28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a negligence claim merely because a federal regulation supplies evidence of the standard of care, when the claim raises no substantial federal issue.

Dufrene · filed 2026-05-21

In this matter, Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated Title 33 only as evidence that Defendant breached its duty of care under Louisiana and maritime law. However, the violation of Title 33 is not an essential element of his recovery. ... As a result, Plaintiff’s claims present no substantial federal issue, and the Court does not have federal jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an attorney’s breach-of-contract claim for unpaid fees when the claim does not arise under federal law.

Asensio v. DiFiore · filed 2019-07-08

While jurisdiction over the underlying claims brought by Mr. Asensio exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Ms. Ambats’ breach of contract claim does not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over breach-of-contract and other state-law allegations that present no federal question.

Strujan v. Storage For Self-Storage LIC · filed 2019-09-27

Moreover, Strujan’s complaint fails to establish federal question jurisdiction. ... Here, Strujan’s alleged breach of contract and other allegations arise under state law. ... Thus, federal question jurisdiction is lacking.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim alleging only breach of a state-law insurance contract.

Simpson, Jr. v. To Good 2 Go Insurance · filed 2019-12-13

Turning first to Mr. Simpson’s state law breach of insurance contract claims, as to these claims the complaint did not allege any “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. §1331, giving rise to federal question jurisdiction.

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

Gottipati v. Prasad · filed 2020-02-10

The two most commonly recognized and utilized bases for federal court jurisdiction are (1) “federal question” under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) “diversity of citizenship” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The factual allegations contained in the instant Amended Complaint do not fall within the scope of either form of this court’s limited jurisdiction. There is no federal question. Rather, the claim arises under state law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law breach-of-contract claim merely because the claim references a federal regulation.

Kinnie v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation · filed 2020-03-17

Breach of contract is plainly a state law claim, and the mere reference to a federal statute does not transform that state law claim into one arising under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state law claims for fraud, theft, breach of contract, or unjust enrichment standing alone.

Henderson v. Shaffer · filed 2020-05-22

Moreover, construing Henderson’s complaint liberally, he alleges not only mail fraud but general “fraud, theft, and breach of contract or, in the alternative, unjust enrichment,” but all of these are state law claims that do not alone give rise to jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or federal law; state-law breach of contract and fraud claims do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Pepentsev v. Ahmed · filed 2020-05-28

A plaintiff properly invokes section 1331 jurisdiction when he or she pleads a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... Construing Plaintiff’s allegations to “raise the strongest arguments they suggest,” McLoed v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d 154, 156 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Bertin v. United States, 478 F.3d 489, 491 (2d Cir. 2007)), the Complaint does not suggest any basis for subject matter jurisdiction and Plaintiff’s claims do not arise under the Constitution or any federal laws.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a breach of contract claim merely because the contracts were created to comply with federal law.

The Shamrock Group v. BASE, Inc. · filed 2020-08-10

Such a breach of contract claim, without more, does not present a federal question.

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

Finnegan v. Legal Shield · filed 2021-04-22

However, Plaintiffs’ action does not arise under the Constitution or any federal laws.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a contract dispute governed by state law.

Singh v. Palmetto Consulting of Columbia, LLC · filed 2021-08-13

Contract law is governed by state law, not federal law, so there is no federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim for breach of an insurance contract.

Johnson v. Powell · filed 2022-02-17

To the extent plaintiff claims that a defendant “breached insurance contracts” with him, Doc. #1 at 3, such claims sound in state law and cannot support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over a breach of contract claim arising under state law.

Fancey v. Berkey · filed 2022-09-15

At best, Plaintiff's Complaint brings a claim for breach of contract against Defendant, which does not state a federal cause of action. This claim instead arises under Maryland law and may be raised in a state court, but cannot be brought in this Court, absent a basis for federal jurisdiction. As such, the Complaint does not establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim for breach of a lease agreement arising under state law.

Williams v. Lea · filed 2022-11-14

A claim for breach of a contract such as a lease agreement is a claim arising under state law and is not a “federal question” subject to the court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Quicklogic Corporation v. Konda Technologies, Inc. · filed 2023-08-11

Contract is an archetypical state law cause of action, so federal question jurisdiction does not apply.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law breach-of-contract claim that presents no federal-law issue.

Milhouse v. Morgan and Morgan P.A. · filed 2023-10-27

Here, Plaintiff invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction but does not state facts suggesting that Defendants violated any federal law. Rather, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants breached a contract, a cause of action that arises under state law. The Court therefore cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction of the asserted claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over purely contractual claims involving only state law.

Johns v. Perignat · filed 2023-12-08

Due to the nature of Plaintiffs’ claims—purely contractual and involving only state law—the Court determines there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a breach-of-contract claim governed by state law without another federal basis.

Oparaji v. Teachers' Retirement System of the City of New York · filed 2024-06-18

In this case, Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, which is governed by state law, fails to establish a federal question. Claims of breach of contract, which are governed by state law, do not themselves raise a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim merely because the plaintiff invokes an inapplicable federal statute.

Taylor v. Townsend · filed 2024-07-09

Further, Ms. Taylor’s reliance on 41 U.S.C. § 6503 to establish federal question jurisdiction is misplaced.... Ms. Taylor has failed to establish federal question jurisdiction, and the Court thus cannot accept supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a breach of contract claim governed by state law.

Swender v. Garden City Community College · filed 2024-08-28

Breach of contract claims do not invoke federal question jurisdiction because they are governed by state law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action alleging only a state-law breach of contract.

Nickolich v. County of Luzerne · filed 2024-10-07

However, Plaintiff cannot claim that the action arises under federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Nothing alleged in the Complaint establishes federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an ordinary state-law breach of contract claim.

Caldwell v. Neroni · filed 2025-05-07

This garden-variety state law breach of contract claim does not provide this Court with federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a carrier’s claim to collect unpaid service fees merely because federal law governs parts of the contract.

MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Garden State Investment Corp. · filed 1992-05-27

Furthermore, plaintiffs claim does not “arise under” the Communication Act merely because parts of the contract between the parties are governed by the Communication Act. ... Consequently, this Court, sua sponte, finds that federal subject matter jurisdiction does not exist for this claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1337 (1982) or under the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. (1982).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim merely because federal regulations required the contract terms at issue.

Giannetti Bros. Construction Corp. v. Lee County · filed 1984-05-04

Based upon this background, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs claims are state law breach of contract claims and the fact that the contract’s “equitable adjustment” provisions were mandated by EPA regulations does not change the state law character of those claims. Even if those claims could be found to “originate” in federal law, they do not involve the vindication of some federal policy so as to require the application of federal legal principles. This case does not “arise under” the laws of the United States for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and therefore the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction.

A contract claim governed by state law does not itself provide federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Snowbird Const. Co., Inc. v. United States · filed 1987-07-10

Pursuant to 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.” Snowbird’s action against the Housing Authority is based primarily upon the alleged breach of the construction contract entered into on November 16, 1983; however, the parties expressly agreed that interpretation of the contract would be governed by state law. Therefore, the only possible basis for federal question jurisdiction over the claims between plaintiffs and the Housing Authority would have to be founded on the RICO claims set forth in count nine of the complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract dispute merely because the contracts are subject to HUD requirements.

World Solar Corp. v. Steinbaum (In Re World Solar Corp.) · filed 1988-01-06

The district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, this case does not present a federal question.

A complaint critically relying on violations of federal nuclear-safety regulations presents questions arising under federal law for § 1331 purposes.

County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co. · filed 1983-01-14

On October 27, 1982, this Court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand the action to state court, holding that plaintiff’s allegations of noncompliance by defendants with the safety regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the “NRC”) presented questions “arising under” the federal law.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal statutes and their accompanying regulations.

Lucero v. Lujan · filed 1992-03-01

Federal jurisdiction exists over actions arising under the laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Petitioners’ claims involve 25 U.S.C. § 476 and its accompanying regulations which authorize and regulate Secretarial elections. Specifically, petitioners argue that respondents violated 25 C.F.R. §§ 81.8(a) and (b), 81.11 and 81.6(d). Therefore, federal question jurisdiction exists over this matter.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because it references federal environmental policies and regulations.

Nelon v. Mitchell Energy Corp. · filed 1996-08-28

They have pleaded a state law claim that makes reference to federal policies and regulations. This is insufficient to support federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a claim requiring interpretation of a federal statute and its implementing regulations.

Mustafa v. Meissner · filed 1996-11-18

Because this claim requires an interpretation of the IRCA and the regulations promulgated thereunder, it arises under federal law, and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides subject matter jurisdiction and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702, supplies the corresponding waiver of sovereign immunity.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a contempt claim based solely on violations of state prison regulations.

Doctor v. Wall · filed 2001-04-24

Here, plaintiff attempts to gain access to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the federal question jurisdiction. However, no federal question exists, and no contempt action may lie for individual violations of the Morris rules, since the Morris rules are meant to be dealt with under state law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the claim borrows a federal statute or regulation as a standard of conduct.

Savalle v. Nestle Waters North America, Inc. · filed 2003-08-29

Borrowing or importing a standard from a federal statute or regulation does not make a state cause of action removable.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to decide whether a state administrative agency correctly interpreted federal law, including the Telecommunications Act and FCC regulations.

Rural Iowa Independent Telephone Ass'n v. Iowa Utilities Board · filed 2004-04-01

The latter quarrel would be subject to the Hobbs Act, but the former is not because district courts have jurisdiction to determine whether a state administrative agency correctly interprets federal law, in this case the Telecommunications Act and the FCC regulations interpreting the Act.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state tort claims requiring interpretation of federal medical-product regulations when the federal issue is not significant to the federal system as a whole.

McCann v. West Chester Hospital, LLC · filed 2017-02-08

This Court joins with the prevailing consensus in holding that there is no substantial federal issue raised in this civil action. While the interpretation of FDCA regulations will be of supreme importance to the parties in this case, that interpretation will not be “significant to the federal system as a whole” as required by Gunn.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims implicating federal medical-device regulations when the federal issues are not substantial and federal jurisdiction would disrupt the federal-state balance.

Feeley v. Bayer Corp. · filed 2019-09-09

The Court does not find the federal issues raised in this case to be substantial. ... Likewise, the Court finds that conferring federal jurisdiction would disrupt the federal-state balance.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state negligence claim when violations of federal regulations would serve only as evidence and are not essential elements of the claim.

White v. Buchanan · filed 2020-02-26

The Court finds that the allegation in the second amended complaint fail to raise a substantial federal question. Proving that the Housing Authority violated federal regulations would only serve as evidence of negligence, and Plaintiff is not required to prove any of violations as an essential element of her claims.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state-law claim when an alternative theory of relief can be resolved without deciding a federal issue.

Bloosurf, LLC v. University of Maryland Eastern Shore · filed 2023-07-21

Although Bloosurf may receive an injunction under Section 11 if the sale would violate FCC regulations governing use of the EBS spectrum, it may also block the sale on the theory that it reasonably withheld its consent under Section 7—a theory central to Bloosurf’s allegations and entirely detached from the federal regulations it invokes. As Bloosurf’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief do not “necessarily raise” issues of federal law, this case falls outside the ambit of this court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction when federal preemption and constitutional arguments are merely defenses to claims arising entirely under state law, even if declaratory relief is sought.

Fern v. Turman · filed 1984-07-10

They are therefore not claims arising under the laws of the United States.

Section 1331 requires a claim under federal law or the United States Constitution, and claims based solely on state law do not invoke federal-question jurisdiction.

Chandler v. Ossipee Mountain Estates · filed 2014-04-21

The two most common bases for federal jurisdiction involve: (1) disputes between citizens of different states, when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332; and (2) disputes that involve claims under either a federal statute or the United States Constitution, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... And, the claims arguably raised in Chandler’s complaint appear to be based on New Hampshire law, rather than any federal law. ... It also fails to invoke this court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint whose sole claim arises under state law and alleges no violation of the Constitution or a federal statute.

Johnson v. Muy Pizza Minnesota, LLC. · filed 2018-05-16

Johnson’s sole claim arises from the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act. (Compl. ¶¶ 26-29 (citing Minn. Stat. § 176.021).) Johnson does not allege a violation of the United States Constitution or a federal statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Accordingly, the Court concludes that it lacks federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges only state-law claims and no violation of federal or constitutional law.

Schillo II v. Edmond · filed 2020-02-13

Federal district courts have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ... The allegations in the Complaint raise purely state law claims and in no way allege or imply a violation of constitutional or federal law. Thus, there is no federal question at issue.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when constitutional claims merely serve as a pretext to litigate a state-law dispute.

Kerr · filed 2026-03-25

Specifically, Magistrate Judge Tinsley explained that ... “the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction based upon a ‘federal question’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because Plaintiff merely couches his claims against the Defendants in constitutional terms as a pretext to allow a state law issue, the real focus of the claim, to be litigated in the federal system.” ... Thus, this proposed amendment would be “futile” because it does not cure the lack of ... subject matter jurisdiction that Magistrate Judge Tinsley thoroughly explained in his PF&R.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim that necessarily raises an actually disputed, substantial federal issue when a federal forum will not disturb Congress’s chosen balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing · filed 2005-06-13

Instead, the question is, does a state-law claim necessarily raise a stated federal issue, actually disputed and sub- stantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Section 1331 does not give federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because a federal issue is likely to arise; the claims must necessarily raise an actually disputed and substantial federal issue.

McKinnes v. American International Group, Inc. · filed 2006-03-13

The corporate defendants’ contention that TILA and Regulation Z are “surely” or “likely” to be disputed in this litigation is insufficient to present a federal question under the standard in Grable.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim involving a federal Medicare pricing term that is neither actually disputed nor substantial.

Hawaii v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. · filed 2006-11-30

Because the term AWP is neither substantial nor actually disputed to permit removal, this Court need not touch on the balance of judicial responsibilities between state and federal courts, except to note the concern in Abbott Labs, that to allow removal to federal court would cause a “significant disruption in the division of labor between federal and state courts,” given the number of cases that states have filed in related matters.

Section 1331 allows federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that necessarily raises an actually disputed and substantial federal issue when exercising jurisdiction does not upset the federal-state balance of judicial responsibilities.

Koresko v. Murphy · filed 2006-12-12

The court concludes, however, that it has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over Count II — Plaintiffs claim for rescission of the contract between the parties on the ground that a condition precedent to the contract (“the disclosures required under federal law”) were allegedly never made — and supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the rest of Plaintiffs state-law claims.

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

Byrd v. Dressel · filed 2008-08-27

A state-law claim invokes 28 U.S.C. § 1331 jurisdiction only if it “necessarily raise[s] a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congres- sionally approved balance of federal and state judicial respon- sibilities.” Grable & Sons Metal Prod., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005); see also id. at 313 (explaining that a “substantial” federal issue is one that “indi- cat[es] a serious federal interest in claiming the advantages thought to be inherent in a federal forum”).

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

District of Columbia v. Group Hospitalization & Medical Services, Inc. · filed 2008-09-15

Applying this framework, this Court concludes that federal jurisdiction exists. The complaint necessarily raises a disputed federal issue, that issue is substantial, and this Court’s assertion of jurisdiction would not unduly alter the federal-state balance.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when its embedded federal issue is not actually disputed and substantial.

Sullivan v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. · filed 2009-03-06

In sum, the Court finds that this case is not one “that necessarily raise[s] a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial” meriting access to the federal forum.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law overcharge claim merely because some purchasers may receive federal health-benefit reimbursement; the complaint must necessarily raise an actually disputed and substantial federal issue.

Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund v. CVS Caremark Corp. · filed 2010-07-19

Whether or not some of the purchasers may be reimbursed through Medicaid or them federal employer’s health benefits program does not create federal question jurisdiction. There is no “actually disputed and substantial” federal issue necessarily raised by the Complaint which would make a federal forum appropriate. ... Thus, there is no § 1331 subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim without a federal cause of action only if the claim necessarily raises an actually disputed and substantial federal issue that a federal court may hear without disturbing the approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Ramirez v. Hospital Espanol Auxilio Mutuo, Inc. · filed 2011-05-03

While Grable permits the exercise of federal jurisdiction even when a case lacks a federal cause of action, it does so only when a “state-law claim necessarily raise[s] a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any eongressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities”. Id. at 314. In this case, however, there exists no issue so substantial as to fit within the narrow set of circumstances Grable recognized.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that cite federal laws but do not turn on an actually disputed and substantial issue of federal law.

Cooper v. International Paper Co. · filed 2012-12-14

IP, likewise, has failed to show that the state-law claims in the complaint turn on an actually disputed and substantial issue of federal law.

Section 1331 uses the same arising-under test as § 1338(a): a state-law claim supports federal jurisdiction only when it necessarily raises an actually disputed, substantial federal issue that a federal court can resolve without disrupting the congressionally approved federal-state balance.

Gunn v. Minton · filed 2013-02-20

Adhering to the demands of “[l]inguistic consistency,” we have interpreted the phrase “arising under” in both sections identically, applying our §1331 and §1338(a) precedents interchange- ably. ... That is, federal jurisdiction over a state law claim will lie if a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actu- ally disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state bal- ance approved by Congress.

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 federal-state balance approved by Congress.

Pharmacann Penn, LLC v. BV Dev. Superstition RR, LLC · filed 2018-03-14

In those instances, "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." ... This case meets all four requirements.

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

Hornish Trust v. King County · filed 2018-08-03

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 authorizes federal jurisdiction over all civil actions “arising under” federal law. ... Applying Grable’s reasoning to this case, we hold that we have jurisdiction. We note that a federal issue is both “necessarily raised” on the face of the AC, and “actually disputed” by the parties.

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

Backer v. Cooperatieve Rabobank U.A. · filed 2018-09-18

Jurisdiction exists under this category where "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."

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state negligence claims that fail the four-part Gunn test for necessarily raised federal issues.

Callahan v. Southwest Airlines Co. · filed 2018-11-07

For the reasons detailed by Judge Robertson, this court agrees the four-part Gunn test is not satisfied here and, therefore, federal jurisdiction does not lie with respect to the state negligence claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim when a federal preemption defense is not necessarily raised by the well-pleaded complaint.

DeAngelo v. Artis Senior Living of Elmhurst, LLC · filed 2022-08-15

Because PREP Act immunity functions as an affirmative defense, “a PREP Act preemption defense is not ‘necessarily raised’ by a well-pleaded state-law negligence complaint,” and the first element of the Grable standard is not satisfied.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state-law claim based on an embedded federal issue unless the claim necessarily raises that issue.

Sherod v. Comprehensive Healthcare Manag · filed 2023-09-27

Therefore, Comprehensive Healthcare cannot invoke federal question jurisdiction based on an embedded federal issue in Sherod’s complaint.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state legal malpractice claim when its embedded federal issue lacks significance to the federal system as a whole.

Link Motion Inc. v. DLA Piper LLP · filed 2024-06-10

The federal law standing issue embedded in LKM’s state malpractice claim, however important to DLA Piper in this particular action, lacks the sort of significance to the federal system as a whole warranting the exercise of federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when a federal bankruptcy issue would arise only as a defense to a state-created property claim and is insufficiently substantial.

Fabrique, Inc., a Texas Corporation v. Corman · filed 1987-04-07

Fabrique’s federal element would only arise as a defense to a possible attack by Corman on Fabrique’s leasehold. The federal element “is insufficiently ‘substantial’ to confer federal question jurisdiction.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law libel and slander claim merely because the claim arose in a federal bankruptcy proceeding.

West-Anderson v. Saunders · filed 2003-03-03

Here, Plaintiffs claim does not arise under federal law. Plaintiffs claim is a state law claim for libel and slander. That the claim arose in the context of a federal bankruptcy proceeding is inapposite as to whether this court has federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law complaint merely because a defense may require construing federal bankruptcy court orders.

Harvard Real Estate-Allston, Inc. v. Kmart Corp. · filed 2005-12-27

No substantial question of federal law is involved in the leasehold dispute presented here. That a defendant in a proceeding may seek to have orders and rulings of a federal court construed is a familiar context for state court litigation.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when resolving that claim requires no federal issue, even if an analogous federal claim was available.

Bentley v. Miami Air Int'l, Inc. · filed 2019-02-27

Here, it is not necessary for the parties to address any federal issues under the ADEA to resolve Plaintiff's FCRA claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state whistleblower claim merely because it involves an alleged violation of a federal regulation when the federal issue is not substantial and federal jurisdiction would disrupt the congressionally approved balance between state and federal courts.

Martinson v. Mahube-Otwa Cmty. Action P'ship, Inc. · filed 2019-03-11

These considerations lead here to the conclusion that there is not subject-matter jurisdiction over Martinson's claim 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 state-law medical-device claims when exercising jurisdiction would disrupt the federal-state balance contemplated by Congress.

Barone v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc. · filed 2019-03-12

Therefore, the Court concludes that the exercise of federal jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims would disrupt the federal-state balance contemplated by Congress under the MDA, thus further justifying a finding that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim based on the fact-bound application of federal regulations to a particular dispute when the issue has no broader significance for the federal system.

Medici v. Lifespan Corp. · filed 2019-06-03

Here, Dr. Medici's claim that Lifespan's conduct violated its Research Misconduct Policy, created pursuant to federal regulations, is a fact-bound and situation-specific claim involving whether Lifespan's actions constitute a breach of contract. The Court's determination on the issue has no application to the federal regulations as a whole or beyond the facts of Dr. Medici's instant case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when independent state-law duties make resolution of a federal issue unnecessary.

Illinois Public Risk Fund v. Purdue Pharma L.P. · filed 2019-07-15

As many other courts have found in similar cases concerning the manufacture and distribution of opioids, these alleged state-law duties mean that the construction of the Controlled Substances Act is not a necessary part of the plaintiff's claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims involving a federal flood insurance policy when no federal issue is necessarily raised.

Breen v. Ivantage Select Agency Inc · filed 2019-07-24

Here, the first part of the Grable test—that the federal issue be “necessarily raised”—is not satisfied. ... Federal question jurisdiction is lacking, and therefore the Court must remand this case to state court.

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

Adams v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. · filed 2019-08-26

Indeed, each of Plaintiffs’ claims refer only to common law duties under Nevada law and, consequently, do not appear to require federal analysis for their resolution. As Defendants have not articulated how any specific claim necessitates resort to federal law, Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing otherwise.

Section 1331 does not give federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that invoke the Controlled Substances Act when the federal issue is neither substantial nor necessary to success and the Act supplies no private right of action.

Kingman Hospital Incorporated v. Purdue Pharma LP · filed 2019-08-27

The Court agrees with the courts that have addressed this issue in similar cases and found that, to the extent the Complaint raises any question under the Controlled Substances Act, the question is not substantial, resolution of the question is not essential for Plaintiffs to succeed, and the Controlled Substances Act does not provide for a private right of action, indicating that Congress did not intend that federal courts would exercise federal question jurisdiction and provide remedies under the statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the federal issue is neither necessary nor substantial.

Wilkie v. Mitchell · filed 2019-10-08

As such, the Complaint does not demonstrate that the federal issue in this case is “substantial” or “necessary” to the Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law escheatment claim merely because federal common-law priority rules might apply if another state later claims the same funds.

State of Texas v. ClubCorp Holdings, Inc. · filed 2019-11-05

At the end of the day, until another state is making a claim to the same funds Texas is interested in, the Texas Trilogy is simply not implicated here, or certainly not sufficiently implicated to create federal jurisdiction. See Grable, 545 U.S. 308, 313 (2005).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when an alternative theory of recovery does not require resolution of a federal issue.

The DCH Health Care Authority v. Purdue Pharma, L.P. · filed 2019-12-03

It thus has failed to show that these alleged violations do not constitute an “alternative theory” of negligence per se as to which federal law is not essential. Under Christianson, therefore, the complaint’s negligence cause of action does not “necessarily raise” a federal issue.

Section 1331 does not give federal-question jurisdiction over a state wrongful-discharge claim merely because it cites the First Amendment as the source of public policy.

Daniels v. South Kentucky Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation · filed 2019-12-17

Furthermore, the Court agrees that it would be unwise to let state public policy claims to be “converted into federal actions by the simple expedient of referenced federal law as the source of that public policy.” For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not have jurisdiction, and Mr. Daniels’ Motion to Remand [R. 7] is GRANTED.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction over a state-law dispute merely because adjudication may require considering federal securities laws or regulations.

JACKSON COUNTY BANK v. DUSABLON · filed 2019-12-26

If Defendant claims that this clause establishes the need to evaluate federal securities laws and regulations in adjudicating the parties’ dispute, we disagree for the reasons previously explained in our Remand Order. That is insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim involving a federal issue only if the claim necessarily raises that issue; state courts’ use of analogous federal law for guidance does not alone satisfy that requirement.

Commission On Human Rights and Opportunities v. 445 W. Putnam, LLC · filed 2020-01-07

But Defendants have not demonstrated that Connecticut courts are bound or obligated in any way to follow federal interpretations of state fair housing laws such that consideration of purely state law claims would “necessarily raise” a federal issue. ... Defendants have not demonstrated that the Complaint, which brings only state law claims, necessarily raises any federal issue such that federal question jurisdiction over this action would be proper.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a state-law claim invokes a federal statute without a private federal cause of action as an element of the claim.

City of North Las Vegas v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. · filed 2020-01-09

Thus, invoking violations of the CSA as an element of a state-law claim—e.g., duty and standard of care in a negligence action—does not invoke federal question jurisdiction because it is “insufficiently ‘substantial’ to confer federal-question jurisdiction.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because an alleged violation of a federal statute supplies an element when that statute provides no private federal cause of action and the claim can rest on independent state-law duties.

City of Las Vegas v. Purdue Pharma, L.P. · filed 2020-01-15

Thus, invoking violations of the CSA as an element of a state-law claim—e.g., duty and standard of care in a negligence action—does not invoke federal question jurisdiction because it is “insufficiently ‘substantial’ to confer federal-question jurisdiction.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because it invokes a federal statute without a private right of action when the federal issue is collateral and insufficiently substantial.

Holbein v. Baxter Chrysler Jeep, Inc. · filed 2020-01-29

This is “evidence” by itself that any federal question implicated by Holbein’s claim is insufficiently substantial to permit us to exercise federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that can be resolved on state-law grounds alone, even when the complaint invokes the United States Constitution.

Ellison v. Flat Top Lake Association, Inc. · filed 2020-02-11

Federal law is not a necessary element of the cause of action because the claim may be resolved on state law grounds alone. Accordingly, Plaintiff Residents’ request for relief does not necessarily depend on federal law, and the Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter.

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

The People of the State Of California v. H and R Block, Inc. · filed 2020-02-11

Here, the present case is analogous to Lippitt because the State’s right to relief (and H&R Block’s liability) does not necessarily turn on the interpretation or application of either a federal statute or a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that does not necessarily depend on a substantial, disputed federal issue.

McElyea v. McAlester Regional Health Center Authority · filed 2020-03-04

Thus, Grable does not provide a basis for federal-question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim for violation of the peer review process.

Section 1331 permits federal question jurisdiction over a state law claim only if its federal issue is actually disputed and substantial and a federal forum can hear it without disturbing the approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Hernandez v. PIH Health, Inc. · filed 2020-03-05

Federal question jurisdiction premised on a state law claim would be proper only if Plaintiff also shows that the federal issue is “actually disputed and substantial,” and “a federal forum may entertain [the issue] without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.” Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005). Plaintiff has not made such a showing.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction over state-law claims when a related federal tax issue is neither substantial nor necessary to resolve those claims.

Grow v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company · filed 2020-03-06

Turning to consideration of removability under the arising under statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, it is determined that Defendant’s position that Plaintiff’s claims raise a substantial federal question should be rejected.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that a flood insurer concealed or failed to disclose less expensive coverage options, even though the federal flood insurance program is central to the facts.

Houck v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · filed 2002-03-18

In sum, claims based on conduct such as concealing or neglecting to apprize insureds of less expensive options concerning flood insurance do not present substantial federal questions warranting the exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law failure-to-procure flood insurance claims when the complaint raises no federal question and resolving the claims requires no substantial question of federal law.

Roybal v. Los Alamos National Bank · filed 2005-06-30

Because there is no federal question on the face of the Roybals’ well-pleaded complaint and because the resolution of their state law claims does not implicate the resolution of a substantial federal question, the state law tort claims do not “arise under” federal law and, thus, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state-law claim to enforce an arbitration clause for indemnification of a federal tax assessment when the federal tax issue is only a potential defense.

Laub v. Ross · filed 1993-03-30

ADJUDGED that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over this lawsuit because the underlying cause of action, the enforceability of an arbitration clause allowing indemnification of a tax assessment, arises under state law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because they may present questions of federal tax law; the federal issue must be actually disputed and substantial.

Acker v. AIG International, Inc. · filed 2005-11-08

Thus, this Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims arise under state law and were inappropriately removed to federal court. The mere fact that Plaintiffs’ claims may present questions of federal tax law does not suffice to present a substantial federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state malpractice and similar claims involving federal tax law when hearing them would disrupt the congressionally approved division of work between state and federal courts.

Snook v. Deutsche Bank AG · filed 2006-01-17

In addition, to assert federal question jurisdiction here would not be “consistent with congressional judgment about the sound division of labor between state and federal courts governing the application of § 1331.”

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over a state-law claim that necessarily presents a substantial federal question, including a dispute requiring construction of federal tax law.

Bowers v. J & M DISCOUNT TOWING, LLC. · filed 2006-10-31

Even if Bowers’ claim were construed as a state-law cause of action, the Court would still have original jurisdiction over the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because it presents a substantial federal question.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over state-law wage claims challenging an employer’s tax withholding on imputed tips because those claims raise a substantial federal question.

Fredrickson v. Starbucks Corp. · filed 2013-10-29

Judge Hubei found that’ jurisdiction was proper in this court because plaintiffs complaint ultimately raised a substantial federal question. ... I agree.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law whistleblower claim based on a federal regulation when exercising jurisdiction would upset the congressionally approved division of labor between state and federal courts.

Martinson v. Mahube-Otwa Community Action Partnership, Inc. · filed 2019-03-11

These considerations lead here to the conclusion that there is not subject-matter jurisdiction over Martinson’s claim 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 permits federal jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a federal issue is necessarily raised, actually disputed, substantial, and capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the congressionally approved federal-state balance.

Townes Telecomms., Inc. v. Nat'l Telecomms. Coop. Ass'n · filed 2019-07-09

The ERISA issue confronted here is necessarily raised, actually disputed, substantial, and capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress. As such, federal jurisdiction properly lies and plaintiffs' Motion to Remand must be denied.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over a state-law claim for injunctive relief when its principal issue is the federal constitutionality of an ordinance.

Carbajal v. The Retreat at Bon Secour Owners Association, Inc. · filed 2019-07-11

Similarly, even though Alabama law provides the claim for injunctive relief in Count 8, the principal issue is the federal constitutionality of the challenged zoning ordinance.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when relief necessarily depends on a substantial question of federal law.

Dupree v. Fay Servicing, LLC · filed 2019-08-09

Thus, although Plaintiff's claims may present certain questions of state contract law, Plaintiff's right to relief on each of her three (3) claims "necessarily depends" on the question of whether Fay Servicing, and thereby Equity Trustees, has violated federal mortgage regulations, which is a question of federal law.

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

Fried v. Sanders · filed 2019-08-14

To qualify, a state law claim must contain a federal issue that 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); Mikulski v. Centerior Energy Corp., 501 F.3d 555, 568 (6th Cir. 2007). ... The federal issue is therefore not a necessary element of the claim.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint pleading only state law claims if a claim turns on a substantial question of federal law.

MGA Entertainment, Inc. v. Zuru, LLC · filed 2019-10-21

Here, because Plaintiff pleads only state law claims, a federal question only exists if one of Plaintiff's claums “turn[s] on substantial questions of federal law.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state deceptive-labeling claim merely because it implicates federal labeling standards when the federal issue is not substantial to the federal system and federal jurisdiction would upset the federal-state balance.

Damaso v. Costco Wholesale Corporation · filed 2019-10-22

In sum, this run-of-the-mill FDUTPA case is not in the trim category of state-law cases substantial enough to arise under federal law simply because some federal law will apply.

Section 1331 permits federal jurisdiction over a state-law claim that necessarily raises a disputed and substantial federal issue whose resolution in federal court does not disrupt the federal-state balance.

Tantaros v. Fox News Network, LLC · filed 2019-12-17

Whether her claims can be heard in court or by an arbitrator rests on a disputed, substantial federal issue. That federal issue gives this Court jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim unless it necessarily raises a federal issue and federal jurisdiction would preserve the congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Lynchburg Range & Training, LLC v. Northam · filed 2020-04-22

For these reasons, the Court finds that it could not assert jurisdiction over the present action without posing a serious risk of upsetting “any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.” Gunn, 568 U.S. at 258. Federal jurisdiction is absent because Plaintiffs’ claims do not necessarily raise an issue of federal law, id., and these federalism concerns provide an additional, independent basis for the Court’s conclusion that it is without jurisdiction here.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when its embedded federal issue is not substantial and resolving it in federal court would disrupt the congressionally approved federal-state balance.

Hansen v. African Contract Solutions Inc · filed 2020-05-04

Even if this federal issue was necessarily raised and is actually disputed, the Court finds that, pursuant to the third and fourth Grable factors, it is not substantial and not capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over state-law claims that necessarily raise an actually disputed, substantial federal issue capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance.

McMichael v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. · filed 2020-06-10

Under this branch of “arising under” jurisprudence, “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.” ... Accordingly, the Court concludes that Claims A and B of Plaintiffs’ complaint properly invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims whose resolution requires no answer to a federal-law question.

Lipian v. Frumkin · filed 2020-07-15

Though Plaintiff’s state court complaint may have borrowed language from his federal court complaint, no questions of Title IX liability must be answered to resolve the state law claims. Whether the university violated Title IX is irrelevant to the question of the individual Defendant’s liability under Michigan statutory and common law. There is no federal jurisdiction for any of Plaintiff’s three state law claims.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims unless resolving at least one claim necessarily requires deciding a question of federal law.

Greenkraft, Inc. v. Walters Auto Sales and Service, Inc. · filed 2020-08-07

Defendant, on the other hand, has not met its burden to show that any of the remaining claims necessarily requires the determination of any question under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an RFDCPA claim merely because the claim references FDCPA provisions incorporated into state law.

Griego v. The Tehama Law Group, P.C. · filed 2020-08-21

That reasoning applies equally here, and the Court thus finds that Plaintiff’s references to the federal FDCPA in relation to Plaintiff’s claim under the RFDCPA do not raise a federal question for purposes of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when its embedded federal issue is not substantial to the federal system and hearing it in federal court would disrupt the federal-state balance.

Ellis v. Woodmen of the World Life Insurance Society · filed 2020-10-19

The Court need not decide whether the federal issue here is necessarily raised or actually disputed because it is not substantial nor is it capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the balance approved by Congress.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when relief necessarily depends on resolving substantial questions of federal law.

Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. v. D. · filed 2020-11-02

Both of these questions implicate significant federal issues that not only warrant federal jurisdiction in this case, but demand it.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the claimed right exists regardless of whether federal law was violated.

Munn v. APF Management Company, LLC. · filed 2020-12-10

If Plaintiff is correct that Defendants were obligated to provide access to these documents, they would be obligated to do so regardless of whether those forms complied with federal tax laws. As a result, this claim does not raise a federal issue at all, let alone necessarily raise a substantial one, and therefore fails to provide an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when federal law neither creates the claims nor supplies a substantial question necessary to resolve them.

Teliax, Inc. v. CenturyLink Communications, LLC · filed 2021-02-01

Because it does not appear from the face of plaintiff’s complaint that plaintiff’s claims arise under federal law, ... the Court does not have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that are neither completely preempted by federal law nor dependent on resolving a substantial question of federal law.

MedSoftSys, Inc. v. CoolMoon Corporation · filed 2021-02-10

This case, in short, presents no federal question—and so, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear it.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that necessarily raise a substantial federal issue appropriate for a federal forum.

Christopherson v. Bushner · filed 2021-04-29

Accordingly, the Court has federal question jurisdiction over the state-law claims against STARR and John Doe.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law quiet-title claim that necessarily raises a disputed and substantial federal issue when federal adjudication does not disturb the federal-state division of labor.

The Five Mile Creek Greenway Capital Improvement Cooperative District v. Corner Stone Ranch, Inc. · filed 2021-05-06

The court concludes that Five Mile Creek’s state-law quiet title action does indeed “arise under” federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331; accordingly, this court may properly exercise federal question subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. The face of Five Mile Creek’s complaint necessarily raises a substantial and disputed question of federal law that this court may consider without disturbing the federal-state division of labor.

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

State of Illinois Ex. Rel Ken Elder v. JPMorgan Chase N.A. · filed 2021-08-03

The Court concludes that this case arises under federal law and was properly removed.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that necessarily raises a substantial federal question when the federal issue is disputed and federal adjudication preserves the federal-state balance.

Tri-Dam v. Frazier · filed 2021-08-30

In sum, because Plaintiff’s state law public nuisance claim necessarily raises a substantial federal question, the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337 over this matter.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over H-2A workers’ state-law contract, wage, and misrepresentation claims merely because federal visa regulations control their contracts’ terms.

Sanchez v. Sarbanand Farms, LLC · filed 2021-09-30

Significantly, too, subsequent district court decisions, in accord with Nieto-Santos, have found that analogous contract, wage and hour law, and misrepresentations claims by H-2A workers like Plaintiffs herein do not “arise under” federal law so as to trigger federal question jurisdiction, even though H-2A regulations may control the terms of the workers’ contracts. ... Therefore, in addition to failing to meet the requirements for federal jurisdiction under CAFA, Defendants’ alternative argument that federal question jurisdiction is present in any event also fails.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law tort claims merely because they invoke federal laws when resolving the claims does not necessarily require deciding a federal issue.

Harlow v. Humphrey · filed 2021-10-18

In sum, the Court finds Defendants have failed to carry their burden to persuade that original subject matter jurisdiction lies. While Defendants identify several instances of Plaintiffs invoking and citing federal laws and theories in the operative Complaint, Defendants have not demonstrated that Plaintiffs’ negligence and IIED claims necessarily require resolution of any federal issue.

Section 1331 does not establish federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the removing party fails to explain why federal law is disputed or necessarily implicated in deciding that claim.

Snowmass Mining Co., LLC v. Mystic Eagle Quarry LLC · filed 2021-12-30

Although Elbram claims that plaintiff’s complaint arises under federal law, it does not specify why federal law is disputed or necessarily implicated in deciding plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim when it necessarily raises an actually disputed, substantial federal question that can be resolved without disturbing the federal-state balance approved by Congress.

Ibarra Consulting Engineers Inc v. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc · filed 2022-01-10

Under this provision, federal courts have jurisdiction (even over suits with only a state-law cause of action) when the case presents a federal question that is “(1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disturbing the federal-state balance approved by Congress.”

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

Stewart v. Entergy Corporation · filed 2022-03-07

Because Defendants have not established that Plaintiffs’ claims necessarily implicate a specific federal law, this analysis fails on the first two factors.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that relies solely on the Connecticut Constitution and does not necessarily raise a federal question.

Dalling v. Fairfield · filed 2022-03-29

For these reasons, every court to have considered the issue after Trusz has rightly ruled that Bracey is distinguishable and that a complaint that relies solely on the Connecticut Constitution does not trigger federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a state law claim merely because it relies on federal regulations that create no private cause of action and present no substantial federal question.

Penkert v. Phantom Bikes, Inc. · filed 2022-05-13

Her reliance on the federal bicycle regulations, which do not provide a private, federal cause of action, does not implicate any federal right, nor does it present a substantial federal question under Grable. Accordingly, Phantom has not met its burden in demonstrating federal question jurisdiction and therefore removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 was improper.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim only when the federal issue meets all four requirements of the Supreme Court’s test.

COMER v. MCCASKILL · filed 2022-08-03

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question jurisdiction only exists in a case asserting state law actions “‘if [the] case meets all four requirements’ of the Supreme Court’s four-prong standard.” Burrell, 918 F.3d at 386 (quoting Pressl, 842 F.3d at 303). Because this case fails to do so, Duke has failed to meet its burden and, therefore, this Court concludes that it does not have federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim unless an embedded federal issue is necessary to resolve it.

Brinker International Inc v. US Foods Inc · filed 2022-08-08

To the extent that there are any federal issues presented in this case, they are not “necessary” within the meaning of § 1331.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim involving a federal issue only when that issue is substantial and federal jurisdiction would preserve the congressionally approved balance between state and federal courts.

Young v. Amerihome Mortgage Company, LLC · filed 2022-08-16

Nonetheless, the Court finds that subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking because the federal issue is not substantial and resolution in the federal courts would disrupt the federal-state balance approved by Congress.

Section 1331 gives federal question jurisdiction over a state law claim that requires the court to decide a disputed First Amendment issue.

Mumma v. Pathway Vet Alliance, LLC · filed 2023-01-04

The Court therefore has federal question jurisdiction over her Section 31-51q claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

RH Kids, LLC v. National Default Servicing Corporation · filed 2023-02-09

Defendant has sufficiently proven jurisdiction. Despite the fact that there is no federal cause of action in the complaint, the claims at issue necessarily present an embedded federal question: Does the federal foreclosure bar prevent Nevada law from extinguishing the deed of trust?

Section 1331 permits federal jurisdiction over a state-law claim when resolving it necessarily requires deciding a substantial federal question.

Siantou v. DK Associates, LLC · filed 2023-02-16

Because the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims depend on a resolution of a substantial question of federal law, the Court retains jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, and will deny Plaintiff’s motion for remand.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that merely mention federal statutes when resolving those claims requires no substantial question of federal law.

Kellogg v. Louisiana Children's Medical Center · filed 2023-04-14

The Court finds that determining whether Defendants’ actions in this case amount to discrimination, retaliation, or the intentional infliction of emotional distress under Louisiana law does not depend upon the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state-law claim unless it necessarily raises a disputed and substantial federal issue that a federal court can resolve without disrupting the federal-state judicial balance.

Viola v. The City of Morgantown · filed 2023-05-04

The Court finds Defendant has failed to satisfy the Grable factors demonstrating an embedded federal question exists in Plaintiffs’ Complaint investing this Court with jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that necessarily depend on duties established by federal law.

State of Minnesota v. Fleet Farm LLC · filed 2023-06-27

Applying that same logic here, the Court has jurisdiction over these claims because the State details how Fleet Farm is failing its obligations as a federally licensed arms dealer.

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

Heartland Construction Group, LLC v. Housing Authority of South Bend · filed 2023-07-06

But that won’t suffice for federal jurisdiction. No federal question is embedded in the contract claim—only the defense, if anywhere.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state-law claim when resolving the claim does not require deciding a federal question.

Hinchman v. Performance Food Group, Inc. · filed 2023-07-14

In sum, because resolution of this case does not turn on resolution of any federal question, defendant has failed to demonstrate that a federal question is (1) necessarily raised and (2) actually disputed.

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

State of Vermont v. Exxon Mobil Corporation · filed 2024-02-06

Jurisdiction will lie under Grable “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.” Connecticut, 83 F.4th at 139-40. ... This Court reaches the same conclusion with respect to the VCPA claims asserted here.

Section 1331 can cover a state-law challenge to an agency’s determination of federal constitutional law even when the claim does not allege that the agency violated federal law.

Rhode Island Truck Ctr v. Daimler Trucks North America · filed 2024-02-09

RITC does not allege in its claim pertaining to the Board's dismissal of the Freightliner Claim that the Board violated federal law, constitutional or otherwise. RITC alleges instead that the Board made an erroneous determination of federal constitutional law in ruling as it did. Nonetheless, we conclude that, reviewing de novo, see Law Offs. of David Efron v. Matthews & Fullmer L. Firm, 782 F.3d 46, 51 (1st Cir. 2015), the claim not only arises under federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 but also was properly removed on that basis under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state Spill Act claim that does not require resolution of a federal-law issue.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY · filed 2024-04-23

The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Spill Act Claim does not require a preliminary adjudication of any federal law claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state breach-of-contract claim merely because the plaintiff’s business has a tangential connection to a federally regulated industry; the claim must require application of federal law.

Alter Business Advisors, LLC v. The Doc App, Inc. · filed 2024-06-14

That Plaintiff’s business may tangentially relate to the medical marijuana industry is of no moment because Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim does not require any application of a federal law, including the CSA.

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

Apex Construction Company, Inc v. USVI · 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 provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when deciding them requires no determination of federal law and a federal-law violation is not an essential element.

Trump Media & Technology Group Corp. v. ARC Global Investments II LLC · filed 2024-09-17

Nothing in the present Trump Media action requires the circuit court to determine whether the alleged conduct amounts to a violation of federal securities law, and the existence of a securities law violation is not an essential element to any claim by Plaintiffs. The circuit court must adjudicate whether the alleged conduct amounts to a violation of Florida law.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over a state-law claim that contains an embedded federal question satisfying the four Gunn factors.

RNC v. North Carolina State Board of Elections · filed 2024-10-29

First, the district court possessed original jurisdiction over the state constitutional claim under Section 1331, as the claim contains an embedded federal question.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state law claim when the claim necessarily depends on resolving a substantial question of federal law.

English v. Heine · filed 2024-12-02

When “state law creates the cause of action, as in the instant case . . . . federal question jurisdiction depends on whether the [petitioner]’s demand ‘necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.’” Mulcahey, 29 F.3d at 151 (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 28 (1983)). Other than a vague reference to kidnapping across state lines, Heine and Knorr have not pointed to any question of federal law that arises in this case, let alone a substantial one.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over a state-law claim that presents a federal question.

McDowell v. The Board of Trustees for Perry Township, Stark County, Ohio · filed 2025-03-11

Plaintiffs’ claim for civil liability for criminal acts including violation of civil rights involves a federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because a federal issue might arise; the claim must necessarily raise an actually disputed and substantial federal question.

Great Horned Owls LLC v. Oklahoma City Airport Trust · filed 2025-06-05

Such a possibility is not enough to show a substantial, actually disputed, necessarily raised federal claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the asserted federal issue is fact-bound and lacks importance to the federal system as a whole.

Capital Hill Development, LLC v. Cohn, Goldberg & Deutsch, L.L.C. · filed 2025-06-11

But even assuming the vague “federal issues” CGD flags are necessary and disputed, they are “not substantial in the relevant sense” because they are of limited “importance . . . to the federal system as a whole.” Gunn, 568 U.S. at 260.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim merely because resolving it may require interpreting a federal agency rule incorporated into the contract.

Baptist Hospital of Miami, Inc. v. Preferred Care Network, Inc. · filed 2025-07-28

Along those very same lines, just because Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim may require the court to interpret the 340B Final Remedy Rule to determine whether it is incorporated into the terms of the Agreement, this does not give rise to federal question jurisdiction under section 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law housing claim merely because it alleges noncompliance with VAWA regulations.

Hedges v. Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority · filed 2025-08-06

Like the courts to confront similar issues in McVicker and Current, the Court concludes that a public housing resident’s allegation that her landlord did not comply with VAWA- mandated regulations does not confer on the court federal-question jurisdiction over the dispute.

Section 1331 permits federal-question 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 approved by Congress.

Wiley v. Fleet Farm LLC · filed 2025-09-09

Federal-question jurisdiction is therefore properly exercised over state-law claims when 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 v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 258 (2013). The Court finds that each Gunn requirement is met.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because it raises a disputed federal patent issue; the issue must also be substantial, and federal jurisdiction must preserve the federal–state balance.

Micron Technology, Inc. v. Netlist · filed 2026-03-25

Although Micron’s claim necessarily raises an issue of patent law that is actually disputed, the federal issue in this case is “not substantial in the relevant sense” and exercising jurisdiction would disrupt the federal–state balance. Accordingly, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under §§ 1331 and 1338.

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 approved by Congress.

Connecticut Ex Rel. Tong v. Exxon Mobil Corp. · filed 2023-09-27

To determine whether Connecticut’s pleading is among those “certain cases,” id., we apply the framework set forth by the Supreme Court in Grable and later streamlined in Gunn. Under that framework, “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.” Gunn, 568 U.S. at 258.

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

Dixon v. Coburg Dairy Inc · filed 2004-07-02

Thus, in the absence of another jurisdictional ground, a defendant seeking to remove a case in which state law creates the plaintiff’s cause of action must establish two things: (1) that the plaintiff’s 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.