28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law; a complaint alleging no plausible federal claim does not establish that jurisdiction.

Pasqualucci v. Seuffert · filed 2019-12-11

In general, federal courts have so-called “federal question” jurisdiction over any claims that arise under federal law. ... So far as I can tell, Pasqualucci has not alleged any facts that could conceivably give rise to federal jurisdiction. For purposes of “federal question” jurisdiction, the complaint does not cite any provision of the Constitution or federal law.

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

KAREN F. NEWTON REVOCABLE TRUST v. CANADIAN REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, LP · filed 2019-12-11

A federal defense, however, is not sufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because they implicate a federal statute; the federal interest must be substantial.

Snyder v. Alltran Education, Inc. · filed 2019-12-16

In sum, Defendant has only alleged that the HEA would be implicated by Plaintiff’s claims, which is not enough to sustain federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law landlord-tenant claim that neither arises under federal law nor implicates a significant federal issue.

Carroll v. First Choice Housing LLC · filed 2019-12-16

Whether or not these allegations are true, they do not present a claim “arising under the Constitution, law, or treaties of the United States,” such that federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that has an independent state-law basis for liability, even when the claim also references federal law.

Castillo v. Lundt and Sprungli USA Inc. · filed 2019-12-18

Accordingly, the Court concludes that under Rains, Plaintiff has adequately pled an independent state law basis for liability under the Unruh Act (via intentional discrimination), and therefore federal question jurisdiction does not necessarily attach.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim merely because ADA violations supply the basis for the state-law claim.

Guadalupe Bores v. Lime Crime, Inc. · filed 2019-12-19

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 provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that do not necessarily raise a federal issue.

Ellis v. RK Endeavors Springfield, LLC · filed 2020-01-03

None of Plaintiff’s claims raise any violation of federal law, argue that the Farm Bills of 2014 or 2018 were violated, or even assert that interstate transportation laws were violated. Like the Supreme Court in Gunn, this Court concludes that this case does not fall within the “slim category” of cases that invokes federal jurisdiction of a state-law issue.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law foreclosure claim merely because the defendant disputes the plaintiff’s standing.

Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Pinnex · filed 2020-01-03

A party’s standing to sue for recovery of property in a foreclosure procedure wholly governed by state law does not raise any federal questions.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim supported by independent state and federal theories because federal law is not a necessary element of the claim.

Greenspon v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company · filed 2020-01-07

When a claim can be supported by alternative and independent state and federal theories, federal question jurisdiction is lacking because federal law is not a necessary element of the claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on a Nebraska criminal statute.

Barta v. Yeomans · filed 2020-01-07

Even if this Nebraska statute might have some application here, it does not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law indemnity and contribution claims merely because the underlying lawsuit raises a federal question.

Inciyan v. The City of Carlsbad · filed 2020-01-08

It is clear that Mr. Inciyan’s causes of action for indemnification, comparative indemnity, and contribution are state law causes of action that do not raise a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims against a defendant when the plaintiff alleges no constitutional claim or violation of federal law by that defendant.

Kelly v. Wells Fargo Bank National Association Securitized Asset Backed Receivable Mortgage Pass-Though Certificate - We · filed 2020-01-10

Plaintiff has asserted “federal question” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, there is no federal claim asserted against Wells Fargo. The plaintiff alleges no constitutional claims against Wells Fargo and cites no federal law that the defendant has allegedly violated.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim alleged solely under state law.

CONNOLLY v. DORRIS · filed 2020-01-14

Here, Plaintiff alleges a claim under state law. The Court’s federal question jurisdiction, therefore, is not applicable.

Section 1331 does not give federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law quiet-title claim merely because the claim refers to a federal treaty, absent a federal cause of action or a substantial federal issue.

Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo v. City Of El Paso · filed 2020-01-15

Therefore, the Pueblo’s state-law claim to quiet title does not “arise under” federal law because it is not a cause of action provided by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo or created by other federal law.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to connect its claims to federal law; bare references to federal statutes and conclusory allegations of violations do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Velasquez v. NM Corporations Commission · filed 2020-01-21

Plaintiff has not shown that the Court has jurisdiction over this matter. While Plaintiff’s Response references the federal statute setting forth the penalty for misrepresentation regarding Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation and makes conclusory allegations about violations of the Dodd-Frank Act, it does not explain how the claims in his Complaint arise from those federal laws.

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

Stepniewski v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC · filed 2020-01-23

Federal question jurisdiction exists when the cause of action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Here, the Complaint shows that causes of action are brought under the Connecticut State Unfair Trade Practices Act and State breach of contract. [ECF No. 1-5]. Thus, federal question subject matter jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law for federal-question jurisdiction.

Wilson v. Northern Quest Resort/Casino · filed 2020-01-31

On October 24, 2019, the Court found that, in the absence of claims that arose under federal law, or which involved completely diverse parties that had more than $75,000 in dispute, it lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s complaint. ... Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED the Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law for federal-question jurisdiction; allegations with no apparent federal-law basis do not establish it.

BASS v. JABER · filed 2020-01-31

To establish a claim under federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff must allege a “civil action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff does not cite to any federal law that might form the basis for federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff's allegations do not appear to give rise to any federal law that might form the basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only for claims arising under federal law; a complaint that pleads no federal claim does not invoke it.

Armstrong v. B&H Photo · filed 2020-02-03

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. ... Plaintiff does not invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, and the complaint does not plead facts that give rise to a federal claim.

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

Strobel v. Burgess · filed 2020-02-03

Section 1331 requires a controversy arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, the rights Strobel seeks to assert arise under Minnesota state law. Docket 1 ¶¶ 24-68. Jurisdiction is not available under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the claims do not arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Martin v. Benett · filed 2020-02-06

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 confer federal-question jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim that has an independent state-law basis for liability, even when the claim also invokes ADA violations.

Castillo v. Tamara Mellon Brand, Inc. · filed 2020-02-10

Accordingly, the Court would conclude that under Rains, Plaintiff has adequately pled an independent state law basis for liability under the Unruh Act (via intentional discrimination), and therefore federal question jurisdiction does not attach.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law replevin claim when no federal law supports the claim.

Powell v. MBTA · filed 2020-02-12

Here, Powell has failed to plead a claim arising under federal law. She captions her complaint “Replevin,” which is a state law claim. She does not identify, nor can the court surmise, a federal law that would support her claim against the MBTA.

Section 1331 does not provide original jurisdiction over a state-law claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Marinello v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation · filed 2020-02-24

A claim for violation of FEHA is a state law claim. Thus, there is no federal jurisdiction over such a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 covers a § 1983 action alleging a Fourteenth Amendment violation as an action arising under federal law.

Houchens v. Beshear · filed 2020-02-27

A civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment is certainly one that is based upon the laws of the United States.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint does not invoke a federally protected right or state a claim for violation of a federal right.

Ehlerding v. Furniture · filed 2020-03-02

In any event, the Complaint does not state a claim for a violation of a federal right. This Court has no jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state wrongful-discharge claim merely because a federal statute supplies part of its public-policy basis; hearing such a claim would upset the congressionally approved division of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Hayden v. Magnolia Plantation Corporation · filed 2020-03-02

Even assuming that the issue of whether Defendant’s violation of 8 USC § 1324a was “substantial,” remand is appropriate because a wrongful discharge claim is “fundamentally a state common law cause of action,” the areas of employment law addressed in federal courts have been specifically delineated by Congress (and do not include Plaintiff's claim), and hearing an action such as Plaintiff's would upset the “sound division of labor” which Congress incorporated into the language and application of 28 USC § 1331. Tyco, 2009 WL 728571, at *6- 7 (citing Grable, 545 U.S. at 553).

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction over a state law claim merely because the claim relies partly on ADA violations.

Portillo v. W.E.R.M. Investments, LLC · filed 2020-03-16

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 provides no federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the cited treaties have no bearing on the claim.

Osei v. Standard Chartered Bank · filed 2020-03-17

Even assuming, arguendo, that these are treaties of the United States that could provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction, they could not provide for jurisdiction over the landlord-tenant claims because the landlord’s claims do not implicate the application or the interpretation of these resolutions.

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

Jelen v. United States Marshall Service · filed 2020-03-30

This Court plainly lacks federal question jurisdiction over Jelen’s medical malpractice claim because it arises wholly under New York law.

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

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Johnson · filed 2020-04-01

Because this case revolves around state law claims, this Court could only exercise jurisdiction over this action via diversity jurisdiction in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims remaining after the federal claims are dismissed, absent another basis for federal jurisdiction.

ZIGARELLI v. CITY OF CLIFTON · filed 2020-04-13

However, because Counts Three and Five are state law claims, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over them in the absence of federal claims or some other source of federal jurisdiction, such as diversity. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because state-law claims may require reference to federal standards.

Payne v. Oakwood Homes · filed 2020-04-22

Nor does the fact that Plaintiffs’ claims may require reference to the federal standards create a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when federal law is not essential to those claims.

Pegasus Properties and Investments, LLC v. Burkhalter · filed 2020-04-22

The federal law of immigration sponsorship is not “essential” to pleading conversion or related state law claims, such that the claims, from their inception, are “really” federal claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law property partition claim that neither presents a federal question nor necessarily turns on construction of federal law.

(PS) Johnson v. Johnson · filed 2020-04-24

Because a claim for partition of real property does not by itself present a federal question or necessarily turn on the construction of federal law, no basis for federal question jurisdiction appears on the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under federal law, a federal treaty, or the Constitution to support federal-question jurisdiction.

Christenberry v. OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC · filed 2020-04-29

Plaintiff’s Complaint in this now-dismissed action sought to invoke the Court’s federal- question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Doc. 1 at 2.) However, the Complaint did not identify any federal law, federal treaty, or portion of the Constitution as giving rise to her claims.

Section 1331 supplies no federal-question jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when the federal claims have been dismissed.

Clauden v. Southside Virginia Community Services Board · filed 2020-05-01

Because the Court will dismiss Clauden’s federal claims and only state law claims remain, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

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

Brown-Towns v. Kamari · filed 2020-05-05

In the case at bar, plaintiff brings claims of medical malpractice and medical negligence, neither of which arise under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the pleaded claims do not arise under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.

Doe v. Archdiocese of St. Louis · filed 2020-05-15

Because Plaintiff’s claims do not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a common-law fraud claim merely because the alleged conduct relates to immigration.

Finger Lake LLC v. Tu · filed 2020-05-20

Even reading Plaintiff’s allegations and opposition charitably, its claim of immigration fraud sounds more like common-law fraud, which does not present a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a cause of action arising under federal law or the United States Constitution for federal-question jurisdiction.

Kadi v. Autumn Chace Homeowners' Aoscciation · filed 2020-05-21

The amended complaint does not affirmatively assert any causes of action appearing to arise under either federal law or the United States Constitution.

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

Dispensa v. National Conference of Catholic Bishops · filed 2020-05-21

Federal question jurisdiction is likewise unavailable over Dispensa’s state-law claims, which are creatures of New Hampshire law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because a defendant intends to raise federal law in its defense.

Melrose Associates Limited Partnership v. Floral Associates Limited Partnership · filed 2020-05-21

There is no federal question jurisdiction over this action. The complaint alleges state law claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duties. While the Defendants argue that resolution of these claims “turns on” the proper interpretation of the National Housing Act and regulations issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), federal jurisdiction does not exist simply because a defendant intends to cite issues of federal law in its defense.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of the Constitution or federal law.

Doe v. Purdue University · filed 2020-06-01

Certainly, such allegations arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. As such, there is federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that can be resolved solely under state law without a substantial and necessary federal issue.

Serrano v. Albuquerque Public Schools · filed 2021-05-27

The original Complaint contains causes of action that could be resolved solely through the application of New Mexico tort law, and thus these state law claims do not raise a substantial and necessary federal issue.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim when it raises a substantial federal issue; a claim raising no substantial federal question does not qualify.

Seaworth v. Klst, Inc. · filed 2021-07-12

Accordingly, because it appears that state law, rather than federal, is at issue and that a substantial question of federal law has not been raised, Seaworth’s claims do not implicate a significant federal issue. Therefore, federal-question jurisdiction on this ground also does not exist.

Section 1331 does not establish federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law retaliation claim merely because the employee reported unspecified violations of federal law.

Raith v. International Guiding Eyes Inc. · filed 2021-07-27

Although the alleged disclosures here involved reporting NLRA violations, the cause of action does not state what purported NLRA violations are at issue and therefore does not show on its face that it arises under, or is preempted by, the NLRA.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that necessarily require resolution of a substantial federal issue, including claims that depend on a tribe’s rights to tidelands.

Carney v. State of Washington · filed 2021-07-29

Given this analysis, the Court finds there is federal-question jurisdiction under the Grable & Sons principles for at least two of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff’s claim to quiet title to the entirety of her property necessarily depends on defining the Tribe’s right to the tidelands that border her property. Similarly, Plaintiff’s claim to enforcing her easement rights necessarily depends on the Tribe’s right to the tidelands that border on or make up portions of Kiket Island Road.

Section 1331 permits federal jurisdiction over a state-law claim that necessarily raises a disputed, substantial federal statutory issue without disturbing the federal-state judicial balance.

Bauer v. Elrich · filed 2021-08-10

We conclude that the plaintiffs’ claim raises a substantial federal issue because, at its core, the claim seeks to enforce a federal statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim when its use of a federal liability standard raises no substantial federal issue.

Eastern Express, Inc. v. Pete Rahn Construction Company · filed 2021-08-13

In other words, the application of the Carmack Amendment to Eastern’s breach of contract claim will be minimal, not substantial.

Section 1331 does not give federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because it mentions a federal statute; the federal issue must be actually disputed and substantial.

Noon v. City of Platte Woods, Missouri · filed 2021-08-18

Any federal issue in Count I is thus not “actually disputed and substantial[.]” ... The Court thus does not have federal question jurisdiction over Count I.

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

NLMK PENNSYLVANIA, LLC v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION · filed 2021-08-19

For the reasons set forth below, NLMK’s unfair competition claim necessarily raises disputed and substantial federal issues that are capable of resolution in federal court without disturbing the federal-state balance approved by Congress and, therefore, federal question jurisdiction is present.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that necessarily raises an actually disputed, substantial federal issue when federal jurisdiction does not disturb the congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Rosenman v. Facebook Inc. · filed 2021-08-27

In sum, Plaintiff’s UCL unfair prong claim satisfies all four criteria set forth in Grable. Accordingly, this Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim under the unfair prong of the UCL.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims for services outside Medicare when the claims require no interpretation of Medicare law and raise no substantial disputed federal issue.

Silver Peaks, LLC v. CareMore Health Plan · filed 2021-08-31

The court, however, finds Plaintiff’s state-law claims do not raise a substantial and disputed federal issue. Plaintiff does not seek reimbursement for services it claims were denied under the Medicare Act. ... Nor do Plaintiff’s claims require interpretation of Medicare laws, as it is undisputed sitter services are not covered by Medicare.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that can be resolved without deciding a substantial federal issue.

Carrillo v. Merck and Co., Inc. · filed 2021-09-01

Here, Carillo’s Complaint does not “necessarily raise” a substantial federal question. Carillo’s Complaint exclusively alleges state-law causes of action, which are resolvable without relying upon alleged violations of federal law.

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

Silver Peaks, LLC v. CareMore Health Plan · filed 2021-09-02

Because Plaintiff's state law claims do not raise a substantial federal issue, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Silver Peaks LLC v. CareMore Health Plan · filed 2021-09-07

Because Plaintiff’s state-law claims do not raise a substantial federal issue, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law malicious-prosecution claim when the federal patent and copyright issues are not substantial to the federal system as a whole.

Kunz v. Aoki · filed 2021-10-19

Defendants have failed to meet their burden to demonstrate that the federal interest in patent and copyright law is substantial to the resolution of Plaintiffs’ malicious prosecution claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that can be resolved without deciding a federal issue.

Sebring v. Milwaukee Public Schools · filed 2021-11-01

The mere possibility that a court could resolve the plaintiff’s state free-speech claim without deciding the analogous federal claim is thus enough to defeat federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 reaches a state-law claim when it necessarily raises an actually disputed, substantial federal issue that a federal court can hear without disturbing the balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Police Association of New Orleans v. New Orleans City · filed 2021-11-19

“[T]he question is, does a state-law claim necessarily raise 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.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim merely because the complaint references CDC guidelines.

BOYLE v. MEYER · filed 2021-12-20

The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Complaint, which references CDC guidelines as a basis for a state law negligence claim does not fall within Grable’s “special and small category of cases.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law slander and civil conspiracy claims that do not turn on substantial questions of federal law.

SMALL v. CALLAWAY · filed 2022-02-08

Plaintiffs’ claims of Slander Per Se and Civil Conspiracy sound in state law and do not turn on substantial questions of federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal issue they raise is fact-bound and situation-specific rather than substantial.

Scott J. Miscovich, M.D. LLC v. University Health Alliance · filed 2022-02-18

the dispute here is intensely fact-bound and situation-specific.

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

Flavell v. Kim · filed 2022-03-07

Because the Court finds that Defendants have not demonstrated that Plaintiff’s tort-law claims under District of Columbia common law “necessarily” raise a federal issue, the Court concludes that the significant federal issues doctrine articulated by Grable does not provide a basis for removal jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims unless they necessarily raise a federal issue.

Flavell v. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development · filed 2022-03-07

Because the Court finds that IBRD have not demonstrated that Plaintiff’s claims under District of Columbia common law “necessarily” raise a federal issue, the Court concludes that the “significant federal issues” doctrine articulated by Grable does not provide a basis for removal jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that necessarily raise a disputed, substantial federal issue when exercising jurisdiction does not disturb the congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Spectrum Northeast, LLC v. City of Rochester · filed 2022-03-15

As in Broder, federal-question jurisdiction exists in this case. All of Charter’s claims rest on the premise that the annual grant must now be counted towards the statutory franchise-fee cap by virtue of federal law. See ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 56-63, 70-71, 78-79. Thus, all of Charter’s claims necessarily raise a federal issue—whether federal law does indeed require that such benefits be presently counted as “franchise fees” subject to the statutory cap. That issue is disputed. See generally ECF No. 8. And, as in Broder, the issue is substantial and involves consideration of a “complex federal regulatory scheme applicable” to cable television operators and state/local franchising authorities. Broder, 418 F.3d at 195. Accordingly, there is a “serious federal interest in claiming the advantages thought to be inherent in a federal forum,” and it is unlikely that the exercise of jurisdiction will disturb “any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.” Id. at 195-96. Therefore, federal-question jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a state-law claim under Grable only when a federal question is a necessary element of a well-pleaded claim.

Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. BP P.L.C. · filed 2022-04-07

A federal question is “necessarily raised” under § 1331 “only if it is a ‘necessary element of one of the well-pleaded state claims.’” Burrell, 918 F.3d at 381 (quoting Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. at 13). ... Looking at the face of Baltimore’s Complaint, Grable jurisdiction cannot lie because a federal issue is not “necessarily raised.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim when a federal issue is only one possible theory of liability and need not be resolved to decide the claim.

Campbell v. Columbia Gas of Kentucky, Inc. · filed 2022-04-18

The lack of an EFV is only one theory under which Plaintiffs could potentially prove Defendants’ alleged negligence. However, this does not constitute a necessarily raised and disputed federal issue.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a theory based solely on state law can resolve it.

Mullins v. Dominion Energy South Carolina Inc · filed 2022-05-12

The court need not look further than the first Grable requirement that a federal issue is “necessarily raised” by Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded state causes of action. Defendant fails to meet this requirement because there are legal theories involving only state law that can adequately resolve Plaintiffs’ claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim whose federal issue is fact-specific and lacks significance to the federal system as a whole.

HJR Equipment, Inc. v. City of Kansas City Missouri · filed 2022-05-13

As in Empire, this is the kind of highly fact- and situation-specific state-law claim that does not implicate a federal issue otherwise substantial in the relevant sense for which Grable and Gunn do not apply to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law whistleblower claim that can be supported by a state-law theory; alleging a federal-law violation as an element is insufficient on its own.

Calhoun v. Kansas City Credit Union · filed 2022-05-20

As such, (1) her claim can be supported with at least one theory that she was terminated for reporting or opposing her supervisor’s conduct that violated any one of five state laws, and, even if not, (2) the presence of the claims her supervisor violated federal law as an element of her state whistleblower causes of action is insufficient on its own to confer federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim with an embedded federal issue only when all four Grable requirements are met.

Broden v. Riverlands Home Group, L.L.C. · filed 2022-06-28

The defendants did not make a sufficient showing with respect to any of the Grable prongs, and federal question jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state negligence claim merely because it cites federal navigation rules; the federal issue must be substantial to the federal system.

Zacharias v. Kitzman · filed 2022-08-09

Removal based on § 1331 is also proper when a complaint in state court alleges a state law claim that necessarily raises a stated federal issue, “actually disputed and substantial.” ... Defendants have not met this burden. ... While it may be an important question to the parties whether Defendants violated the federal navigation rules, the question is not important generally to the federal system.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law wrongful-discharge claim when state and federal statutes provide alternative sources of the public policy underlying the claim.

Bradley v. FOUNTAIN BLEU HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER, INC. · filed 2022-10-06

Since Plaintiffs identify both state and federal statutes as the source of the public policy underlying their claim, the claim does not require resolution of a substantial federal question.

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

Morales v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC · filed 2022-10-31

Like courts considering wrongful foreclosure claims asserting violations of federal housing regulations, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract claim raises a federal issue that is actually disputed and substantial. ... Under these circumstances, there is little risk that exercising jurisdiction over this case will disturb the balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a federal contract is relevant only to a defense and its interpretation presents no substantial federal question.

Parraz v. The Board of Regents of the University of New Mexico · filed 2022-11-07

Put another way, the GME Contract will be relevant to UNM’s defenses, but is not necessary to prove an element of Plaintiffs’ claim. Even if the Court were persuaded, which it is not, that the GME Contract bears directly on Plaintiffs’ claim against UNM, interpretation of the contract is not a “substantial” question of federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over a state law claim when the federal issue is not substantial to the federal system as a whole.

Crehan v. Richardson · filed 2022-11-17

And without a substantial federal issue, this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because it references federal constitutional principles.

Sobel v. Cameron · filed 2022-12-14

Because federal issues of Due Process and the First Amendment merely exist within Plaintiffs’ state cause of action, Count I does not confer jurisdiction to the federal courts.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim when it necessarily raises an actually disputed, substantial federal issue that a federal court can resolve without disrupting the federal-state balance.

PAXTON v. GEORGIA POWER COMPANY · filed 2022-12-21

Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ allegations based purely on state law, federal jurisdiction will lie if “a federal issue is (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.” Gunn, 568 U.S. at 258. ... Since all four of the requirements are met, jurisdiction under § 1331 is likewise appropriate for this case.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law malpractice claim that necessarily raises a disputed, substantial federal issue when federal resolution does not disrupt the federal-state balance.

Link Motion Inc. v. DLA Piper LLP (US) · filed 2022-12-23

The Court concludes that both prongs are satisfied, and that removal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.

Section 1331 covers a state-law claim that necessarily raises a disputed, substantial federal question capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.

SAUK-SUIATTLE INDIAN TRIBE V. CITY OF SEATTLE · filed 2022-12-30

A substantial federal question exists when the question is “(1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 258 (2013). All four requirements are met here.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim unless a substantial federal question is an essential element of the claim.

Hi-Point Home Builders, LLC v. Luman · filed 2023-01-27

Defendants have not demonstrated that a federal question is an essential element of Plaintiff’s claim, let alone a substantial one.

Section 1331 does not confer federal jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the federal issue it raises is not substantial.

Penebaker, Khary v. Hitt, Andrew · filed 2023-02-10

Because the federal issue raised by plaintiffs’ claims is not substantial, the court does not have jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim only when it necessarily raises an actually disputed, substantial federal issue that a federal court can resolve without disrupting the federal-state balance.

Ruiz v. Ringling College of Art and Design, Inc. · filed 2023-02-17

Federal jurisdiction over a state law claim will lie only in the “slim category” of cases in which the federal issue is: “(1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 258 (2013).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a state-law claim refers to federal rules or guidance.

Lincoln Savings Bank v. Tyson Foods, Inc · filed 2023-02-17

Further, Plaintiff’s specific references in the Petition to federal rules, regulations and guidance or mention of CDC guidelines or OSHA standards does not confer federal question jurisdiction.

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

Doe v. Rutgers · filed 2023-02-27

Doe’s OPRA claim, even if understood as a state-law claim, gives rise to federal question jurisdiction because it requires us to decide whether FERPA prohibits the service fees at issue in this case — a substantial question of federal law.

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

Solomon v. St. Joseph Hosp. · filed 2023-03-07

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” “[E]ven where a claim finds its origins in state rather than federal law,” “arising under” jurisdiction still lies in “a special and small category of cases” in which the federal issue is: “(1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 258 (2013) (cleaned up). ... Removal to federal court is not proper under federal “arising under” jurisdiction because Solomon’s complaint does not necessarily raise a federal issue.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims unless they necessarily raise a disputed and substantial federal issue that a federal court can resolve without disturbing the balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Snowmass Mining Co., LLC v. Mystic Eagle Quarry LLC · filed 2023-03-30

Thus, the Court finds that the state-law claims in Snowmass’s complaint do not necessarily raise a disputed and substantial issue which the Court could entertain without disturbing the balance of federal-state judicial responsibilities.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when its disputed federal issue is fact-bound and lacks significance to the federal system as a whole.

Doe 1 v. Starpoint Central School District · filed 2023-04-10

That is the sort of “fact-bound and situation-specific” dispute that is “poles apart from Grable” and therefore is not a substantial federal issue. See id. at 700-01. And without a substantial federal issue, this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not necessarily provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because a federal regulation is a necessary element of that claim.

Arnold v. Stearns Lending Services, LLC · filed 2023-04-26

Even in cases where Regulation Z is a necessary element of a state law claim, that fact still may be insufficient to maintain federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim when it necessarily raises an actually disputed, substantial federal issue that a federal court can resolve without disrupting the federal-state balance.

Tri-Dam v. Frazier · filed 2023-05-02

Under a narrow exception to the well-pleaded-complaint rule, “federal jurisdiction over a state-law claim will lie if a federal issue is ‘(1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.’” City of Oakland v. BP PLC, 969 F.3d 895, 904 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 258 (2013)). ... The district court did not err in determining that it had federal-question jurisdiction pursuant to sections 1331 and 1337 under the narrow exception set forth in Gunn.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because resolving it requires applying federal law; the federal issue must be substantial.

Biro v. Smith · filed 2023-06-12

It is true that the resolution of Claim One will require evaluation of federal law—the application of R.S. 2477 to Green Lake Road. See High Lonesome Ranch, 61 F.4th at 1245; SUWA, 425 F.3d at 768. However, the Court is not convinced that this is sufficient to raise a “substantial” federal issue and invoke the “exceedingly narrow” federal question jurisdiction, particularly in light of the localized nature of the suit as currently constituted.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law wrongful-termination claim that alleges no substantial federal issue.

Dahmen v. New Creation Daycare Corporation · filed 2023-06-30

Dahmen’s claims also do not fall into the second category of cases: Dahmen alleges no facts suggesting that her wrongful-termination claim raises a substantial federal issue over which federal courts may exercise federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a state-law claim when its embedded federal issues are not necessarily raised, actually disputed, or substantial.

Thomas v. Aeolus Air Charter, Inc. · filed 2023-07-25

In summary, the purported federal questions fail under the first three elements of the test for jurisdiction over federal questions embedded in state-law claims. Thus, the case does not arise under federal law, and remand is appropriate whether or not removal was timely.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state-law claim under the Grable doctrine when the claim does not necessarily raise a federal issue.

State of Arkansas v. TikTok Inc. · filed 2023-07-25

Stated differently, no federal issue is necessarily raised by the State’s claims, and the first element of Grable is not satisfied.

Section 1331 provides original jurisdiction over a state-law claim that necessarily depends on a substantial federal question when the complaint offers no alternative state-law theory of relief.

Quinney v. City of Santa Monica · filed 2023-09-06

Because Plaintiff provides no alternative theory of relief dependent on state law, the Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Bane Act claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when resolving them does not require interpreting or applying federal law.

DOE v. REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE ASSOCIATES OF PHILADELPHIA, P.C. · filed 2023-09-13

The absence of a federal issue necessarily requiring resolution in this case raising only state statutory and common law claims precludes “arising under” federal question jurisdiction under the Grable test.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim merely because it cites federal safety regulations when the claim raises no necessary, substantial federal issue.

CAESER v. GREENTREE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY · filed 2023-09-13

In short, Plaintiff’s citation to federal safety regulations in a state law negligence case is not “significant to the federal system as a whole.” Gunn, 568 U.S. at 264. Consequently, jurisdiction does not exist under §1331, and remand to state court is warranted.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim with an embedded federal issue only when all four Grable requirements are met.

IGT, a Nevada Corporation v. Acres · filed 2023-09-25

Since Plaintiffs’ complaint contains only state law claims, removal is proper only if Mr. Acres establishes that the four-part Grable test has been fully satisfied and Plaintiffs state law claims arise under federal law. For the reasons stated below, Mr. Acres has not carried his burden here.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim when its embedded federal questions are not substantial.

A.G. v. Riverside Christian Ministries, Inc. · filed 2023-10-02

Still, we don’t think the federal questions embedded within A.G.’s state-law negligence claim against CMCG are “substantial” enough to warrant federal intervention.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a state-law claim requires every Grable element, including a necessarily raised federal issue.

ELKINS v. SOUTHEASTERN INDIANA HEALTH MANAGEMENT INC. D/B/A COLUMBUS REGIONAL HEALTH · filed 2023-10-10

The lack of a single Grable element is dispositive; 28 U.S.C. § 1331 jurisdiction is not warranted here.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims based partly on alleged Rule 45 violations in § 1782 subpoena proceedings when the federal issue is not substantial.

Bernahl v. Eversheds Sutherland Limited · filed 2023-10-13

Because the state law claims here do not arise under federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a state-law wrongful termination claim merely because the claim cites a federal statute as a source of public policy; the federal issue must be substantial.

Ho v. Radio Free Asia · filed 2023-10-18

The Court thus concludes that Ho’s wrongful termination claim does not raise a substantial federal issue and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over state law claims that require no substantial federal question to be resolved.

Starbuck v. Puget Sound Energy Inc · filed 2023-11-06

Plaintiffs chose to bring their state law claims in Washington state court, and the Court finds no substantial federal question that must be resolved requiring these claims to be adjudicated in a federal court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law breach of contract claim that is neither created by federal law nor requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Mohamed v. Sadek · filed 2023-11-09

As stated above, Mohamed’s breach of contract claim arises under state law, not federal law (the claim is neither created by federal law nor requires the court to resolve a substantial question of federal law).

For a state-law claim to fall within § 1331, the party invoking jurisdiction must show that a federal issue is necessarily raised, actually disputed, substantial, and capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance.

Prime Insurance Company v. Perez · filed 2023-11-09

To do so, Prime must demonstrate that the federal issue in this case is: “(1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.” Id. ... Prime has not addressed the four requirements, and thus has not shown this Court has federal-question jurisdiction.

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

MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Security National Insurance Company · filed 2023-11-17

After carefully reviewing the SAC, we agree with the Plaintiffs that their right to relief does not depend on our resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 reaches a state-law claim only when it necessarily raises an actually disputed and substantial federal issue that can be resolved without disrupting the federal-state balance.

Humana Inc. v. Lundbeck, Inc. · filed 2023-11-21

To determine whether federal-question jurisdiction is appropriate in such cases, the court must ask whether the relevant federal issue is (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress. ... Accordingly, the substantiality prong of Gunn is not met, and the Court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the federal issue is not necessarily raised and substantial.

Krauss v. Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC · filed 2023-12-08

There is no basis for federal question jurisdiction here. Plaintiff does not allege a federal claim and his UCL claim does not meet Grable’s four-part test to find a state law claim arises under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state negligence claim merely because a court may need to interpret or apply a federal regulation.

Lopez v. University of the Southwest · filed 2024-01-05

The Court further agrees with Plaintiffs that the mere fact that a court may be asked to interpret or apply a federal regulation when analyzing a state negligence claim does not transform the case into one involving substantial federal issues or questions.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when an independent state-law theory supports each cause of action without requiring resolution of a federal issue.

1791 MANAGEMENT, LP v. ENERGY VAULT, INC. · filed 2024-01-22

The first element of Grable is not satisfied. As discussed, Plaintiff’s state law claims do not depend on a question of federal law. A plaintiff can avoid removal if a state-law theory of relief exists for each of its causes of action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because they concern a trademark; any federal issue must be actually disputed and substantial.

Sun City Emergency Room v. Phelan · filed 2024-01-29

Applying the four Grable factors, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty and fraud claims do not arise under federal law.

Federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim under Grable generally requires an important, unresolved federal issue that will inevitably arise and whose resolution will govern numerous later cases.

Shaver v. Whittier Condominiums HOA · filed 2024-02-13

For jurisdiction, they generally require an important, unresolved issue of federal law that will inevitably arise, and once resolved, will govern numerous later cases. Id. at 700. Mr. Shaver never explains how his suit against the HOA would raise such an issue. We thus affirm the district court’s conclusion that Grable does not support subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a state-law claim unless every element of the Grable test is met.

DOE v. MARGARET MARY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL INC. · filed 2024-02-21

The lack of a single Grable element is dispositive; 28 U.S.C. § 1331 jurisdiction is not warranted here.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim only when it necessarily raises an actually disputed and substantial federal issue that a federal court can resolve without disrupting the federal-state balance.

Lakeland Seniors, LLC v. The University of Mississippi Medical Center · filed 2024-03-05

In short, the doctrine does not allow for the exercise of federal question jurisdiction over Lakeland Seniors’ state-law claims. The Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Remand is proper.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when a federal issue is neither necessarily raised nor substantial.

Columbus Emergency Group, LLC v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina · filed 2024-03-29

The instant case fails to fulfill the requirement that a federal issue necessarily is raised. ... Accordingly, this action does not involve a substantial federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the claim necessarily raises a federal issue; the issue must also be disputed, substantial to the federal system, and consistent with the balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Hudson v. Merrick Bank · filed 2024-04-03

However, “it is not enough that a plaintiff’s state-law claim necessarily raises some contested federal issue.” Burrell, 918 F.3d at 384. The other prongs must also be met, and here, the Bank has made no such showing. Specifically, the Bank has not established that there will be any actual dispute between the parties regarding the meaning of the GLBA, that any substantial issue, important to the federal system as a whole, will have to be determined, or that removal is consistent with any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because it references federal law when resolving the claim requires no federal issue to be decided.

Midwest Petroleum Company v. St Louis County · filed 2024-04-11

Although Count II references federal statutes and a regulation, federal law is not necessarily raised because answering a federal issue is not required to resolve Plaintiffs’ Missouri due process claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim unless the federal issue is necessarily raised by that claim.

Carroll v. Comprehensive Healthcare Management Services LLC · filed 2024-04-19

The federal issue is not necessarily raised here because the PREP Act is not an essential element of any of the state-law claims.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because resolving it may require interpreting federal statutes or regulations.

Doe v. Coffee Regional Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2024-04-29

Defendant’s argument that this case will require a court to analyze and interpret multiple federal statutes and regulatory provisions, perhaps some of which have not been previously adjudicated, is simply not enough to meet Grable’s substantiality requirement.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that rest on interpreting a contract rather than federal tax law.

AMTAX Holdings 227, LLC v. CohnReznick LLP · filed 2024-06-04

Thus, AMTAX’s argument that its claims rest on the interpretation of Section 42(i)(7), rather than the ROR Agreement, is too tenuous to support federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim with an embedded federal issue only when that issue is substantial to the federal system as a whole.

Careco, LLC v. Solorio · filed 2024-06-26

The trademark issue that Solorio identifies lacks the necessary substantiality to raise a federal question.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim that raises a substantial federal question satisfying Grable.

Lilles v. J.C. Tenorio Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2024-06-28

The Court finds that the substantial question of federal law raised through Lilles’s breach of contract as to Contracts One and Two meet the requirements for federal question jurisdiction under U.S. Supreme Court case Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing, 545 U.S. 308 (2005) and subsequent case law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that raises no substantial federal issue.

GILLIAM v. PREFERRED CARE HAMILTON, NJ · filed 2024-07-03

Further, the Court cannot find, nor do Plaintiffs make any attempt to argue, any substantial federal law issues in this state law action to permit federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a state-law claim unless it necessarily raises a substantial federal issue.

Jose Yoni Aldana Hernandez v. C. R. Laurence, Co., Inc. · filed 2024-07-05

Therefore, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not necessarily raise a substantial federal issue demonstrating Plaintiff’s state claims arise under federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over state-law claims unless a federal question is an essential and substantial part of the claims.

McGann v. Gorman · filed 2024-07-25

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that a federal question is an essential element of Plaintiff’s claims, let alone a substantial one. Accordingly, the Court is respectfully unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s arguments suggesting that this Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a territorial-law claim only if the federal issue it raises is substantial to the federal system.

Bluewater Construction, Inc. v. The United States Virgin Islands · filed 2024-07-26

After considering the relevant substantiality factors in light of the totality of the circumstances in this case, the Court does not believe the federal issue raised by the plaintiffs is ultimately substantial.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state-law claim with an embedded patent issue when the issue is not substantial and federal resolution would disrupt the federal-state balance.

Micron Technology, Inc. v. Netlist, Inc. · filed 2024-08-13

However, because the issue is neither substantial, nor capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the currently prevailing federal-state balance, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.

Section 1331 can provide jurisdiction over a third-party complaint asserting state-law claims when those claims necessarily depend on resolving a substantial federal question.

Schnupp v. Blair Pharmacy, Inc. · filed 2024-09-05

For the reasons that follow, I conclude that the Third-Party Complaint establishes federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when its federal issue matters only to the parties and lacks significance for the federal system as a whole.

Sunvestment Energy Group NY 64 LLC v. National Grid USA Services Co., Inc. · filed 2024-09-06

The issues here are significant only to the relevant parties and their specific disputes. Because Appellants’ claims do not raise an issue of “importance . . . to the federal system as a whole,” the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim merely because a federal-law violation may help establish an element of the claim.

Hicks v. New Millennium Building Systems, LLC · filed 2024-09-17

These considerations lead here to the conclusion that there is not subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. Hicks’s claims because it would be inconsistent with congressional judgment about the sound division of labor between state and federal courts governing the application of § 1331.

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

McVicker v. Muskogee Housing Authority · filed 2024-10-04

Though Plaintiff claims that MHA breached the lease by violating provisions of federal law, this Court does not find that this is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim merely because it refers to federal safety regulations; the complaint must present a federal cause of action or necessarily depend on a substantial federal question.

Hayle v. J.B. Hunt Transport Inc · filed 2024-10-16

Defendants have not met their burden to show that 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.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr., 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983).

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

Roshan v. Sunquist · filed 2024-11-18

Roshan’s third claim for writ of administrative mandamus raises a federal issue because he challenges the DRE proceedings on due process grounds, which is disputed. However, the Court finds that “the federal issue in this case is not substantial in the relevant sense.” Gunn, 568 U.S. at 260. ... Roshan’s claim raises no such federal interest. Accordingly, the Court finds jurisdiction is lacking for Roshan’s third claim for writ of administrative mandamus and the claim is dismissed, with leave to amend.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state law RICO claim when state predicate acts allow the claim to succeed without interpreting federal law.

Hoipkemier v. Miller · filed 2024-11-18

The presence of both state and federal predicate acts means that interpreting federal law is not strictly necessary or otherwise “essential” to the cause of action in question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state negligence claim merely because it references a federal statute; any disputed federal issue must be substantial.

McGavock v. Zips Dixie Hwy, LLC · filed 2024-12-19

Even if a disputed federal issue were raised, the federal interest in it would not be substantial. None of the factors identified in Estate of Cornell point towards jurisdiction. No federal entity is involved, the federal question involved is both erroneous and tangential, the federal question involved will not resolve the case, and the federal question involved will have little to no bearing on later cases.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a state-law claim unless the claim necessarily raises a substantial federal issue.

VLSI Technology LLC v. Patent Quality Assurance, LLC · filed 2025-02-13

Because VLSI’s properly asserted state-law abuse of process claim does not “necessarily raise” a “substantial” federal issue, the Court declines to find that this case belongs to the “special and small category’ of cases” in which a state law claim can give rise to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim whose reference to the FTC Act fails the substantiality and federal-state balance requirements for an embedded federal issue.

Jia v. Weee! Inc. · filed 2025-02-13

These allegations, however, do not satisfy the third and fourth elements of the Grable test, above. ... Accordingly, there is no claim sufficient to support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim with an embedded federal issue only if that issue is necessary, actually disputed, substantial, and capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance.

BP Energy Company v. Cox · filed 2025-02-25

Absent a showing that a federal issue is not only necessary, but also actually disputed and substantial, and that this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction will not disrupt the federal-state balance, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim only when it necessarily raises an actually disputed, substantial federal issue that can be resolved in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance.

Wilson v. Farm Credit Mid-America, ACA · filed 2025-03-12

As a result, for all these reasons and even taking the allegations of the Complaint as true, Count Two does not necessarily raise an issue of federal law that will be actually disputed, substantial, and capable of resolution in federal court.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a hypothetical federal issue has only fact-bound, case-specific effects.

Scudder Avenue LLC v. Plunkett · filed 2025-03-19

Therefore, this is the kind of scenario in which any effects of addressing a federal question are so “fact-bound and situation-specific” as to be insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a federal issue is necessarily raised, actually disputed, substantial, and capable of resolution without disrupting the congressionally approved balance between federal and state courts.

HARTEL v. BEAZER EAST, INC. · filed 2025-03-31

Breaking this standard down into four requirements, a court must determine whether a federal issue is “(1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.” Gunn, 568 U.S. at 258.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state-law claim unless it necessarily raises a federal issue substantial to the federal system as a whole.

Friends and Health Wellness LLC v. Right On Brand Inc · filed 2025-04-09

Here, federal question jurisdiction does not exist because Friends’s claims do not necessarily raise a substantial federal issue.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim only when it necessarily raises an actually disputed, substantial federal issue that can be resolved without disrupting the federal-state balance.

Podems v. Cangemi · filed 2025-04-09

For the reasons cogently detailed in the R&R, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to establish that any of the four applicable Gunn factors warrant removal of Plaintiff’s action to federal court.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over a state law malpractice claim merely because the lawyer’s work involved federal statutes or SEC rules; the claim must raise a substantial federal question.

Collector's Coffee Inc. v. Debevoise & Plimpton LLP · filed 2025-04-10

A case arises under federal law, establishing federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, if “a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 690 (2006) (cleaned up). ... Appellants’ legal malpractice claim is a state law claim that does not directly raise any federal question. ... Thus, the district court did not have federal question jurisdiction to hear this case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state law claim when its federal issue lacks importance to the federal system as a whole.

Bogavac v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. · filed 2025-04-23

Even if Plaintiff is proceeding under § 17580.5, however, the federal issue is not “substantial” enough to warrant federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim only when its federal issue is substantial to the federal system; a contract dispute that does not implicate federal agency activity can lack that substantiality.

AMTAX Holdings 227, LLC v. CohnReznick LLP · filed 2025-04-30

In short, because the dispute here turns on the Agreement and does not implicate activity by the IRS, AMTAX’s claims do not suggest broad significance to the federal government or other parties and, thus, lack substantiality.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when an independent state-law basis allows the claim to be resolved without deciding the federal issue.

Kennedy III v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated · filed 2025-06-20

Because the AC merely cites EMTALA as one among multiple sources of Kennedy’s legal obligations, EMTALA’s application to Kennedy is not a point “essential” to his unjust enrichment claim.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal issue to support jurisdiction over a state-law claim; if that requirement is missing, the remaining Grable factors need not be reached.

AST & Science LLC v. Delclaux Partners SA · filed 2025-07-09

Because we find the “substantial[ity]” element missing, we needn’t reach the remaining factors.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims based on alleged CARES Act violations when those allegations do not raise a substantial federal issue.

Son v. Oakmount Properties-Azure, LLC · filed 2025-07-09

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s allegations of CARES Act violations as part of his state-law claims do not create a federal question sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court.