28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim merely because it raises disputed patent issues; the issues must also be substantial and resolvable in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance.

STC.UNM v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated · filed 2020-08-14

For the above reasons, the Court concludes that Defendants have failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the patent law issues are capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress. And having failed to do so, Defendants have not shown that the failure to pay royalties claim arises under federal patent law. Consequently, the Court lacks federal jurisdiction to hear this case and will remand this matter to state court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when they raise no necessary, substantial federal issue and are not completely preempted.

State of Georgia ex rel. v. Elite Integrated Medical, LLC · filed 2021-04-12

Defendants’ arguments in justification of removal based on federal question jurisdiction are unavailing. The State’s claims do not depend on the resolution of a substantial issue of federal law, nor are they completely preempted by the FDCA sufficient to create federal jurisdiction.

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

The Williams Family v. Kids First of Florida · filed 2023-05-09

Accordingly, none of the claims in the Complaint raises a sufficient federal question to invoke the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim when establishing a contractual duty necessarily requires interpreting a federal agency agreement governed by federal law.

Amoco Chemical Co. v. Tex Tin Corp. · filed 1995-10-24

Reliance on federal law, therefore, is essential to the success of Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim, irrespective of any defenses raised. Accordingly, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this claim under section 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law breach of contract claim that necessarily requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Guardian National Acceptance Corp. v. Swartzlander Motors, Inc. · filed 1997-04-29

For the foregoing reasons, this court finds that the plaintiffs breach of contract claims, pled under state law, present sufficiently substantial questions of federal law to support federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim when the well-pleaded complaint necessarily turns on a substantial question of federal law concerning an obligation to the United States under its contract.

Governor Lincoln C. Almond v. Capital Properties, Inc., and Metropark, Ltd. · filed 2000-05-08

This action was removed from state court on the ground that it came within the district court’s “arising under” jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1994). This appears to be a correct position, as we will explain, because the complaint necessarily presents and turns upon the interpretation of a contractual obligation to the United States.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that necessarily requires resolving a substantial question of federal law governing a contract with the United States.

Montana v. Abbot Laboratories · filed 2003-06-11

In short, if the federal contract-law issues in Almond were substantial enough to create federal-question jurisdiction, a fortiori Montana’s best-price claims also produce federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law breach-of-contract claim that raises a disputed, substantial federal issue when a federal forum would not disturb the congressionally approved balance of state and federal judicial responsibilities.

Mitchell v. Osceola Farms Co. · filed 2005-12-29

Similarly in the instant case, it is the rare breach of contract action that “involves contested issues of federal law,” particularly federal immigration law regarding alien farm workers. Thus, federal question jurisdiction in matters such as this would not open the flood gates and disturb “any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.” ... Accordingly, the Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ individual claims.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim when an actually disputed, substantial federal issue predominates and federal jurisdiction respects the division of labor between state and federal courts.

Bender v. Jordan · filed 2010-10-22

IFSB’s cause of action—breach of contract—appears on its face to be one created by state law. But even where that is true, the federal courts have jurisdiction when, as here, it is apparent that the federal questions overwhelmingly predominate.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim concerning an Indian land lease when resolving the claim requires applying federal rules governing the lease.

Everglades Ecolodge at Big Cypress, LLC v. Seminole Tribe of Florida · filed 2011-12-22

Therefore, the sole issue is whether this case arises under federal law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Given the regulatory framework it naturally follows that Everglades’ claims arise under federal law.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over state-law claims for breach of Section 8 housing assistance contracts when they necessarily raise disputed, substantial federal issues that can be resolved without disrupting the congressionally approved federal-state balance.

Evergreen Square v. Wisconsin Housing & Economic Development Authority · filed 2015-01-12

These issues are “capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.” ... We find that this case fits within the “special and small category of cases” in which federal “arising under” jurisdiction lies over a complaint raising state-law causes of action.

A state-law contract claim does not arise under federal law for § 1331 purposes merely because federal law prompted or regulates the contract; a federal right must be an essential element requiring construction of federal law or application of a distinctive federal policy.

Becker v. Beame · filed 1978-07-31(a)

Moreover, although plaintiff’s complaint mentions a federal statute, reference to a federal statute in the complaint is not sufficient to invoke this court’s federal question jurisdiction; the claim must present an issue requiring construction of an Act of Congress, or the distinctive policy of an Act of Congress must require that federal principles control disposition of the claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law breach of contract claim solely because an alleged breach also violates a federal statute.

Dorey Electric Co. v. Pittman Mechanical Contractors, Inc. · filed 1992-04-16

Dorey alleges a state law breach of contract claim against Reliance and attempts to hang federal jurisdiction on the fact that the alleged breach of contract by Pittman for which Dorey seeks to hold Reliance responsible under the performance bond, was also a violation of federal statute. That fortuity, standing alone, is insufficient to imbue Dorey’s breach of contract claim with a federal question upon which this Court can base its jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over an insurance contract dispute when the pleaded claims arise only under state law and present no federal constitutional issue.

Radden v. Hmo Illinois, Inc. · filed 1993-10-15

Radden's pleadings failed to present any federal question. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. Her complaint alleged only HMO's breach of duty under the insurance contract. Additionally, her brief in opposition to HMO's motion to dismiss raised claims of "negligence," "strict liability," "breach of warranty," "fraud," "negligent misrepresentation," and "conscious disregard," all of which are state claims. There is no indication that any of Radden's claims arise under the laws of the United States nor do her pleadings, however liberally construed, reflect any Fourth, Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment issues as she maintained in her jurisdictional statement.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action displacing a state contract claim merely because the claim requires interpreting a federal statute without a private remedy.

City of Huntsville v. City of Madison Owens Crossroads, Town of Gurley, Town of New Hope, City of Triana, Town of Madiso · filed 1994-06-29

Huntsville contends that federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because a determination of its contractual rights and obligations turns on interpretation of a section of the federal statute governing the TVA. We hold that, in the absence of a private cause of action under the federal statute, interpretation of that statute as a necessary element of an otherwise state contract claim is not enough to permit exercise of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a contract claim merely because federal law defines the parties’ contractual rights and duties; seeking a declaratory judgment does not create jurisdiction.

Crossroads Cogeneration Corp. v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc. · filed 1997-08-21

Overlooking the fact that plaintiff does not point the Court to the specific section of PURPA under which its claims purportedly arise, the Court determines that, contrary to plaintiffs jurisdictional statement, the Court does not have a § 1331 basis for jurisdiction over this action. While plaintiff alleges against defendant various violations of contract law, nowhere in the complaint does plaintiff allege that defendant violated PURPA; rather, PURPA becomes relevant only in that it defines the rights and duties of the parties under the Agreement plaintiff claims was breached. A declaratory judgment is a procedural vehicle only; it affects only the remedies available in federal court, not a federal court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a breach of contract claim merely because resolving it may require applying federal communications regulations, where the claim seeks to enforce the contract and no private federal cause of action is identified.

Citicasters Co. v. Stop 26-Riverbend, Inc. · filed 2000-07-06

This Court does not agree with defendants’ position and fails to see how this case differs from Merrell Dow, except for the federal statute relied upon. ... In addition, neither party, defendants included, have , pointed this Court to any provision of the Communications Act which provides for a private right of action. ... However, the Court concludes that the dispute here involves a breach of contract claim. ... Therefore, the case was improperly removed.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction to review a state commission’s determination under state contract law whether an interconnection agreement tracks federal law.

Verizon Maryland Inc. v. RCN Telecom Services, Inc. · filed 2003-03-05

Thus, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, at least, does not confer jurisdiction on this Court to review a state commission’s determination that a given agreement tracks or does not track federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that a lawyer breached a contractual duty to represent a client, because that claim arises under state law.

Dick v. Towles · filed 2003-06-19

Allegations that a lawyer breached a contractual obligation to his client implicate state, not federal, law, see, e.g., 735 111. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/13-214.3(b) (West 2003), and so federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, is absent.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law breach of contract claim that does not present a federal question.

Hunter v. Ohio Veterans Home · filed 2003-06-26

Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction. If parties are not diverse, federal jurisdiction exists only when the issue in controversy is a federal question that “arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In the present case, the parties are not diverse and plaintiffs breach of contract claim is not a federal question, thus this court will not have jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims concerning the administration or termination of an awarded airport contract when those claims do not implicate the federal interest in fair competition for contract awards.

San Jose Construction Group, Inc. v. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority · filed 2006-02-14

Because San Jose’s allegations do not implicate the “limited federal interest” in free and open competition in the solicitation and award of MWAA contracts, San Jose’s claims do not meet the “arising under” standard for federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state contract claim when the proposed federal issue is settled and the remaining dispute concerns interpretation of the contract.

Mitchell v. Osceola Farms Co. · filed 2006-08-14

Accordingly, this Court would still be left with the task of resolving an ambiguity even after a finding that the clearance orders trump the individual contracts. Resolving ambiguous contractual terms is a matter of state contract law that is appropriate for state court resolution. Therefore, the Court finds that the federal issue in this case is neither substantial nor disputed.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a state-law breach of contract claim when deciding the claim does not require interpreting federal law and thus presents no substantial federal question.

Alliance for Children, Inc. v. City of Detroit Public Schools · filed 2007-02-15

Either way, no breach of contract claim under the facts of this case requires an interpretation of the NCLBA. Therefore, there can be no substantial federal question involved, and no independent basis to exercise federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim merely because the contract incorporates federal tariffs by reference.

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. · filed 2007-03-16

Given the foregoing concerns, and following the analytical methodology laid down by recent Supreme Court precedent, the Court finds that this state-law contract action incorporating by reference federal tariffs does not present a sufficient federal question over which this Court may exercise “arising under” jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law fraud or breach-of-contract claims that do not arise under federal law.

Collins v. Sovereign Bank · filed 2007-04-03

The Hoffman Ford Defendants correctly contend that the Court lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 inasmuch as they do not “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a breach of contract claim merely because transferring collateral would require FCC approval.

D.B. Zwirn Special Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. Tama Broadcasting, Inc. · filed 2008-04-28

Plaintiffs invocation of the requirement of FCC approval does not, standing alone, convert its breach of contract claim into one that “arises under” the Communications Act.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim merely because a federal issue is tangential to the contract’s validity.

Vigier v. Marin · filed 2008-08-01

Federal law does not play a sufficiently prominent role in that issue, however, to give rise to federal question jurisdiction. The question of the contract’s validity in this case does not by itself transform plaintiffs state claim into a federal one.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction under the federal-cause-of-action test for a contract claim created by state law.

John J. Fiero & Fiero Bros. v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. · filed 2009-04-02

Because FINRA’s substantive claim is not created by federal law, subject matter jurisdiction cannot be based upon the first test.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim or a citation to a legal reference book because neither arises under federal law.

Lewis v. Sprint Nextel · filed 2009-08-20

As neither asserts a claim arising under federal law, neither can support jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a contract dispute presenting only state-law questions.

Energy Management Services v. City of Alexandria · filed 2014-01-20

EMS’s suit against the City raises no claims over which a federal district court could exercise original jurisdiction and therefore it does not satisfy § 1441. EMS’s suit concerns a contract dispute that presents only state-law questions and the parties do not dispute that there is lack of diversity between them.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because they involve federal procurement regulations or contracts federal in nature, without a substantial and disputed federal question.

L-3 Communications Corp. v. Serco Inc. · filed 2014-08-19

Federal jurisdiction is not conferred simply because a contract-driven claim involves federal regulations, such as FARs, or because the contracts are “federal in nature.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law breach-of-contract claim when the complaint presents no question involving the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Adames v. Taju · filed 2015-01-23

The Court may not exercise federal-question jurisdiction over the Complaint as currently stated. Despite a liberal reading of the Complaint, Plaintiffs claim regarding breach of contract is based in state law. There is nothing on the face of Plaintiffs Complaint to suggest that Defendant violated any federal statute, or that any question involving the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States is at all implicated by his claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law tort and contract claims against private actors that allege no violation of a federally guaranteed right.

Topper v. Progressive County Mutual Ins, et · filed 2015-03-23

Rather, he asserts various tort and contract claims under state law against the defendants as private actors without alleging that they committed acts with the involvement or cooperation of the State. See Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1343 (5th Cir. 1994). Thus, this court does not exercise federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim involving a federally filed gas tariff when the federal issues are not substantial to the federal system and exercising jurisdiction would disrupt the balance of state and federal responsibilities.

Great Lakes Gas Transmission Ltd. Partnership v. Essar Steel Minnesota LLC · filed 2016-12-05

Because the federal issues in this case are not substantial to the federal system as a whole and because the district court could not exercise federal question jurisdiction without disrupting the balance of state and federal responsibilities, we conclude that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state law contract claim incorporating federal securities requirements when the embedded federal issue has no significance beyond the parties and jurisdiction would not serve the federal-state balance.

Liana Carrier Ltd. v. Pure Biofuels Corporation · filed 2016-12-06

Thus, because there is no clear indication either that the federal question at issue in this case is substantial, or that it is particularly important to maintaining the federal-state balance that we claim jurisdiction over Plaintiffs-Appellants’ contract claim, federal question jurisdiction does not lie.

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

Wilson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · filed 2017-05-09

But we are not satisfied that the District Court had any jurisdiction over this matter. As noted, the plaintiffs’ contract claim did not arise under federal law, and the only amount in controversy referred to in the complaint is below the $75,000 needed to invoke diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim unless resolving the claim necessarily requires deciding a federal-law issue.

Webb v. Financial Industry Regulatory · filed 2018-05-08

But FINRA fails to identify a single pro- vision of federal law that we would have to interpret to re- solve this case. The question is whether FINRA breached its arbitration agreement, and no “inescapable” provision of federal law drives that analysis.

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

Webb v. Financial Industry Regulatory · filed 2018-05-08

As for the rest of the Grable & Sons test, an issue not raised cannot be actually disputed or substantial, and without any federal question necessarily in play, we need not consider how taking the question would affect the federal-state balance. This is a state-law contract claim, and FINRA's effort to pull it within federal question jurisdiction fails.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when its federal issues are not substantial and hearing it in federal court would disturb the congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Global Client Solutions, LLC · filed 2018-11-28

The Court, however, does not need to determine whether the federal issues in this case are “necessarily raised,” because they are not, in Grable’s terms, “substantial,” and entertaining this case and others like it in a federal forum would likely disturb the congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal issue for jurisdiction over a state-law claim; failure to show substantiality requires remand.

Burrell v. Bayer Corporation · filed 2019-03-14

Bayer’s failure to satisfy the substantiality prong of the § 1331 analysis by itself necessitates a remand to state court.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim implicating federal law only when the federal issue meets the Grable requirements, including substantiality.

UNITED AERIAL ADVERTISING INC. v. TOWNSHIP OF LAKEWOOD · filed 2020-06-11

Thus, the present case fails to meet the Grable requirements that the federal issue in the case be substantial and, therefore, federal question jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because they raise disputed federal issues; the federal issues must also be substantial.

Lester E. Cox Medical Centers v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC · filed 2020-06-15

However, even if Plaintiffs’ state claims necessarily raise disputed issues of federal law, Defendants have not demonstrated the federal issues are substantial.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law takings claim when a possible draw on federal funds lacks significance to the federal system as a whole.

Lamar Company, L.L.C. v. MS Transportation Commiss · filed 2020-09-22

The fact that a state court might conclude that a taking occurred, and even if there were a draw on the federal treasury as compensation for a billboard, nothing of national consequence would have occurred. There was no federal-question jurisdiction arising from Lamar’s complaint at the time of removal.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law tort claim merely because federal law regulates the activity or roadway when the claim raises no substantial federal issue.

Christy v. Albertsons Companies, Inc. · filed 2020-09-28

But even assuming that is the case, Albertsons has not explained how any issue in the instant case is important to the federal system as a whole. Albertsons has not articulated what federal legal issue is raised by plaintiff’s tort claim. Rather, the claims appear to be a fact-bound and situation specific and does not raise a federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law indemnification claim merely because the dispute involves federal regulations; the claim must present a substantial, disputed federal question on the face of the well-pleaded complaint.

Sebring Homes Corp. v. T.R. Arnold & Associates, Inc. · filed 1995-12-18

These factors, however, do not create subject matter jurisdiction. It is not enough that the parties’ dispute has a connection to federal laws or regulations; the outcome of the case must turn on the validity or construction of federal law. ... No federal question jurisdiction exists in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because it invokes an exception to a federal statute and requires consideration of federal regulations when the federal issue is insufficiently substantial.

Wright v. Bond-Air, Ltd. · filed 1996-07-15

Accordingly, this court concludes Plaintiff’s complaint alleging violations of FAA regulations in an attempt to invoke a GARA exception, when Congress has determined that there should be no private federal cause of action under GARA and when Congress has not provided a private federal remedy for FAA violations, does not state a claim “arising under” federal law. The federal issue-presented in Plaintiffs state law cause of action is not sufficiently substantial as to confer federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state whistleblower claim merely because the reported misconduct involved federal regulations, when relief does not require resolving a substantial federal question.

Dobberowsky v. Cryogenic Transportation, Inc. · filed 1997-12-30

An action arises under federal law under § 1331 if the federal law creates the cause of action or “the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” ... Plaintiff need not show that such a violation actually existed, .which could require an interpretation of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. The role of federal law in his claim is simply incidental, and is insufficient to give rise to federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim merely because federal regulations parallel the contract terms and may inform their interpretation.

North Jefferson Square Associates, L.P. v. Virginia Housing Development Authority · filed 2000-03-23

Obviously the Plaintiffs claims are not created at federal law, but instead emerge from contract law. Thus, the Court cannot automatically conclude that § 1331 is invoked properly, but instead must examine whether the Plaintiffs demands necessarily involve federal laws nonetheless. ... The presence of parallel language between 24 C.F.R. § 883.308(d) and the Housing Assistance Payment Contract at paragraph 2.7(g)(2) is significant, but not determinative. The federal regulations noted by the Authority are of a persuasive nature in this case. In the final analysis, traditional principles of contract interpretation will decide the claims Plaintiff has made.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because federal regulations authorize contracts at issue when state law determines their validity.

Fair v. Sprint Payphone Services, Inc. · filed 2001-06-21

While federal regulations authorize the existence of payphone compensation contracts, whether the specific agreements at issue in the present case are illegal will be determined by state law. Therefore, the federal interest asserted by the defendants is an insufficient basis upon which to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the cited federal regulation gives the plaintiff no right and presents no substantial federal issue essential to those claims.

Lewis v. Arthur B. Hodges Center, Inc. · filed 2002-03-06

The Court holds that remanding the above-styled matter to the state court is proper because the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. There is no federal question jurisdiction, as 42 C.F.R. § 483.10 clearly refers to the rights residents of long-term care facilities have, not visitors such as Plaintiff. The federal regulation clearly does not provide any rights for visitors to these facilities and therefore, there is no real and substantial issue of federal law that needs to be addressed in order to decide Plaintiffs causes of action.

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

Coker v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. · filed 2002-09-05

Plaintiffs’ case does not depend “entirely” on Defendant’s alleged violations of federal regulations, and so the circumstances of Ayres are not present here. This case thus does not present the exceptional circumstances giving rise to federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the defendant operates in a federally regulated industry and federal regulations overlap with the claims.

Moncure v. Olympus American, Inc. · filed 2003-10-09

The fact that defendants participate in a regulated industry and their actions are guided by federal regulations does not create a substantial federal question when plaintiffs complaint contains only state-based theories of recovery. Accordingly, the court concludes that plaintiffs complaint does not create federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a reimbursement claim when federal regulation sets the terms of the advance and repayment and resolving the claim requires reference to that regulation.

Bender v. Jordan · filed 2007-12-06

The terms under which the Bank advanced fees and expenses to the Defendants were set by the Regulation and the terms under which the Defendants may be required to repay the Bank are set by the Regulation. There is no way to resolve whether the Defendants must repay the Bank without reference to the Regulation.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a state-law claim cites a federal regulation that provides no private cause of action.

Kalick v. Northwest Airlines Cor · filed 2010-03-29

Kalick cannot simply cite to a federal regulation that does not give rise to a private cause of action in order to satisfy federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim merely because the contract incorporates a federal regulation when the federal issue is insufficiently substantial to warrant a federal forum.

Lee v. Citimortgage, Inc. · filed 2010-09-15

It is improbable that the Congress, having made no provision for a federal cause of action in the NHA or its associated regulations, would have meant to welcome into federal court any state law-governed contract that incorporates language from the NHA or its relevant administrative regulations. Indeed, the Plaintiffs Complaint does not necessarily raise a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, that a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities. Accordingly, the Court finds that it does not have federal question jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state consumer-protection claim merely because resolving the claim may require applying federal regulations; the federal issue must be necessarily raised, disputed, and substantial.

West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. · filed 2012-02-10

Under this analysis, the Complaint does not present a substantial federal question and there is no federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims requiring no resolution of a substantial federal question, and a defense based on compliance with federal regulation does not supply that jurisdiction.

Henry J. Ellender Heirs, LLC v. Exxon Mobil Corp. · filed 2014-08-26

There are no “substantial federal questions” that must be resolved in order to evaluate these claims. To the extent that the Defendants might use their compliance with FERC as a defense to liability, this argument fails.

Section 1331 does not give federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because federal safety regulations may be relevant; the claim must necessarily raise a federal issue or be completely preempted.

State of Missouri, ex rel. Attorney General Joshua D. Hawley v. Branson Duck Vehicles, LLC · filed 2019-01-24

Defendants’ argument that the Coast Guard “exclusively regulates the sufficiency of vessel design, safety, and training standards” does not “necessarily raise” a federal issue.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff cites a federal regulation only as evidence of a state-law claim.

Cole v. St. Joseph of Harahan, L.L.C. · filed 2022-07-12

Under well-established precedent, a plaintiff’s citation to a federal regulation “merely as further evidence of the right to recover under state law” is insufficient to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim merely because the defendant allegedly violated federal regulations while breaching the contract.

Alfaro v. Delta Airlines, Inc. · filed 2022-12-09

Although Alfaro argues that Delta violated several federal regulations, the contract claim Alfaro asserts in his First Amended Complaint is not based on federal regulations but instead is based on the common law, and Alfaro fails to otherwise demonstrate that his breach of contract claim presents substantial questions of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state negligence claim merely because it references federal regulations as the standard of care.

Tusa v. Schomp · filed 2023-01-30

Specifically, Judge Ingram determined that, although Plaintiffs reference federal regulations with respect to the applicable standard of care, this alone does not establish federal question jurisdiction. ... Giving removal jurisdiction its properly limited scope and narrow construction, the Court agrees with Judge Ingram’s fulsome analysis. There is no federal question, substantial or otherwise, under the required rubric.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law lease dispute merely because HUD regulations may inform interpretation of the lease.

Griffin-Dudley v. Lucas Metropolitan Housing Authority · filed 2023-03-21

But the mere possibility that these HUD regulations may apply in interpreting plaintiffs’ lease with LMHA is not necessarily a sufficient basis upon which to ground federal question jurisdiction. ... There is thus no basis for federal question jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law wrongful-discharge claim merely because the alleged unlawful conduct involves federal regulations.

Shock v. LAC Logistics, LLC · filed 2024-04-16

With no other basis for federal question jurisdiction argued or established, the Court finds that this case is properly decided under state law. Removal under § 1331 was improper.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim merely because it alleges violations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.

Revis v. Murphy's Logistics, LLC · filed 2024-10-22

This Court likewise finds that Count VIII does not invoke a substantial question of federal law by alleging that Defendants negligently violated the FMCSR.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state malpractice claim merely because the legal advice involved patent law when patent law neither creates the claim nor is an essential element of it.

Commonwealth Film Processing, Inc. v. Moss & Rocovich · filed 1991-11-18

While Commonwealth claims in counts (e) and (f) that defendants did not demonstrate adequate knowledge of patent law or associate an attorney with such knowledge, federal patent law did not create the malpractice cause of action nor is it an essential element of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 reaches a state-law claim when relief necessarily depends on resolving a substantial question of federal patent law.

Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Glaxo Wellcome, Inc. · filed 1999-06-08

Plaintiffs right to relief therefore depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim with an independent theory of relief that does not require resolving a federal patent-law question.

In Re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation · filed 2001-10-01

Remand is thus required unless each and every theory of liability advanced by plaintiffs under the state antitrust laws depends upon resolution of a patent law question.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that necessarily depend on resolving a substantial question of federal patent law.

In Re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litigation · filed 2002-08-26

For all of these reasons, the Court finds that these actions “arise under” federal patent law, and, accordingly, that the motions for remand must be denied.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the claim necessarily requires resolution of substantial questions of federal patent law.

Schecher v. Purdue Pharma L.P. · filed 2004-05-06

By pleading fraud in the PTO process and reliance on fraudulently obtained patents as his only basis for an alleged unlawful restraint of trade and a monopoly, plaintiff has raised substantial questions of federal patent law which have not yet been resolved.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that depend on resolving a substantial question of federal patent law.

Doran v. Purdue Pharma Co. · filed 2004-06-30

The Court holds that Plaintiffs state law claims depend upon the resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law, providing the Court with federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law legal malpractice claim merely because the underlying representation involved a patent; patent law must be a necessary element of the claim.

Adamasu v. Gifford, Krass, Groh, Sprinkle, Anderson & Citkowski, P.C. · filed 2005-07-25

Contrary to what defendants argue, patent law is not a necessary element of Adamasu’s claim against them. Rather, patent issues are merely incidental to his legal malpractice claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law malpractice claim arising from a federal trademark suit when the embedded federal issue is insubstantial and federal jurisdiction would intrude on state authority.

Singh v. Duane Morris LLP · filed 2008-07-30

We conclude that such claim does not arise under feder- al law and does not confer subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331 or 1338(a).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law malpractice claims merely because they may require applying federal patent law, when the federal issues are not substantial and jurisdiction would disrupt the balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Roof Technical Services, Inc. v. Hill · filed 2010-01-06

Although plaintiffs’ claims may raise patent law issues, those issues are not “actually disputed and substantial.” Moreover, exercising federal jurisdiction over actions like this one would disturb the balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities by sweeping an entire category of traditionally state cases into federal court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law malpractice claim concerning a patent application when resolving the claim does not require a substantial question of federal law.

Genelink Biosciences, Inc. v. Colby · filed 2010-07-01

Additionally, whether and why defendants missed deadlines in the application process does not raise important issues of federal patent law or require the interpretation of patent law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law unlawful detainer claim merely because defendants assert that federal questions are at issue.

Wilmington Trust v. Kerr · filed 2025-05-23

Defendants cannot create federal subject matter jurisdiction by stating that federal questions are at issue.

Section 1331 does not give a district court original jurisdiction over a removed state enforcement action merely because federal law supplies a defense or could support a separate federal action.

State of Wis. v. Wisconsin Winnebago Indian Tribe · filed 1985-03-06

To summarize: P.L. 280 and the body of federal law of which it is a part ... may provide a defense in a state court action; the statute may also provide the basis for an independent federal court action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief; ... but P.L. 280 does not provide for original jurisdiction in the district court over the merits of the challenged state court action itself. Thus, the forfeiture action removed here does not fall within the Court’s removal jurisdiction and must be remanded for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not permit removal based on a federal question first presented in the defendant's removal petition, answer, or constitutional defense.

Iowa Ex Rel. Turner v. First of Omaha Service Corp. · filed 1975-10-09

Defendants’ removal petition asserts 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the general federal question statute, as one basis for the removal. Plaintiff has apparently acquiesced in this argument, taking the view that defendants may remove by virtue of their defense that application of certain sections of the ICCC to them would be unconstitutional. The Court does not believe this position to be the law. As stated by Professor Moore, “there can be no removal on the basis of a federal question presented for the first time in defendant’s petition for removal or his answer.”

Federal-question jurisdiction must appear on the face of the state-court complaint and cannot be supplied by a federal defense raised in an answer or removal petition.

Eure v. NVF Co. · filed 1979-09-21(a)

The basis of federal question jurisdiction, however, must appear upon the face of the state court complaint, and it cannot be supplied by reference to the answer or petition. ... The instant complaint contains only allegations of non-compliance with the state Tender Offer Act. Accordingly, no federal question exists.

Section 1331 removal jurisdiction requires a federal right or immunity to be an essential element disclosed on the face of the plaintiff's complaint; a federal preemption defense does not suffice.

Turner v. Bell Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n · filed 1980-03-14

To bring a case within this section, a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an essential element of plaintiff’s cause of action, and the federal controversy must be disclosed on the face of the complaint, unaided by the answer or the petition for removal.

A state-law unfair-competition action does not arise under federal law for Section 1331(a) removal when federal preemption appears only as a defense rather than as an essential element on the face of the complaint.

First National Bank of Aberdeen v. Aberdeen National Bank · filed 1980-08-06(a)

Because we hold these premises invalid ... the district courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction and the cases must be remanded to the state courts. ... In neither case does the complaint show a federal right to be an essential element of plaintiff's claim. ... The issue of federal preemption has entered the cases only by way of defendants' answers or petitions for removal.

A state-law claim does not arise under federal law for Section 1331 removal merely because federal preemption will be raised as a defense.

Smart v. First Federal S & L Ass'n of Detroit · filed 1980-09-15

Given the aforementioned authority from the United States Supreme Court, the decisions of the lower courts which have found that preemption does not give rise to federal jurisdiction, Congress’ reluctance to broaden 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 28 U.S.C. § 1337 to vest district courts with jurisdiction over matters where federal laws are necessarily brought into play or where a “substantial federal defense” is raised, and the fact that defendants are protected against improper consideration of their defense of federal preemption by the ultimate right to review in the United States Supreme Court, the court finds that these cases were improvidently removed and must be remanded to state court pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires federal law to supply an essential element on the face of the complaint; federal defenses to a state-law enforcement action do not create removal jurisdiction.

Nuclear Engineering Company v. William J. Scott, Illinois Ex Rel. William J. Scott v. Nuclear Engineering Company · filed 1981-10-09

Federal question jurisdiction is properly invoked when a plaintiff pleads a claim that “arises under” ... federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim “arises under” federal law when federal law supplies an essential element of the claim. ... Additionally, the federal claim must generally appear on the face of the complaint, unaided by any other pleadings, including a removal petition. ... Accordingly, we find there exists no federal question jurisdiction over the Illinois action.

Section 1331 requires a properly pleaded complaint presenting a substantial federal-law dispute on which the result turns; an anticipated federal preemption defense alone does not support jurisdiction or removal.

Guinasso v. Pacific First Federal Savings And Loan Association · filed 1981-11-19

A suit arises under federal law within 28 U.S.C. § 1331 if the complaint, properly pleaded, presents a substantial dispute over the effect of federal law, and the result turns on the federal question. ... Jurisdiction may not rest on propositions that merely anticipate a federal defense. ... But when the claim presents a prima-facie basis for relief entirely under state law, the preemption defense does not support federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not support removal when plaintiffs plead only state-law claims, even if those claims involve federal questions or defendants expect to raise federal defenses.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. City of New York · filed 1981-12-07

However, plaintiffs’ state court actions are premised solely on New York State and local laws and regulations. ... Even if plaintiffs’ state court claims involve questions of federal and state law, plaintiffs are free to assert only their state claims and avoid removal. ... Any federal defenses defendants may raise are not sufficient to warrant removal.

Section 1331(a) requires federal law to be a direct and essential element of the plaintiff's claim; a federal preemption defense to an entirely state-law complaint does not support removal jurisdiction.

John F. Nalore and Norma L. Nalore v. San Diego Federal Savings and Loan Association · filed 1981-12-08(a)

San Diego Federal asserts that federal court jurisdiction lies in 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) and in 28 U.S.C. § 1337. To invoke either section, federal law must constitute “a direct and essential element of the plaintiff’s cause of action.” ... The complaint presents a basis for relief that is entirely under state law. As such, San Diego Federal’s federal preemption defense fails as ground for removal jurisdiction. ... For the same reason, we here conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction.

Section 1331 removal jurisdiction requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; a defendant's federal preemption defense does not by itself create federal-question jurisdiction.

Zack Co. v. Howard · filed 1987-03-10

The starting principle for determining whether claims arise under federal law is that the existence of a federal question must appear on the face of the complaint. ... Thus, a defendant’s assertion of federal law in the pleadings or in the petition for removal does not in itself create a federal question.

A federal preemption defense does not create Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction and cannot support removal of a state-law action.

Com. of Puerto Rico v. Euro Pacific Bank Ltd. · filed 1987-06-05

Finally, defendant tries to make out a claim that Puerto Rican securities law is preempted by the federal securities regulatory scheme. It is, however, beyond cavil that the several states may regulate securities sold within their jurisdictions. Additionally, preemption is a defense, not grounds for removal. ... In short, defendant makes out no federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1331.

Section 1331 does not support removal of a state foreclosure action when no federal issue appears in the well-pleaded complaint and federal regulations arise only as a defense.

Federal National Mortgage Association v. LeCrone · filed 1989-04-17

A cause of action falls within the district court's federal question jurisdiction only when the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law. ... FNMA's complaint for foreclosure of LeCrone's mortgage raises no federal issues and thus the suit between FNMA and LeCrone does not present a federal question for removal analysis, Mr. LeCrone's reliance upon federal regulations in his defense notwithstanding. ... Finding no independent basis for removal of the foreclosure action, we hold that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the suit between the FNMA and LeCrone.

Section 1331 does not support removal of a state malicious-prosecution claim when the federal probable-cause issue is not an essential element and appears at most as a defense.

Owens v. First City National Bank · filed 1989-05-26

Further, for the case to be one “arising under” the Constitution and laws of the United States, the basis of the federal claim must appear in the plaintiff’s complaint. A defense based upon a federal claim, even if anticipated and answered in plaintiff’s complaint, cannot serve as the basis of federal question jurisdiction. This “well-pleaded complaint” rule allows the plaintiff to control his case by relying exclusively on state law claims and thereby avoiding federal jurisdiction. ... For the foregoing reasons, FCNB’s contention that Owens’ well-pleaded complaint necessarily includes federal issues is without merit. This court therefore has no jurisdiction to hear Owens’ case against FCNB, and remand is required.

Section 1331 does not support removal when the complaint alleges only state-law violations and any federal constitutional issue arises only as a defense.

Missouri Ex Rel. Webster v. Freedom Financial Corp. · filed 1989-09-15

Federal questions in removal cases must be disclosed upon the face of the plaintiff’s complaint. “Most importantly, the federal question must appear as an essential element of the plaintiff’s complaint in state court. If the federal question arises only as a defense, or in anticipation of a defense, removal jurisdiction will not exist.” ... As the complaining question merely alleges violations of ... state ... law and any constitutional issues may arise only by way of defense to the plaintiff’s allegations, removal is improper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 removal jurisdiction is not supported by a defendant’s assertion of a federal issue.

International Tin Council v. Amalgamet Inc. · filed 1986-10-20

Under this “well-pleaded complaint rule,” removal on federal question grounds is not supported by a defendant’s assertion of a federal issue.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; a potential federal statutory defense does not itself establish federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Belmont v. Jetblue Airways Corporation · filed 2019-08-13

As further explained below, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and therefore grants Plaintiff’s motion and remands the action to state court. ... A plaintiff properly invokes section 1331 jurisdiction when he pleads a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... A potential defense premised on a federal statute is insufficient to warrant removal.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based solely on a defendant’s ordinary federal preemption defense.

C Pepper Logistics LLC v. Nunez · filed 2021-10-26

Defendants’ ordinary preemption defense cannot provide the grounds for removal.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction cannot be based on defenses raised in a notice of removal.

ESA Management LLC v. Betts · filed 2023-06-23

The defenses raised in the removal notice do not confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for removal based on a federal defense.

Terry · filed 2026-02-19

It is well-established that the presence of a defense based on federal law is not a basis for removing a state court action to federal court.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law petition to stay labor arbitration when LMRA § 301 completely preempts the petition, even if the employer denies being bound by the collective bargaining agreement.

Newmark & Lewis, Inc. v. Local 814, International Brotherhood of Teamsters · filed 1991-10-05

Accordingly, based upon the above pur-suasive precedent, this Court finds that federal jurisdiction exists and is preemptive at least to determine the issue of whether Newmark & Lewis is a “joint employer” over Westbury’s employees which, if so, would contractually obligate Newmark & Lewis to arbitrate the dispute with Local 814 under the Westbury Agreement.

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

Drake v. Cheyenne Newspapers, Inc. · filed 1994-02-04

Under these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that it would expand the concept of “arising under” jurisdiction embodied in § 1331 too far to conclude that the reference to the First Amendment in the complaint can support the exercise of federal jurisdiction in this case. Under any formulation of § 1331 “arising under” jurisdiction, the defendant has failed to meet its burden of establishing affirmatively that jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law age-discrimination claim merely because it invokes federal public policy or may draw on ADEA precedent when relief does not depend on construing federal law.

Heckelmann v. Piping Companies, Inc. · filed 1995-07-14

The fact that the state trial judge and parties may well refer to federal precedents interpreting the ADEA for guidance does not transform the nature of this action into one in which the plaintiffs right to relief depends upon the application or construction of federal law. ... Under the strict construction which must be placed on removal jurisdiction, the Court concludes federal question jurisdiction does not exist over plaintiffs second cause of action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law employment claims merely because federal law may inform an exception to state at-will employment law.

Brand v. Robins Federal Credit Union · filed 1997-07-15

Whether Georgia law permits such an exception for officers or employees of a federal union created under federal law is not sufficient in this court’s view to create a federal question giving rise to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 jurisdiction or to permit removal under the provisions of § 1446(b).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state wrongful-discharge claim merely because the employee refused to violate federal criminal statutes that are not central to the claim.

Isbell v. Stewart & Stevenson, Ltd. · filed 1998-02-27

The federal statutes are not central to Plaintiffs claim, which is a unique creature of state law. Therefore, the Court holds that there is no subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claim and Plaintiffs Opposed Motion for Removal should be granted.

Section 1331 supplies no federal-question jurisdiction over a proposed claim against a retirees’ club when no apparent basis connects that club to federal labor law.

Tennian v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 328 · filed 2003-06-12

The Local removed the suit because, as a labor organization, a complaint lodged against it by a member implicates federal labor laws. Because there is no reason to believe that the Retirees’ Club is a labor organization, the Local’s dismissal eliminates any apparent basis for federal question jurisdiction.

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

Chandler v. Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. · filed 2006-07-05

After considering each party’s arguments, the court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims do not arise under federal law. The fact that Plaintiffs may be exempt from the NCWHA, which, in turn, would mean that Plaintiffs would not have a claim under the NCWHA, does not also mean that Plaintiffs’ claims arise under federal law. It merely means that Plaintiffs’ state law claims may be subject to dismissal under the state’s laws and that federal law may be a defense to Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1331(a) does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state wrongful-death claim arising on federal land when the state retained civil jurisdiction and the state law therefore did not become federal law.

Otis Elwood Pratt, Administrator of the Estate of Mary Alice Pratt v. Michael G. Kelly and John Doe · filed 1978-10-20(a)

In view of Virginia’s expressed reservation of jurisdiction in civil cases, we do not think that federal question jurisdiction exists either under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) or 16 U.S.C. § 457.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a state-law negligence action when the complaint does not explain how the case arises under federal law.

Washington v. Norton Manufacturing, Inc., Abc Corporation · filed 1979-01-24

The complaint does not describe how the case arises under any of these statutes, however, and we think it clear that these allegations of subject matter jurisdiction are without merit.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over state-law tort claims against a foreign sovereign merely because federal law may defeat an immunity defense; the federal issue must appear in a well-pleaded complaint.

McKeel Jr. v. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America · filed 1983-12-30

This rule provides that a case arises under federal law for the purposes of section 1331 if the federal law issue must be presented as a matter of sound pleading in the complaint. ... It follows that the appellants’ allegation that the FSIA deprives Iran of a sovereign immunity defense to this action does not constitute a well-pleaded complaint under section 1331, ... and therefore does not provide a basis for statutory “arising under” jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal jurisdiction over state contract and tort claims that seek no relief for a violation of federal law.

Mungo v. UTA French Airlines · filed 1985-03-28

By contrast appellants assert a right of action based in California contract and tort law. Appellants seek no damages for violations of the RLA, or any other federal law. Therefore, there is no basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not cover a state negligence claim merely because federal law may defeat a state-law immunity defense when the federal statute creates no right of action against the defendants.

Jennifer Griffis, Wife Of/and Leon H. Griffis v. Gulf Coast Pre-Stress Co., Inc. And American Cable Co., Inc., Defendant · filed 1988-08-05

Section 905(a) does not create any right of action against third parties. Federal question jurisdiction is established when a claim “arises under” the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over state common law claims for negligence and legal malpractice.

Kocis v. Klornbluth · filed 1991-11-05

Kocis's complaint does not satisfy the requirements of either diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Negligence and legal malpractice are state common law actions which are properly pursued in the state courts.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction over a state law tort and direct action suit when the claim presents no substantial federal question.

Collins v. AAA Rent All, Inc. · filed 1993-01-07

Since plaintiffs cause of action arises under state law and does not involve a question of federal law, this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction in this case.

A private tort claim seeking medical costs for the United States does not establish federal-question jurisdiction absent an alleged violation of a federal right.

Cutts v. Braun Corp. · filed 1997-07-21

Absent an alleged violation of a federal right, the court finds that the instant cause lacks federal question jurisdiction and should be remanded to state court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state tort claim merely because it relies in part on a federal statutory duty when the federal statute creates no private federal cause of action.

Durham v. Consolidated Rail Corp. · filed 1998-04-09

Therefore, while the plaintiffs action may rely in part upon a duty created by the Federal Safety Appliances Act, that does not make this a case arising under the laws of the United States.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over fraud, contract, or negligence claims against counsel merely because they relate to a federal criminal conviction.

Ibarra v. Duncan · filed 1999-08-30

This argument is specious; he has filed a lawsuit alleging claims of fraud, breach of contract, and negligence, none of which, on their face, implicates a federal right sufficiently to invoke § 1331, irrespective of the nature of his criminal conviction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law tort claims resolved solely under state law, even when a federal statute governs related insurance benefits.

Parker v. Metropolitan Life Insurance · filed 2003-06-13

The resolution of these tort claims and the issues raised in these claims involves the application of state law solely. ... Therefore, the court does not have a sufficient basis to exercise federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law tort claims when the asserted federal issue has already been resolved and the claims do not implicate an overriding federal interest.

McCormick v. Excel Corp. · filed 2006-01-30

First, in the context in which the actions come before me, they do not raise a “disputed” federal issue. ... The FMIA does not include a federal cause of action, and although plaintiffs’ state law claims involve an alleged violation of a federal standard, they do not implicate an overriding federal interest. ... Thus, I conclude that the actions before me do not arise under federal law within § 1331 and are not subject to removal.

Section 1331 does not independently provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law tort claims that present no federal claim.

Caldwell v. Green · filed 2006-09-07

These claims do not independently satisfy either federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state law tort claims.

Bush v. Butler · filed 2007-11-14

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

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

Siravo v. Crown, Cork & Seal Co. · filed 2007-12-06

Furthermore, the District Court correctly determined that this matter did not fall under its federal-question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiffs’ very brief complaint made passing references to fraudulent concealment and neglect, thereby alleging, at best, tort claims under state, and not federal, law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law legal malpractice claim merely because its proximate-cause inquiry involves incidental patent disputes from prior litigation.

Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Dickinson Wright, P.L.L.C. · filed 2009-10-30

Having reviewed the relevant federal case law, the Court declines to follow the Federal Circuit, finding instead that in this case Plaintiffs legal malpractice claim stemming from representation in a prior federal suit does not raise substantial questions of federal law. The only federal aspects of Plaintiffs claim — patent disputes embedded within the proximate cause element of an otherwise straightforward legal malpractice claim — are only incidental to the overall complaint.

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

Escala v. Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC · filed 2009-12-01

Plaintiffs’ claims under the FWA do not require the interpretation of federal law and do not implicate significant federal issues. This Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law legal negligence and breach-of-contract claims merely because the alleged attorney errors occurred during representation in a federal Title VII action.

Steele v. Salb · filed 2010-01-29

The fact that Plaintiffs lawsuit is based on alleged errors made by Defendants while representing Plaintiff in a federal Title VII action is not sufficient to create federal question jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims involving experimental gene therapy merely because they implicate extensive federal regulation when exercising jurisdiction would disturb the congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Mohr v. TARGETED GENETICS, INC. · filed 2010-03-03

A finding that there is federal subject matter jurisdiction over cases involving experimental gene therapy treatments would disturb the “judicial federalism” line that Congress has drawn. Accordingly, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when its connection to federal law is too tenuous to present a substantial and actually disputed federal question.

West Virginia Ex Rel. McGraw v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. · filed 2010-09-21

Defendants suggest that the definition of a “consumer” under the WVCCPA may require some interpretation of the term related to ERISA. This tenuous connection with a federal statute is simply not sufficient to establish a substantial and actually disputed question of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the cited federal issues are neither necessarily raised nor actually disputed and substantial.

Washington Consulting Group, Inc. v. Raytheon Technical Services Co. · filed 2011-01-20

Here, defendants have pointed to no federal issue that is necessarily raised by plaintiffs well-pleaded complaint. The only federal statutes and regulations that plaintiff cites are those pertaining to criminal conflicts of interest by government employees. Yet these statutes and regulations are neither necessarily raised, nor actually disputed and substantial.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the federal issue is neither necessarily raised nor actually disputed and substantial.

Washington Consulting Group, Incorporated v. Raytheon Technical Services Company LLC · filed 2011-01-20

The only federal statutes and regulations that plaintiff cites are those pertaining to criminal conflicts of interest by government employees. Yet these statutes and regulations are neither necessarily raised, nor actually disputed and substantial. Hence, this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims under Grable and its progeny.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law legal malpractice claim merely because proving causation requires applying federal law to the underlying case.

Rx. Com, Inc. v. O'Quinn · filed 2011-02-02

This potential “mini-trial” of a federal claim was not sufficient in Singh, and is not sufficient here, to warrant a finding that a state law legal malpractice case raises a substantial issue of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a federal issue arises in only one of several alternative theories supporting the claim.

Kentucky ex rel. Conway v. Purdue Pharma, L.P. · filed 2011-09-26

Federal question jurisdiction is not created “[w]here a federal issue is present as only one of multiple theories that could support a particular claim.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because they involve federal audit standards when the federal issue is not actually disputed or necessary to the claims, or jurisdiction would upset the federal-state balance.

Navistar International Corp. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP · filed 2011-10-28

Applying these principles here yields the conclusion that federal jurisdiction does not lie over either of the two categories of claims in Navistar’s complaint.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because it incorporates a federal drug-manufacturing standard when the federal issue is neither actually disputed nor substantial and federal jurisdiction would disrupt the balance of state and federal judicial responsibilities.

Oregon ex rel. Kroger v. Johnson & Johnson · filed 2011-12-07

In sum, the reference to cGMPs in some of Plaintiffs claims may constitute a “necessary” federal issue, but that issue is neither actually disputed nor substantial, and recognizing federal jurisdiction over it would disrupt the balance struck by Congress between state and federal judicial responsibilities. It therefore does not give rise to federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, making removal improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law consumer protection claim merely because it references a federal consumer protection statute.

State of Nevada v. Bank of America Corporation · filed 2012-03-02

Exercising federal question jurisdiction over any state law claim that references a federal consumer protection statute would “herald[ ] a potentially enormous shift of tradi- tionally state cases into federal courts.” Id. at 319.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because they refer to federal law; the federal issue must be necessary and substantial.

Nevada v. Bank of America Corp. · filed 2012-03-02

Therefore, Nevada’s glancing reference to federal law is insufficient to confer federal jurisdiction over Nevada’s state law claims.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over state law claims involving federal programs when the federal issues are neither necessary to the claims nor substantial.

Goffney v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2012-09-17

Moreover, neither the breach of contract nor the TDCA claim raises a federal issue sufficient to create federal question jurisdiction in this case. Even though Defendants’ duties under HAMP and HAFA may be disputed, as discussed below the federal issues here are neither “necessary” nor “substantial” within the meaning of § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim when the alleged federal-law violation is only an alternative theory of liability.

Praschak v. Kmart Corp. · filed 2013-02-08

Because Praschak’s complaint alleges alternative, non-ADA theories of negligence, her suit does not “arise under” the ADA.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state law derivative claims that raise federal issues lacking significance to the federal system as a whole when federal adjudication would disrupt the federal-state balance.

Haith ex rel. Accretive Health, Inc. v. Bronfman · filed 2013-03-01

For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ claims do not satisfy the third and fourth requirements of Grable, and they therefore do not fall within the “arising under” jurisdiction of § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when references to the Constitution neither necessarily raise a federal issue nor present a substantial one.

Bollea v. Clem · filed 2013-03-28

In summary, federal issues do not appear on the face of Bollea’s First Amended Complaint. Those federal issues that are implied by passing reference to the United States Constitution are not “necessarily raised” or “substantial” and therefore do not confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over state tort claims premised on violations of federal laws that provide no federal cause of action when the claims implicate no significant federal issues.

Stew Farm, Ltd. v. Natural Resource Conservation Service · filed 2013-08-26

Moreover, under Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 106 S.Ct. 3229, 92 L.Ed.2d 650 (1986), a complaint that alleges the violation of federal law as an element of a state law tort action does not “arise under” federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This is the case here — Plaintiffs Complaint alleges a state tort claim premised on the violation of federal laws. Such claims do not “implicate significant federal issues” under Hampton and Merrell Dow.

Nuisance allegations relating to a neighbor do not present a federal question under § 1331.

Scarnati v. Johnton · filed 2014-01-14

Her nuisance allegations relating to her neighbor do not present a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when Medicare-compliance issues are unnecessary to recovery under alternative theories and are fact-bound and situation-specific rather than substantial.

Community Place v. Mid South Rehab Services, Inc. · filed 2014-02-19

As such, the Court finds the issue of Medicare compliance presented in this case is “fact-bound” and “situation-specific” and, therefore, cannot be considered substantial for the purpose of conferring federal question jurisdiction. ... In sum, the Court finds Mid South has failed to satisfy its burden to show either that resolving the Medicare compliance issues raised in the Complaint is necessary to adjudicate the state law claims alleged by Community Place, or that the Medicare compliance issues would be considered “substantial” under controlling precedent. Accordingly, the Court finds Mid South has failed to show that a substantial federal question exists and, therefore, has failed to show that the Court could properly exercise federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely alleging federal statutory violations when those violations are not independent causes of action and state-law theories can support relief without resolving a federal issue.

Snyder v. Citimortgage, Incorporated · filed 2014-03-06

Moreover, Snyder’s state law quiet title action does not depend on a finding that Defendants violated federal law; Snyder advances many state law arguments in support of his claim to quiet title, any one of which, if valid, could support his action.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over state tort claims that merely cite a federal statute as an expression of public policy without raising a federal issue substantial to the federal system as a whole.

Fracasse v. People's United Bank · filed 2014-03-27

Contrary to People’s contention, these references to the FLSA, pled as public policy considerations attendant to the common law claims, do not provide a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... Examining whether the plaintiffs’ complaint satisfies the requirements announced in Gunn, we conclude that the “federal issue” arising in these state law claims is not substantial, and the district court, therefore, lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state whistleblower claim that can be established through violations of state law and presents no actually disputed, substantial federal issue.

Hernandez v. Publix Super Markets, Inc. · filed 2014-04-09

As Hernandez asserts, to prevail on his FWA claim, he need only establish Publix violated state statutes. As such, federal law is not an essential element of Plaintiff’s claim under the FWA. ... It also does not appear that Defendants dispute what the cited federal laws and regulations state or require; hence, there is no “stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial” on the face of the Complaint this federal forum should entertain without disturbing the congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state whistleblower claim involving necessarily raised and disputed federal patent or trademark issues when those issues are not substantial and federal adjudication would disrupt the federal-state balance.

Bonnafant v. Chico's FAS, Inc. · filed 2014-04-25

In sum, though the federal question is necessarily raised and actually disputed, it is not substantial, and resolution in a federal court would cause significant disruption to the federal-state balance. Thus, the claim does not “arise under” federal law, and the Court does not have original jurisdiction.

A state-law claim does not arise under federal law unless every legal theory supporting relief requires resolution of a federal issue.

Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC · filed 2014-07-01

As we have recognized, “a plaintiff’s right to relief for a given claim necessarily depends on a question of federal law only when every legal theory supporting the claim requires the resolution of a federal issue.” See Dixon v. Coburg Dairy, Inc., 369 F.3d 811, 816 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Accordingly, the “necessarily raised” requirement for a “significant” federal issue — formulated and explained by the Supreme Court in Grable and Gunn — has not been satisfied.

Section 1331 requires a disputed, substantial federal question to be essential to a state-law claim before that claim can support federal-question jurisdiction.

Kalick v. United States · filed 2014-07-30

Furthermore, even if the Court could somehow construe the state law claims as requiring the resolution of a substantial question of federal law, it is not clear that the arrangement between the VA and Rowan resulted in the withholding of Plaintiffs degree. Thus, any question of VA benefits is not “essential” to his state law claims, as required for § 1331 jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the Court is unable to conclude based on the allegations in Plaintiffs Complaint that any disputed federal question is essential to Plaintiffs claims. Therefore, Plaintiffs Complaint does not give rise to federal question jurisdiction and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state law claims against Rowan.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over state-law claims concerning a pension plan’s federal tax status when their resolution depends on the defendants’ representations and omissions rather than an analysis of federal tax law.

Bar-David v. Economic Concepts, Inc. · filed 2014-09-22

Furthermore, the validity of Bar-David’s claims does not depend on an analysis of the federal tax code, but rather on an analysis of Defendants’ various representations and omissions regarding the Plan. ... Federal question jurisdiction is not available because ERISA preemption does not apply, and there are no other claims invoking a federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over state-law claims that can succeed without resolving a federal-law issue, even when the complaint alleges violations of federal regulations.

Manning v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc. · filed 2014-11-10

Because the success of Plaintiffs’ state-law causes of action does not “necessarily” depend upon the contents of federal law, this case does not “arise under” the laws of the United States.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over state consumer-protection claims when alleged federal violations supply only one of multiple bases for liability, present fact-specific issues, and federal jurisdiction would disrupt the federal-state balance.

In re General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation · filed 2014-11-24

Plaintiffs claims arise solely under California state law. ... Second, the federal issues at play in this case are not “nearly pure” issues of law. ... Finally, it is not the “rare” state consumer protection suit that involves alleged violations of federal law; instead, “[s]tate courts frequently handle state-law consumer protection suits that refer to or are predicated on standards set forth in federal statutes.” ... Allowing federal courts to exercise jurisdiction over these types of suits, therefore, would have far more than “a microscopic effect on the federal-state division of labor.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state negligence claim based on alleged FDA violations when an alternative and independent state-law theory makes resolution of the federal issue unnecessary.

Maher v. Vaughn, Silverberg & Associates, LLP · filed 2015-03-05

The issue of whether Defendants violated the FDA regulations is therefore not “a necessary element” of Maher’s negligence cause of action because she asserts an “alternative and independent” theory to support it. As such, Maher fails to satisfy the first factor.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over state-law shareholder derivative claims predicated on FCPA violations when the federal issue lacks significance to the federal system as a whole and jurisdiction would upset Congress’s allocation of enforcement to the SEC and DOJ.

Pritika ex rel. Avon Products, Inc. v. Moore · filed 2015-03-16

Her claims do not raise a substantial federal issue, because any issue related to the FCPA that is presented by this case lacks the requisite “importance ... to the federal system as a whole.” ... Here, exercising subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims would be tantamount to recognizing a private right of action under the FCPA. Such an approach would “open the floodgates” to federal court litigation of private disputes raising issues under the FCPA, an outcome directly contrary to Congress’s apparent intent.

State-law mortgage claims referring to federal statutes and programs do not establish jurisdiction under § 1331 when they allege no federal cause of action and do not arise under federal law.

Park v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2015-03-24

Even in light of this extensive review examining Defendants’ arguments, Plaintiffs’ complaint, though not a model of clarity, does not allege any federal causes of action. ... The Court has carefully reviewed the complaint and concludes these causes of actions do not arise under federal law. State law traditionally controls Plaintiffs’ causes of action. Therefore, a federal question does not arise from Plaintiffs’ claims and removal was improper. ... Because this case does not arise under federal law, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over state-law negligence claims based on OSHA violations when federal law is not a necessary element and the disputed federal issue lacks significance to the federal system as a whole.

Goforth v. Nevada Power Co. · filed 2015-03-31

The federal issue is not necessarily raised because proof of a violation of an OSHA regulation is not a necessary element to any of Plaintiffs’ claims. ... Because resolution of the federal issue will inform only the negligence claims at hand, the issue is not significant to the federal system as a whole.