If this allegation is sufficient to state any claim, it would not arise under federal law, and it would not meet (nor has Elliman pled) the amount in controversy threshold.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because they refer to a federal injunction that creates no essential element of those claims.

Saale Family L.P. v. Spire STL Pipeline, LLC · filed 2019-11-27

Plaintiffs’ causes of action do not depend on any right or immunity created by the injunction order, because—as Plaintiffs have conceded—that order effectuated a restriction, not an expansion, of their rights over their property.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges only state-law claims, even if the plaintiff invokes federal-question jurisdiction.

Johnson v. Secure Pawn Shop · filed 2019-12-03

To invoke federal-question jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s claims must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Those allegations do not suggest any claim arising under federal law. Plaintiff therefore cannot invoke federal-question jurisdiction.