28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims challenging fees awarded in federal litigation when the claims do not necessarily raise a federal issue.

Johnson v. Mazie · filed 2025-07-11

Applying this test, Plaintiffs’ state-law claims do not arise under federal law. It is true that Plaintiffs challenged Defendants’ collection of attorney’s fees awarded by the federal court in an MDL. But their claims do not necessarily raise a federal issue, let alone one that is actually disputed and substantial.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over a state-law claim that necessarily turns on a substantial question of federal law, even after the federal causes of action are dismissed.

Peters v. City of Torrington · filed 2025-08-05

Peters’s Section 31-51q claims raise a substantial federal question because they necessarily turn on the construction of federal law. ... Although I have dismissed all of Peters’s federal causes of action, I will also address his Section 31-51q claims because federal courts have original jurisdiction over cases “arising under” federal law.

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

El-Bey v. Wood · filed 2025-08-11

Both of these claims arise under state law, and neither involves the resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Therefore, this court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

GTS Securities, LLC v. CBOE Exchange, Inc. · filed 2025-08-14

In summary, because the case does not necessarily involve a substantial federal issue, the Court cannot find that this case arises under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that fail to present a qualifying federal issue.

Sliwinski v. Rhodes · filed 2025-08-19

The specific claims asserted by Sliwinski are claims that are either Montana statutory claims, under the Montana Anti-Intimidation Act and stalking statutes, or are Montana torts with their own well-developed bodies of state law. There is no manner in which these types of claims between two private parties could pose a federal question that meets the four elements outlined above.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim unless a federal issue necessary to that claim is actually disputed and substantial.

DIXIE v. KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION · filed 2025-08-21

On the facts presented here, there is simply no “federal issue, actually disputed and substantial,” embedded in the state-law breach of contract claim such that federal question jurisdiction over this action would be proper.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a breach-of-contract claim merely because related documents mention federal licenses; resolving the claim must raise a substantial federal issue or require consideration of federal law.

Langenderfer · filed 2025-10-29

Although some of the documents reference “federal licenses,” it is still not clear why resolution of the breach of contract claim in this case would raise a substantial federal issue or require consideration of any federal law.

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

Ross · filed 2025-10-30

Therefore, the Court finds, the instant action does not arise under the federal law and that this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

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

COHEN · filed 2025-10-30

A federal issue is not necessarily raised here. Resolving the state law claims does not require application or interpretation of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state tort claims merely because federal regulations supply the duties underlying those claims.

Leopold · filed 2025-11-14

Application of the factors identified in Grable leads to the conclusion that the federal law embedded in plaintiffs’ complaint—unlike Grable and more like Merrell Dow—merely supplies the duties and responsibilities that serve as the predicate for traditional state law claims that cannot provide the basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because it involves a federal statute; the federal issue must be necessary and substantial.

Flory · filed 2025-11-17

Because Flory’s claims do not fall within the “special and small category” of cases where state law claims arise under federal law, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when alleged OSHA violations serve only as an element of a state-law negligence claim.

Alvarez · filed 2025-11-17

In sum, the Magistrate Judge correctly found that the plaintiff’s complaint merely alleges violations of OSHA as an element of her state law negligence claim. ... Under well-established Supreme Court precedent, that is not enough to confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the complaint cites federal statutes; the claims must depend on a substantial federal question or assert a federal cause of action.

Patra v. Schlumberger Tech · filed 2025-12-09

But mere citation to a federal statute does not raise a substantial question of federal law. ... We thus find no substantial question of federal law, and no jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a Florida RICO claim merely because it alleges federal mail and wire fraud as predicate acts.

Delta Build Services, Inc. v. E2F Homes · filed 2025-12-17

Additionally, the predicate acts alleged in Count V relating to mail fraud and wire fraud are run-of-the-mill matters which do not bring the claim within the “special and small category” of cases which establish “arising under” jurisdiction.

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

McMillon · filed 2026-03-04

But, OAG founders on its attempt to satisfy the “substantial” requirement. All four of the Grable requirements, however, must be met for the Court to have federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim merely because the contract incorporates federal standards; the claim must necessarily raise a federal issue.

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA HOSPITALS AT CHAPEL HILL v. UNITED HEALTHCARE OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.; UNITED HEALTHCARE IN · filed 2026-03-13

Accordingly, no federal question is necessarily raised by UNC Hospitals’ complaint, which merely asserts that: (1) the parties intended to incorporate certain federal standards by reference; and (2) those incorporated standards required United, as a matter of contract, to reimburse UNC Hospitals for certain overcharges paid between 2018 and 2022.

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

Bryant · filed 2026-03-30

Plaintiff’s right to relief for defamation does not depend upon resolution of any substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the proposed federal issue is unnecessary to resolve the claim and is not shown to be actually disputed.

Barnes · filed 2026-04-20

Thus, Plaintiff fails to justify federal question jurisdiction based on his state law cause of action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the plaintiff need not prove a violation of federal law to prevail.

Sheaffer · filed 2026-06-18

In any event, Wells Fargo’s argument fails at the first inquiry — whether the federal question is necessarily raised. See Exxon Mobil, 83 F.4th at 140. At bottom, Plaintiffs do not need to establish any violation of federal law — whether the Dodd-Frank Act or Rules and Regulations of the CFPB — in order to prevail on their CUTPA claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because federal law may be an element when that law provides no private right of action.

Millers National Insurance Company v. Axel's Express, Inc. · filed 1988-07-01

Because Millers possesses no private right of action under federal law, the fact that federal law might be an element in its state law claim is not sufficient to present a federal question supporting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a claim whose cause of action is not created by federal law when resolving the claim requires deciding a sufficiently substantial federal question.

Ormet Corporation v. Ohio Power Company · filed 1996-10-23

There is a small class of cases where, even though the cause of action is not created by federal law, the case's resolution depends on resolution of a federal question sufficiently substantial to arise under federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a state tort claim uses federal standards to define a duty.

Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Schwarting · filed 2012-10-01

But the Supreme Court has expressly rejected the conclusion that the use of federal standards to support a state tort claim gives rise to a federal question for purposes of § 1331.

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

Abidog v. New York Life Insurance Company · filed 2021-11-22

But under Grable, a federal court may exercise jurisdiction over a state law claim only if (1) the action necessarily raises a federal issue that is (2) disputed and (3) substantial, ... and if (4) the Court may entertain the case without disturbing the congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities. Id. at 314. Here, Defendants have made no ... effort to explain how this case presents such a substantial federal issue, and the Court concludes it does not.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a substantial federal question appears on the complaint’s face and is essential to liability.

Peterson v. Wells Fargo Bank · filed 1981-10-19

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over claims one through four of the complaint on two grounds. ... Federal questions appear on the face of the complaint, that is, whether the Bank has violated the TILA or § 1972; the federal issues are substantial; and the federal questions are the essential and pivotal elements of plaintiff’s cause of action because the state statute merely provides an alternative, if not cumulative, remedy for a violation of a federal statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim merely because federal law affects the contract price or an anticipated defense.

Superior Oil Co. v. Pioneer Corporation · filed 1983-06-06

Because both Superior and Pioneer are Texas corporations for purposes of ■ diversity jurisdiction, any jurisdiction must be under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The federal issue here, although dominating the controversy between the parties, simply does not constitute any part of Superior’s claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state malicious prosecution claim merely because the underlying dispute involved federal law.

Nill v. Essex Group, Inc. · filed 1994-01-10

The court is not convinced that a state claim of malicious prosecution presents a federal question that would confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon the court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims based on Medicaid guidelines and waiver provisions that provide no implied private right of action.

Solter v. Health Partners of Philadelphia, Inc. · filed 2002-08-06

Based on the foregoing reasoning, the court holds that plaintiffs’ state law claims do not arise under federal law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and that this court is without subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim when its federal issue is fact-specific and lacks significance for the federal system.

Municipality of Mayaguez v. Corporacion Para El Desarrollo Del Oeste, Inc. · filed 2013-08-07

After review, we conclude that Mayagüez's commonwealth law claim does not "arise under" federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Pilkin v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC · filed 2019-02-14

The Court, accordingly, concludes that it does not have federal question jurisdiction over Pilkin’s common law unjust enrichment claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state tort claims involving medical-product packaging when the complaint raises no substantial federal question under the FDCA.

Abadjian v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. · filed 2019-08-23

This rule provides that district courts can exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 only when a federal question appears on the face of a well-pleaded complaint. ... As the circumstances of this case fall well within Merrell Dow, the court concludes that plaintiffs’ complaint does not raise a substantial federal question.

Section 1331 can confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that necessarily raise a substantial federal issue.

White v. Sherwin-Williams Company · filed 2019-11-21

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claims “arise under” the laws of the United States and properly confer federal question subject matter jurisdiction to this Court.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim that necessarily raises a disputed and substantial federal issue when resolving it in federal court preserves the congressionally approved federal-state balance.

Subrogation Division, Inc. v. Brown · filed 2020-01-14

The court. undertakes its own jurisdictional inquiry and concludes federal question jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 does not give federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the complaint mentions SEC filings without identifying a disputed and substantial federal issue.

Lab LLC v. iHealthcare, Inc · filed 2020-03-02

First, the Court disagrees with Defendants that Plaintiff's reference to the SEC in two paragraphs of the Complaint implicates federal question jurisdiction. This reference, not tied to any particular count and without further elaboration, cannot pass the threshold requiring that the state law claims to be tied to a “disputed and substantial” federal issue.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that can succeed without resolving a federal issue raised only in response to an anticipated defense.

IQVIA Inc. v. Khan · filed 2020-05-12

The weakness in that argument is that Plaintiff can prevail if California law does not apply. Then there is simply a state law question of whether the actions of the defendants violated Maryland law. No commerce clause issue arises. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to satisfy the test for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when a federal issue arises only as a defense to requested relief and is not necessarily raised by the claims.

ExWorks Capital, LLC v. LaHaie · filed 2021-03-15

We therefore believe that no federal issue is “necessarily” raised in this case and, thus, we do not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over these state-law claims merely because they are premised on violations of federal law.

Langer v. Ai Sunset, LLC · filed 2021-08-02

Accordingly, the court finds Plaintiff’s California Unruh Act and UCL causes of action do not “arise under federal law,” even though they are premised on a violation of federal laws.

Section 1331 permits federal jurisdiction over state-law claims that necessarily raise a substantial federal question by effectively challenging a federally filed tariff.

Old Dominion Electric v. PJM Interconnection, LLC · filed 2022-01-19

Accordingly, each of Old Dominion’s claims by necessity poses a substantial federal question, and the district court possessed subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state negligence claim merely because an alleged federal violation may serve as evidence; an embedded federal issue must satisfy all four Grable-Gunn factors.

Ormsten v. KIOP Merrick L.P. · filed 2022-10-07

Accordingly, because Plaintiffs did not state a question of federal law on the face of the Complaint, and Kimco Defendants failed to demonstrate that all four factors of the Grable-Gunn test are satisfied, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the instant case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that can succeed on independent state-law grounds and presents no substantial federal issue.

Williams v. Hung · filed 2023-04-05

Similarly, analysis of the Grable factors here demonstrates that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over this action.

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

LAMARR v. GOSHEN HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. · filed 2023-10-12

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 a state-law claim when independent state-law grounds can support it and the federal issue is not a necessary element.

Garcia v. American First Finance, LLC · filed 2023-10-27

“Here, since the complaint's UCL claim is supported by numerous theories of recovery under California law, the alleged violation of TILA is not considered a necessary element.” Id. Defendant offers no meaningful argument to the contrary, and the Court thus concludes no basis for federal question jurisdiction has been established.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because state standing rules parallel federal standing doctrine.

Commision for Lawyer Discipline (CFLD) v. Diogu Case remanded to 458th District Court of Fort Bend · filed 2023-12-28

Put another way, the standing requirement that the Commission must satisfy is created by Texas state law, not by federal law. Even though Texas cases refer to federal standing law, “the mere presence of a federal issue in a state cause of action does not automatically confer federal-question jurisdiction.”

Section 1331 generally permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim under Grable when an important, unresolved federal issue will inevitably arise and its resolution will govern numerous later cases.

Shaver v. Whittier Condominiums HOA · filed 2024-01-02

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.

A federal statute’s incorporation of state law, or its availability only as a defense to threatened state enforcement, does not create § 1331 jurisdiction.

City National Bank v. Edmisten · filed 1982-06-30

The federal question must be an essential element of plaintiff’s complaint; the anticipation of a defense which arises under federal law does not establish federal jurisdiction. ... But a federal statute is not a sufficient basis for federal question jurisdiction simply because it incorporates state law. ... the availability of this defense does not convert the threatened action from a state to a federal one for purposes of determining federal jurisdiction.

A case does not arise under federal law within section 1331 when federal law incorporates state law and the only disputed issue is one of state law.

Bell & Beckwith v. United States of America, Internal Revenue Service, Donna D. Cannon · filed 1985-03-26

Since the only issue in controversy is a question of state law, albeit state law incorporated into federal law, the controversy between those two parties does not arise under federal law.

A state-law cause of action does not arise under section 1331 merely because it incorporates a federal policy for which Congress declined to create a private federal cause of action.

Johnson v. Smith · filed 1986-02-13

Under such circumstances, the incorporation of a federal policy within a state law cause of action is insufficient to give rise to a sufficiently “substantial” or “direct” federal issue. This sort of case, although tangentially involving a “federal” element, should not fall within federal district court jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the claim necessarily turns on the resolution of a substantial federal question; a federal element alone may be insufficient if state-law issues determine the outcome.

Dixon v. Coburg Dairy, Incorporated · filed 2003-05-30

That is, the claim containing the federal issue must rise or fall on the resolution of that federal issue. If federal law merely forms an element of a state cause of action, that may be insufficient to give rise to federal question jurisdiction if the case actually turns on other, purely state-law elements of the claim.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim only if relief necessarily depends on a substantial question of federal law.

Dixon v. Coburg Dairy, Incorporated, Equal Employment Advisory Council, Amicus Curiae · filed 2004-05-25

Thus, in the absence of another jurisdictional ground, a defendant seeking to remove a case in which state law creates the plaintiffs cause of action must establish two things: (1) that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on a question of federal law, and (2) that the question of federal law is substantial. If either of these two elements is lacking, removal is improper and the case should be remanded to state court.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over claims pleaded under state law when federal law incorporates that state law as federal law.

Ten Taxpayer Citizens Group v. Cape Wind Associates, LLC · filed 2004-06-28

We hold that Ten Taxpayer's claims, though ostensibly premised on Massachusetts law, arise under the "law of the United States" under § 1333(a)(2). A federal question thus appears on the face of Ten Taxpayer's well-pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a claim arising under federal law even when that law incorporates state law.

Rahl v. Bande · filed 2004-07-28

The mere fact that federal law incorporates state law does not defeat federal question jurisdiction. ... Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction over Count TV of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because it involves a federal question and we have supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a state-law claim incorporates an alleged violation of federal law.

Moses v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc. · filed 2012-01-13

The fact that plaintiffs’ claim under the D.C. CPPA and D.C. Municipal Regulations is based, in part, on SunTrust’s alleged TILA violations does not create an independent federal question so as to merit federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the state law incorporates federal disclosure requirements.

Medina v. Performance Automotive Group, Inc. · filed 2012-01-24

Thus, the fact that the disclosure requirements of Regulation Z are incorporated into the ASFA does not, in itself, confer federal jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s ASFA claim.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim created by federal law even when that claim incorporates state law.

Cook Inlet Region, Inc. v. Rude · filed 2012-08-20

By contrast, there is federal question jurisdiction over a federal-law claim simply by virtue of its being a claim brought under federal law, whether or not it incorporates state law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a state law claim incorporates a federal standard as only one alternative theory of liability.

Zhuravleva v. United States Polo Association · filed 2019-08-16

Where, as here, a state law claim incorporates a federal standard as an element of one of alternative theories of liability, the federal issue is not necessarily raised, and the claim does not "arise under" federal law.

Section 1331 jurisdiction does not automatically arise from a state-law claim incorporating federal law, and the absence of a federal cause of action is relevant but not dispositive.

Dallas County Hospital District - Parkland Memorial Hospital v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Case t · filed 2020-01-28

Of course, this fact alone does not automatically convert Plaintiffs’ claims into ones ‘arising under’ federal law for purposes of federal question jurisdiction. But it does at least render difficult a determination whether Plaintiffs’ claims necessarily raise substantial questions of federal law. Moreover, the Court determines that the absence of a federal cause of action under the CSA, though relevant, does not suffice to resolve this difficult question in favor of remand.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law disability damages claim merely because the complaint cites the ADA or the state claim incorporates an ADA violation.

Ramos v. Mannington Mills, Inc. · filed 2020-04-21

Although Plaintiff's Complaint includes several citations to the ADA and states that Defendant’s “acts alleged herein constitute violations of Title III of the ADA,” (Removal at 8), the Ninth Circuit has clearly rejected the position that a “state-law claim ‘arises under’ federal law because the Unruh Civil Rights Act incorporates an ADA violation as an element.” See Kohler v. Southland Foods, Inc., 459 F. App’x 617, 618-19 (9th Cir. 2011). Without more, Defendant has failed to satisfy its burden in showing that federal question jurisdiction exists here.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state negligence claim merely because a federal statute supplies a presumption of negligence, absent a federal cause of action or a substantial federal issue.

Hampton v. R.J. Corman Railroad Switching · filed 2012-06-19

Having found neither a federal cause of action nor a substantial federal issue, we conclude that Hampton’s amended complaint “does not state a claim ‘arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.’” Merrell Dow, 478 U.S. at 817 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1331).

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim that necessarily raises a substantial, disputed federal issue, including a negligence claim requiring construction of federal securities law.

In re Facebook, Inc. · filed 2013-02-13

Accordingly, there are substantial federal concerns prominently figuring in the instant case sufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a federal-law violation supplies only an alternative negligence per se theory and is not an essential element of a state-law claim.

Delaughder v. Colonial Pipeline Co. · filed 2018-12-21

Plaintiffs' allegations concerning violation of a federal statute in a negligence per se claim asserted as an alternative means for establishing negligence is not an essential element of a claim and therefore is not enough to support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the federal issues it raises are insufficiently substantial.

Barbara v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc. · filed 1996-10-17

We conclude that the federal questions arising out of Barbara’s state law complaint are insufficiently substantial to “arise under” federal law within the meaning of section 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when a collateral federal issue is present but no substantial disputed question of federal law is a necessary element of the claims.

Mcneill v. Franke · filed 1999-03-08

No disputed question of federal law is a necessary element of McNeill's state claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law property claims merely because they require construing federal railroad land grants when the dispute raises no substantial federal question about the grants’ validity.

Nicodemus v. Union Pacific Corp. · filed 2001-12-06

It follows here that federal courts do not have federal question jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims because the substantial question involved is not about the validity of the land grants, but rather their construction. Therefore, this Court holds that it does not have federal question jurisdiction over the instant case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law lease claim merely because the lease incorporates federal requirements when the embedded federal issue is not substantial.

Copiah County Board of Supervisors v. Motor Classics Ltd. · filed 2003-04-17

While the lease at issue herein does incorporate certain requirements of federal law, this fact is insufficient to give rise to federal question jurisdiction in this case, and plaintiffs motion to remand will therefore be granted.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims involving only insubstantial or undisputed federal issues.

Wagner v. Chevron Oil Co. · filed 2004-06-07

Rather, this suit involves state law causes of action involving non-substantial and/or undisputed federal issues. As a result, we do not have federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and we must remand this case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that raise no substantial question of federal law and are not completely preempted.

North Dakota Department of Human Services v. Center for Special Needs Trust Administration, Inc. · filed 2011-01-06

The complaint does not raise a substantial question of federal law and complete preemption does not apply. As such, the federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state tort claims merely because the underlying information is protected by HIPAA when the claims present no substantial federal issue.

Baum v. KEYSTONE MERCY HEALTH PLAN · filed 2011-10-05

In spite of the fact that the personal data at the heart of this case is protected by HIPPA, this is a fairly straightforward state-law tort case. ... If I were to find jurisdiction and allow this case to proceed in federal court, I would federalize an entire category of state tort claims when Congress has not indicated any intent to do so.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims about ownership of federally regulated flood policies when no substantial federal issue is necessary to resolve them.

Maitland v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance · filed 2012-12-21

Solely because Kepper’s WYO-policies are regulated under federal law does not create a federal question when the conflict is between State Farm, local agents, and the Plaintiffs.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law easement claim that asserts no federal cause of action and raises no substantial federal question.

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. Singh · filed 2013-02-07

As discussed above, Columbia’s interference-with-easement claim does not arise under federal law as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or § 1337.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the potentially raised federal issues are unnecessary to resolving the claims and are not substantial.

Kinzer v. Allegiant Air, LLC · filed 2016-06-01

Because none of the federal regulations Allegiant cites is necessary to the resolution of Kinzer’s .claims, and any federal issues potentially raised are not substantial, Kinzer’s claims do not fall within the narrow class of state-law cases that invoke federal-question jurisdiction under Grable.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that incorporates a federal statute when that statute creates no private cause of action and the embedded federal issue is not substantial.

Estate of Robert Cornell, Jr. v. Bayview Loan Servicing · filed 2018-11-13

In sum, because the federal statute does not create a cause of action, and the federal issue nested inside Plaintiffs’ state law cause of action is not substantial, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction over a state law claim when an embedded federal regulatory issue is fact bound, peripheral to the claim, and insubstantial to the federal system.

Cameron v. Auster Oil & Gas Inc · filed 2019-09-26

With respect to the third Grable requirement, Defendants have not shown any issues of federal law arising out of the World War II federal regulation of the oil and gas industry that are “substantial” in the context of the Plaintiffs’ claims.

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

Medfusion, Inc. v. Greenway Health, LLC · filed 2020-02-20

Given that Greenway’s basis for removal does not satisfy the substantiality prong of Grable, the Court need not address the implications for the federal-state balance. Federal jurisdiction does not lie in this case and remand is appropriate.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim supported by an independent state-law theory when federal law is not a necessary element of the claim.

Licea v. The Home Depot, Inc. · filed 2020-12-17

Thus, the federal law theory is not a necessary element of the Unruh claim and federal question jurisdiction does not attach.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when its federal issues fail the four-part Grable test.

Mora v. Royal Palm Country Club of Naples, Inc. · filed 2021-07-21

As RPCC fails to satisfy the four-part Grable test, remand is fitting.

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

Tantaros v. Fox News Network, LLC · filed 2021-08-27

We conclude that because § 7515 requires a threshold showing that the plaintiff’s claim complies with the FAA, it necessarily raises a substantial federal issue that may be resolved in federal court without threatening the federal-state balance.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when its federal allegations are unnecessary to resolve the claim and do not present a substantial federal question.

Kyrkanides v. University of Kentucky · filed 2023-06-22

The federal allegations are not strictly needed to resolve the constructive discharge claim. ... It does not present a substantial federal question. ... The Court lacks Jurisdiction to hear this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that has an independent state-law theory of liability, because federal law is not a necessary element of the claim.

Castillo v. Tommy Bahama R&R Holdings, Inc. · filed 2025-07-09

Given that Castillo has adequately alleged an alternative state law theory of liability for her Unruh claim, the federal law theory is not a “necessary element” of her claim and federal question jurisdiction does not attach.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that can rest on an independent state-law theory even if federal law could also support it.

Vasquez v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC · filed 2021-10-07

While Plaintiffs make reference to certain federal laws in their fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh causes of action ... those claims do not provide a basis for this Court’s original jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law malpractice claim against a former attorney.

Conway v. Garvey · filed 2005-06-22

Finally, Conway’s malpractice claim against his attorney, Rossmer, is a state law claim and, therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law malpractice claim against defense counsel.

Zapata v. Public Defenders Office · filed 2007-10-24

Liberally construing his complaints, Zapata may be able to assert a malpractice action under state law against his attorneys. ... But such an action would not implicate the federal courts’ federal-question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law malpractice claim against a court-appointed defense attorney.

Allred v. McCaughey · filed 2007-12-03

We might also liberally construe Allred’s complaint as asserting a malpractice action under state law. Such a claim, however, would not implicate the federal courts’ federal-question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Fisher v. Lynch · filed 2008-01-22

Section 1331 authorizes jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. As explained above, the Court does not construe plaintiffs defamation as one arising under federal law, and the claim therefore does not fall under Section 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law malpractice claim against appointed counsel for his representation.

Vasquez Arroyo v. Kaul · filed 2008-05-09

A state legal malpractice action would not fall under the federal court’s federal- question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and because both parties are from the same state, it would not fall under the federal court’s diversity jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint limited to state-law legal malpractice claims.

Gray v. A. Peruto, Jr. · filed 2012-08-30

After an independent review of the complaint and supporting documents, we also agree that the allegations fail to form a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims for personal injury, legal malpractice, and insurance bad faith that do not arise under federal law.

Williams v. Huha · filed 2014-09-04

The district court properly determined there was no federal question jurisdiction because Williams’ action, which alleged state law claims for personal injury, legal malpractice, and insurance bad faith, does not arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over defamation and tortious-interference claims cognizable only under state law where the plaintiff fails to show that a federal statute controls.

Lutfi v. Lockheed Martin Corporation · filed 2015-01-26

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a federal district court has “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Plaintiff asserts that federal question jurisdiction exists “because the parties’ relationships are governed exclusively by federal contracts and statutes, and because a federal agency is a Defendant.” Compl. ¶ 4. But the causes of action plaintiff seeks to bring against Lockheed are only cognizable under state law, and despite multiple invitations to give the Court reason to find otherwise, plaintiff has failed to show that a federal statute controls.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law tort claim for intentional interference with business advantage.

Gilbert v. U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives · filed 2018-01-23

The Court will lack federal question jurisdiction over the state law tort claim for intentional interference with business advantage.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law tort claims concerning a CERCLA cleanup when the claims do not require resolution of a substantial federal question.

Waukegan Port District v. North Shore Gas Company · filed 2019-03-04

As in Abbo-Bradley and Republic Services, the reasoning of which the Court finds persuasive, plaintiff’s complaint raises issues that are determinable under state-law principles, and to the extent any issues of federal law are presented, North Shore Gas has not shown that they are “substantial.”

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; state-law malpractice and products liability allegations that do not implicate federal law do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Abergel v. Gracie Square Hospital · filed 2019-07-15

These claims arise under state law. The facts asserted in the complaint do not implicate a federal statute, law, or constitutional provision. ... Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a claim arising under the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a legal malpractice claim governed by state law.

King v. Michel · filed 2019-10-09

Because Mr. King’s allegations of legal malpractice are governed by Kansas law, he has thus failed to present a federal question. Therefore, this court lacks authority to exercise federal subject matter jurisdiction over his state law claim.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a state tort claim when the asserted duty of care arises from state law rather than federal law.

M.S. etc v. Barrington Community Unit School District 220 · filed 2019-10-17

The question of the duty of care owed will come from the application of state law to the Defendants’ anti-bullying policy, not the IDEA, the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the Due Process Clause. ... Defendants have not met their burden of establishing federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law legal malpractice claim that does not arise under federal law.

Rembold v. Lettau · filed 2019-10-23

To provide a federal forum for plaintiffs who seek to vindicate federal rights, Congress has conferred on the district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions that arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Exxon Mobil Corp., 545 U.S. at 552; 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See also U.S. Constitution Art. III, § 2 (“The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made . . . .”). Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) grants district courts “supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within [the courts’] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” These grounds do not apply here.

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

Philippeaux v. Entin · filed 2020-02-05

Second, Plaintiff objects to the Report’s finding that the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because, as he contends, the claims against Entin “involved federal law,” as they “arise under the Constitution or treaties of the United States.” See Obj. at 3. Plaintiff, however, does not point to any federal law or statute from which his claims arise.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law malpractice and contract claims merely because they arise out of bankruptcy proceedings.

Wiley v. Law Offices of Steers and Associates · filed 2020-02-26

Here, as other Courts within the Central District have concluded, the mere fact that Plaintiff's state law legal malpractice and breach of contract claims arise out of bankruptcy proceedings does not transform those claims into federal claims for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law defamation and slander claims that raise no federal question.

Maldonado v. Maldonado · filed 2020-03-02

Maldonado also claims that defendant defamed and slandered him. These claims may be actionable under state law, but they do not give rise to any federal question.

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

Goff v. Emerson · filed 2020-04-03

As Goff clearly states that he is suing the Defendants for legal malpractice under Tennessee law, there is no federal question jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state law tort claims concerning a defective product.

Ramani v. Amazon.com · filed 2020-04-28

I have also considered whether the complaint presents a federal question that can establish subject matter jurisdiction. It does not. The plaintiff is pursuing state law tort claims concerning a defective product.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because federal law supplies part of the alleged duty.

Martinez v. NCH Healthcare System, Inc. · filed 2020-07-14

Breach of a federal duty does not convert every state law claim into one arising under federal law within the meaning of § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because resolving it requires applying an ERISA plan, when the claim presents no substantial, actually disputed federal issue.

North Carolina Baptist Hospitals, Inc. v. Dula · filed 2020-08-04

Although the case necessarily raises a federal issue under ERISA, a state court is still the appropriate forum to decide this case. The alleged federal issue in the case is not sufficiently “substantial” in the context of the Grable-Gunn test. Moreover, if the case proceeds in federal court, it would likely disrupt the congressionally-approved balance between state and federal judiciaries. Finally, the case does not involve an area of federal law that is actually disputed between the parties.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim concerning FEGLIA insurance proceeds when the claim raises no necessarily disputed, substantial federal issue.

Ritchey v. United States Office of Personnel Management · filed 2020-08-05

For the reasons already explained, the court concludes that it lacks federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff's breach of contract claim.

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

Gifford v. Snyder · filed 2020-08-14

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 arises where 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.” ... Thus, subject matter jurisdiction in this case is not based upon a federal question, and the Court lacks jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not give federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that can be resolved without deciding an issue under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Pulaski County Arkansas v. Walmart Inc · filed 2020-09-25

Applying the Grable test to Plaintiffs’ complaint, the Court finds that the claims presented do not raise a federal issue, and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that use federal statutes as evidence of a standard of care but do not raise a substantial federal issue.

Marshall v. Conway Regional Medical Center Inc · filed 2020-09-25

Applying the Grable test to Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court finds that the case does not fall within the “special and small category of cases” in which a federal question arises from a complaint alleging state law claims.

Section 1331 requires an actually disputed federal issue for a state-law claim to support federal-question jurisdiction.

White v. Santa Clara Valley Water District · filed 2020-11-09

But even assuming that resolution of that claim will require the application of federal law, the District has not demonstrated that any applicable federal law actually is disputed by the parties.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because they necessarily raise a disputed federal issue when that issue is not substantial to the federal system.

Tisdale v. Pagourtzis et Do not docket in the case. Case remanded to (Galveston County Clerk at the Probate Court in Gal · filed 2020-12-07

So, even though determining whether the defendants violated section 922(x) is “necessary” for the plaintiffs’ civil-conspiracy claim, and though the construction of the statute is “actually disputed,” the court still concludes that no federal-question jurisdiction exists in this case.

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

Aucker v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation · filed 2020-12-29

First, the Plaintiffs’ claims, brought under state law, do not “necessarily raise” federal- law questions.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a federal issue embedded in a state-law claim only when the issue is necessarily raised, substantial and disputed, and federal jurisdiction respects the balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Shehan v. United States Department of Justice · filed 2020-12-29

Jurisdiction over federal issues embedded in state law claims between non-diverse parties exists only if: (1) the case necessarily raises a federal issue; (2) the federal issue is substantial and in actual dispute; and (3) the exercise of federal jurisdiction will not disturb “any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.” Grable & Sons Metal Prods. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005). ... Taken in aggregate, even assuming arguendo there is a federal issue necessarily raised and in actual dispute, the above factors lead the Court to conclude that there is no substantial federal issue implicated here.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when federal law is only one of several independent grounds for relief and no substantial federal question must be resolved.

Lopez v. Hay · filed 2021-01-26

Because the Court need not analyze the federal regulations and can find UCL liability based on a host of other California laws that Plaintiffs allege, there is no necessary federal law issue.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law discrimination claim merely because it mentions federal labor law; an embedded federal issue must satisfy the four Grable requirements.

Phillips v. Nesher Pharmaceuticals · filed 2021-02-26

To “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” the complaint must assert on its face a claim under federal law, or, in certain limited situations, raise a substantial federal question. ... In sum, because Nesher has not satisfied the four elements of Grable, it has not established federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that necessarily raises an actually disputed and substantial federal issue.

WILSON v. WOLF · filed 2021-03-23

The Amended Complaint only asserts state law claims, but that does not destroy the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Where a state law claim really and substantially involves a dispute or controversy involving the interpretation of federal law, federal question jurisdiction exists as long as the state-law claim necessarily raises a stated federal issue that is subject to an actual and substantial dispute.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state law claim when it does not necessarily raise a federal question and hearing it would disrupt the congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

State of California ex rel. Ken Elder v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2021-03-31

The complaint does not “necessarily raise” federal questions, and extending a federal forum to this kind of action would disturb the “congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that reference federal tax law without raising a disputed and substantial federal issue.

Fischer v. Fischer · filed 2021-04-30

The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to identify a disputed and substantial federal issue and, therefore, has failed to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not itself confer jurisdiction over a state-law assault and battery claim.

Richardson v. West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation · filed 2022-03-24

The Plaintiff filed his complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3), none of which provide this Court with jurisdiction to hear a tort claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a personal injury claim based solely on state tort law.

AGOSTINELLI v. MCDONALD'S CORPORATION · filed 2022-07-05

But tort law—which governs personal injury actions like this one—does not, in and of itself, invoke federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a common-law malicious prosecution claim that does not invoke federal law.

Petrovia v. Shellenberger · filed 2023-06-21

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a federal court has jurisdiction if a dispute between parties arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, also known as federal question jurisdiction. ... However, malicious prosecution is a common law tort claim, which does not invoke federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law tort claims based on conduct subject to federal regulations.

COLES v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (USDOT) · filed 2023-08-17

Plaintiff is incorrect, as his claims for tortious interference, negligence and fraud are state law claims which simply do not involve a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law tort claim that raises no federal issue.

PUE v. TSAI · filed 2024-09-12

A federal district court does not have federal question jurisdiction over a state law tort.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over medical negligence and wrongful death claims arising solely under state law.

Henderson v. Kaiser · filed 2025-01-31

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are state law tort claims that fall squarely outside federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over ordinary personal injury and product liability claims arising under state law.

Ohan · filed 2025-10-21

However, personal injury claims and product liability claims, including negligence, strict liability, or defective product design, do not arise under the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, or treaties of the United States.

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

LOUDERMILK · filed 2026-05-14

The Court sees no such basis for jurisdiction. Tort claims, such as those Loudermilk raises for malpractice, negligence, and defamation, arise under state—not federal—law.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction when a complaint presents a federal question; a medical-malpractice claim without one falls outside that jurisdiction.

Malone v. George Washington University Hospital · filed 2012-02-16

Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a "federal question" is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law; a medical malpractice negligence action presents no federal question.

Antonio v. Ahaghotu · filed 2012-10-22

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 negligence action presents no federal question, and because the parties are in the District of Columbia, plaintiff fails to establish diversity jurisdiction.

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

Wall v. Tanner Clinic · filed 2017-06-26

Nor does the complaint state a substantial federal question; it merely alleges a state law medical malpractice claim.

Section 1331 does not give a federal court jurisdiction over a state-law medical malpractice claim merely because the plaintiff labels it a federal-law claim.

Baker v. Froedtert Memorial Hospital · filed 2019-10-15

Although the plaintiff checked the box on the complaint form indicating that she is “suing for a violation of federal law under 28 U.S.C. §1331,” the court cannot find any basis in the complaint for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a medical malpractice claim merely because the plaintiff cites the right to a jury trial.

Patti v. Peck · filed 2019-10-30

Neither Patti’s allegations of medical malpractice nor his citations to such rights as the right to trial by jury provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Tate v. Schroeder · filed 2020-01-02

Her pleadings do not make federal law claims and this court does not have federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff asserting federal-question jurisdiction over a medical-malpractice claim to allege facts showing how the claim arises under federal law.

Wilson v. Lewicky · filed 2020-04-20

Section 1331 provides that “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Plaintiff asserts a claim for medical malpractice, but he fails to identify how a medical malpractice claim arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law libel and medical-malpractice claims that do not require resolution of a substantial federal-law question.

Buerger v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. · filed 1997-11-12

Since no subject matter jurisdiction lies under § 1343, nor under § 1331, the court must DISMISS this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law wrongful-death and medical-malpractice claims that raise no federal claim or issue.

Phillip v. Atlantic City Medical Center · filed 2012-03-20

With regard to federal question jurisdiction under Section 1331, the Court cannot discern any claims in either the amended complaint or the original complaint which arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

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

DeLeon v. Sergio · filed 2019-06-03

Whether characterized as claims of medical malpractice or negligence, such claims arise under state law. The Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over these claims.

Section 1331 does not give a federal court original jurisdiction over state-law negligence and medical-malpractice claims.

Jiggetts v. Spring Grove Hospital Center · filed 2019-07-11

These are claims sounding in negligence and medical malpractice under State law. Because such claims are not federal claims, this court does not have original subject matter jurisdiction as to them.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over negligence and medical malpractice claims that arise under state law and present no colorable federal claim.

Reyes v. New York Presbyterian Hospital · filed 2020-10-21

The court has considered whether it may exercise its federal question jurisdiction over the claims in this complaint and finds that it cannot. Plaintiff’s potential claims for negligence and medical malpractice arise under state law, not federal law.

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

Murrell v. Sheron · filed 2023-02-13

Negligence and medical malpractice are state law claims that do not arise under the United States Constitution or any federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a medical malpractice claim that alleges no federal basis for jurisdiction.

Bell v. Bayside Ambulatory Surgery Center · filed 2023-12-18

Construing the allegations of the Amended Complaint liberally, this action ostensibly concerns a medical malpractice claim, so the only grounds on which this Court may exercise jurisdiction in this action is diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law medical malpractice claims against private medical facilities.

Drews v. Rockland Pulmonary and Medical Associates · filed 2024-10-28

The Court therefore does not have federal question jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s medical malpractice claims against Defendants.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law malpractice claims concerning the performance of private attorneys.

Morgan, Ronald v. Runyon, James · filed 2025-06-30

Generally, a plaintiff suing in federal court must show either that he is raising a federal claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, known as federal-question jurisdiction, or that he and the defendants are citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 is in controversy, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, known as diversity jurisdiction. Morgan’s allegations do not support a federal claim because they concern the performance of his private attorneys. Malpractice claims concerning monetary damages from negligent performance of attorneys are generally state-law claims.

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

Piens v. Reckard · filed 2025-10-08

Piens also cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction because his medical malpractice claims do not arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a gross-negligence complaint merely because the plaintiff later asserts that the negligence violated due process.

Hargrave v. Washington Hospital Center · filed 2009-09-24

Mr. Hargrave’s complaint for “gross negligence” does not present a federal question, and his attempt to cure this deficiency by later asserting that “the negligence stated herein violates a right to due process,” Pl.’s Opp’n ¶ 1, fails sorely.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint based in negligence that asserts no federal question.

Abend v. Boyd · filed 2010-05-19

The Complaint here does not assert federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as it is based in negligence.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law; a negligence claim alone does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Sitzmann v. Abbenante · filed 2012-03-29

F ederal 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 sets forth a negligence claim, and does not establish federal question jurisdiction Both parties are located in the District of Columbia.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges state-law negligence without stating a constitutional claim.

Arsberry v. Wexford Health Care Provider · filed 2018-12-20

Therefore, the court agrees that as alleged plaintiff has failed to state a constitutional claim over which this court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state negligence claim merely because Medicare paid some medical bills and a Medicare issue might be relevant to a defense.

Morris v. Shaw · filed 2019-10-21

Mr. Morris raises a garden-variety tort claim—a negligence claim—involving a collateral federal issue, that Medicare has paid some of his medical bills. It is indisputable that Mr. Morris has not raised a federal cause of action. At best, Mr. Morris’s invocation of Medicare would have been relevant to any defense CMS might have brought. This is insufficient for federal jurisdiction.

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

Page v. Johnson · filed 2019-10-29

Negligence is a state law cause of action, and therefore the court does not have federal subject matter jurisdiction over the claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not give a federal court original federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim.

Bennett v. Clark · filed 2019-11-19

Federal courts have limited jurisdiction; they have jurisdiction over cases “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §1331. Negligence is a state law claim, not a claim arising under the federal Constitution or federal laws.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; state-law negligence and defamation claims alone do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Logan v. Town of Windsor, New York · filed 2020-04-23

Plaintiff’s only asserted causes of action (negligence and defamation), are New York State common-law torts governed by state law, and as plead, these state-law claims do not raise any federal questions.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim that necessarily raises disputed and substantial federal issues concerning a federally licensed dam.

Sherr v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. · filed 2016-04-18

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

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

Belle-Bey v. Adams · filed 2019-10-10

It appears, instead, that plaintiff is merely bringing state law claims against defendants, for negligence. Such claims do not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, so federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim that presents no federal cause of action.

White v. Con Edison · filed 2019-10-16

Plaintiffs assert that Defendants were negligent, a claim that arises under state law, and the substance of the complaint does not otherwise indicate a federal cause of action against these Defendants under the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts original jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim merely because it cites federal statutes as evidence of a duty; the claim must raise a substantial federal question.

Tan Phu Cuong Investment LLC v. King County · filed 2019-11-12

... citations to the SDWA and CWA as establishing duties for the purposes of their state law continuing negligence claim are insufficient to raise substantial federal questions and thus are not subject to the Court’s original jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only state-law negligence and breach-of-contract claims.

Lawrence v. Southeast Louisiana Legal Services · filed 2020-05-12

Similarly, the complaint includes only state law claims for negligence and breach of contract,7 thus depriving the Court of jurisdiction under Section 1331.