28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a federal issue is only one of multiple theories that could support the claim.

Anghel v. Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C. · filed 2015-04-08

Plaintiff’s CLIA argument is but one theory in support of her broader claim that defendants committed malpractice, and it is therefore insufficient to support federal question jurisdiction.

A contention that a personal injury claim implicates reimbursement of Medicare funds is insufficient to establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Ballard v. Fernandez · filed 2015-04-01

In any event, Plaintiff’s contention that her personal injury claim implicates the reimbursement of Medicare funds is insufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction.

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

Dominion Pathology Laboratories, P.C. v. Anthem Health Plans of Virginia, Inc. · filed 2015-06-19

As the breach of contract claim is predicated in part on conduct that is not related to the ACA, the court finds that the Defendant has failed to show that resolving issues related to § 2706 of the ACA are necessary to resolve the claim. Thus, the federal issue is not “necessarily raised.”

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims unless they present an actually disputed, substantial federal issue that a federal court can hear consistently with the division of responsibility between state and federal courts.

Caldwell ex rel. Louisiana v. Bristol Myers Squibb Sanofi Pharmaceuticals Holding Partnership · filed 2015-07-16

The plaintiffs amending petition alleges only state-law claims; and the defendants failed to demonstrate that the amending petition alleges claims involving actually disputed and substantial federal-law issues that a federal court may entertain without disturbing the congressionally-approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the complaint references HIPAA.

Sabatino v. HMO Missouri, Inc. · filed 2015-09-09

Plaintiffs’ single reference to HIPAA in a sixty-three-paragraph complaint does not convert Plaintiffs’ state law claim for breach of fiduciary duty into a federal cause of action.

Section 1331 does not give federal-question jurisdiction over a state negligence claim when the plaintiff can prevail without relying on a federal regulation.

Nassau County Bridge Authority v. Olsen · filed 2015-09-19

Thus, the violation of a federal statute is not a “necessary” component of the Plaintiffs claim because the Plaintiff can prevail on its negligence claim without resorting to a federal regulation.

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.

Regents of the University of California v. Aisen · filed 2015-10-29

The Supreme Court uses a four-part test to identify the controversies that fit within that “special and small category” of exceptional cases. “[F]ederal 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 jurisdiction over a state-law claim involving a substantial federal issue only when exercising jurisdiction preserves the congressionally approved balance of state and federal judicial responsibilities; that balance turns chiefly on the nature of the claim, its traditional forum, and the number of affected cases.

State of New York Ex Rel. Jacobson v. Wells Fargo National Bank, N.A. · filed 2016-06-02

The fourth Grable-Gunn requirement, i.e., that the exercise of federal-question jurisdiction over a state law claim not disturb any congressionally approved balance of state and federal judicial responsibilities, focuses principally on the nature of the claim, the traditional forum for such a claim, and the volume of cases that would be affected.

Section 1331 permits federal jurisdiction over a state-law claim only when the claim necessarily raises a federal issue; a possible federal issue is insufficient.

Arizona ex rel. Brnovich v. AG · filed 2016-06-23

The most basic requirement of the'four-part test is that federal jurisdiction will lie only when the state-law claim “necessarily” raises a federal issue.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that do not require resolution of a federal issue, even if the alleged facts could support an unpleaded federal claim.

Parrish v. ARC of Morris County, LLC · filed 2016-06-30

The amended complaint here does not suggest that the Court will be required to analyze any such federal issue based on Parrish’s articulated causes of action, and so it does not raise a federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence action merely because one alternative negligence theory depends on a federal statute.

Corporan v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP · filed 2016-07-13

Thus, even if plaintiffs’ theory of negligence per se relies exclusively on a violation of the federal Gun Control Act, no federal subject matter jurisdiction exists because plaintiffs’ reliance on the federal statute for negligence per se is not essential to the other theories of negligence set forth in the petition.

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

Ramos v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 2016-08-18

Nor does federal question jurisdiction exist, because none of Plaintiffs’ exclusively state law claims raise a federal issue sufficient for this case to be deemed to arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law easement dispute merely because the easement supports a federally regulated project.

Pressl v. Appalachian Power Company · filed 2016-11-21

The interpretation of a state conveyance is a quintessential question of state property law, and Congress has limited our jurisdiction over such cases. Accordingly, we conclude that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides no basis for federal jurisdiction over this case.

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

Apton v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. · filed 2017-01-17

In short, Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the state-law claims that Apton has brought in this case necessarily require the resolution of a substantial question of federal law, which means that Defendants’ argument that a federal question exists in this case must be rejected. Consequently, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over this matter under the federal-question jurisdiction statute (28 U.S.C. § 1331), and Defendants’ attempt to remove this case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on federal-question grounds is improper.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because federal regulations may be relevant as a defense; the claim must necessarily raise a federal issue.

Organic Consumers Association v. General Mills, Inc. · filed 2017-02-22

As explained infra, plaintiffs’ claim may “implicate” these regulations, but it does not create any “federal issues” within the meaning of Grable because the issues are not “necessarily raised” by plaintiffs’ DCCPPA claim. At most, the federal regulations are potentially relevant as a defense, but that does not provide federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a federal issue is necessarily raised, actually disputed, substantial, and resolvable in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.

Brinson v. Providence Community Corrections · filed 2017-08-09

So for federal-question jurisdiction to exist, Brin-son would have to establish that her state-law cause of action arises under federal law by satisfying the four-part test laid out in Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 133 S.Ct. 1059, 1065, 185 L.Ed.2d 72 (2013) (“[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.”).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims based on a Davis-Bacon Act violation when the embedded federal issue is not substantial.

Ali v. DLG Dev. Corp. · filed 2017-10-23

In this case, the federal issue-the Davis-Bacon Act-is necessarily raised and actually disputed, but it is not substantial.

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

James Valley Cooperative Telephone Company v. South Dakota Network, LLC · filed 2017-11-13

Unlike in Grable, where deciding an issue of federal law was inescapable, no issue of federal law needs to be resolved in Plaintiffs’ state case.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over state-law claims that necessarily raise disputed, substantial federal issues capable of resolution without disrupting the congressionally approved federal-state balance.

Bartlett v. Honeywell International Inc. · filed 2018-05-25

The Gunn Court noted that “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, subject matter jurisdiction is present because we have federal question jurisdiction.

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

Inst. for Truth in Mktg. v. Total Health Network Corp. · filed 2018-08-13

Notably, "[a]rising under" federal question jurisdiction is proper for the state law claim only if all four of these conditions are satisfied.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the plaintiff can prevail without proving a violation of the federal statutes those claims implicate.

Reynolds v. Behrman Capital IV L.P. · filed 2018-09-06

Whether Atherotech Inc. violated the Anti-Kickback Statute or the False Claims Act is not an essential element to any of the state law claims raised against any of the defendants because Mr. Reynolds could prevail on those claims without proving a violation of those federal statutes.

A state-law claim does not arise under § 1331 when an independent theory of recovery depends exclusively on state law, so the federal issue is not necessarily raised.

Toler v. Claudio & Johnson, Attorneys at Law, LLC · filed 2018-11-27

Because Plaintiff has presented theories of recovery in support of her cause of action for a violation of the WVCCPA that depend exclusively upon state law, the application of federal law is not essential to the claim’s disposition. As such, the “necessarily raised” requirement has not been satisfied, and federal jurisdiction does not lie.

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

Mantlo v. Missouri School Boards Association · filed 2018-12-19

Grable does not apply here because Mantlo’s claims do not necessarily raise a substantial federal issue.

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

Camarena-Revis v. Farmers Insurance · filed 2019-09-19

However, the Second Amended Complaint asserts tort claims, which, as this Court has previously explained to plaintiff, are a matter of state law and cannot give rise to federal question jurisdiction.

A state-law contract claim does not arise under § 1331 merely because a federally created entity issued the contract or may raise federal defenses.

Gensplit Finance Corp. v. Foreign Credit Ins. Ass'n · filed 1985-09-06

Although federal law may be invoked by way of FCIA’s defense, the complaint itself, which the Court considers to be a well-pled document, sets forth a breach of contract claim based on state law. As such, the success of that claim depends upon the wording and validity of the contract in light of applicable state law. Accordingly, Gen-split’s claim does not arise under federal law, and jurisdiction does not lie in this Court by reason of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331(a) does not confer jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim merely because a federal statute may limit enforcement as a defense; federal law must be a direct element of the plaintiff’s claim.

Jackson v. United States · filed 1980-01-31(a)

In order for federal question jurisdiction to exist, the federal law must be a direct element of the plaintiffs’ claim. It is not enough that it comes in remotely or indirectly. ... Similarly, the plaintiffs’ contract claim here does not arise under the federal statute even though it is asserted by the defendants to bar the enforcement of those contracts; it arises out of the law of the state. No federal question jurisdiction arises from the provisions of 25 U.S.C. § 81.

A state-law contract action does not arise under Section 1331(a) merely because a federal statute may support the defendant's legal theories or defenses.

Busbee v. Continental Insurance · filed 1981-12-01(a)

It is hornbook law that the existence of a federal law defense is insufficient to provide jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). ... The law that creates the Governor’s cause of action against Continental is the state law of contract; this is, in essence, a suit to enforce a surety bond. The fact that the legal theories of Defendant Continental may depend in part or in whole upon the federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 is irrelevant if state law creates the cause of action. ... The Court holds that this case does not “arise under” federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 does not support removal of a state declaratory contract action when the federal issue would arise only as a defense; the well-pleaded complaint must itself assert a federal cause of action.

Northwest Central Pipeline Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co. · filed 1983-12-30

The “well-pleaded complaint” doctrine requires this Court to determine whether a federal cause of action has been alleged “from what necessarily appears in the plaintiff’s statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided by anything alleged in anticipation of avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose.” ... Likewise, Northwest’s suit does not arise under federal law even though the Delaware Chancery Court will probably be compelled to interpret federal law in rendering its decision.

A state-law contract dispute does not arise under section 1331 when the federal tax issue is merely collateral and would appear only as a defense in the coercive action.

Mobil Oil Corp. v. City of Long Beach · filed 1985-09-24

To be sure, whether or not the WPT is an excise tax for purposes of federal law may be relevant in a coercive action brought by Long Beach on the contract. But that question is merely collateral to the question before us. The central issue as indicated in the complaints is whether the WPT is an excise tax for purposes of article 18 of the Contractors' Agreement. The nature of the WPT, if it arises, would arise as a defense to Long Beach's coercive action. Thus, it is not properly the basis for the exercise of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract dispute merely because a party anticipates a defense under federal law.

Dugle v. Duro, Inc. · filed 2007-04-05

Duro has admitted that it is concerned that the alleged contract may violate both state law and possibly federal law; however, this is merely an anticipated defense of Duro’s, not a proper basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a filed federal tariff exists when the complaint alleges a contract and breach that both predate the tariff.

Northeastern Rural Electric Membership Corp. v. Wabash Valley Power Ass'n · filed 2013-02-22

Federal question jurisdiction does not exist, however, where there is a federally-filed tariff, but the complaint alleges a contract and breach of that contract that both predate the federal tariff.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a breach-of-contract complaint that presents no federal question.

Jack v. Farrell · filed 2013-12-02

Since the complaint presents neither a federal question nor a basis for diversity jurisdiction, it will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law action seeking a declaration of contractual rights when the contracts can be construed without resolving federal claims pending in separate litigation.

Honey Holdings I, Ltd. v. Alfred L. Wolff, Inc. · filed 2015-01-23

Regarding Bees Brothers’ contention that federal question jurisdiction exists here, the Court finds that there is no federal right asserted on the face of the Original Petition, which seeks only a declaration requiring the Court to construe a contract. ... The Court disagrees with Bees Brothers’ claim that the federal causes of action in the federal class action suit are at issue here. The P.O.s can be construed without any reference to the legal issues in the class action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law breach of contract claim that alleges no violation of federal law.

Muchler v. Greenwald · filed 2015-08-18

At their core, the factual allegations of Muchler’s pleadings make clear that Muchler is asserting a state law breach of contract claim against the County Defendants over which original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, or 1343(a)(3) is lacking.

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

In re Cmty. Bank of N. Va. Mortg. Lending Practices Litig. specter Specter Evans · filed 2018-12-20

The District Court lacked original jurisdiction over the state law breach of contract claim because it involves neither federal question nor diversity jurisdiction.

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

Stewart v. Amber · filed 2019-08-08

Plaintiff purportedly filed this complaint under the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but she does not invoke a federal cause of action. Instead, she seems to assert a claim for breach of contract, which does not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a federal treaty arises only as a defense to a state-law cause of action.

Seguros Commercial America v. Hall · filed 2000-09-15

The use of the Convention as a federal defense to a state law cause of action is clearly inadequate to support federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law personal injury claim when an equal-treaty-rights issue is collateral to the claim.

Baker v. Bell Helicopter/Textron, Inc. · filed 1995-12-07

Although defendants assert that the equal treaty rights provision requires construction of treaties and thus confers federal question jurisdiction, there is no contention that Tomlinson’s causes of action are created by a treaty. The origins of Tomlinson’s personal injury causes of action are in Texas law, and liability in this ease turns on an interpretation and application of Texas statutes and cases. The existence of equal treaty rights is not in the forefront of the ease, but is simply a collateral issue.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because state standing law requires equal treaty rights; that issue is neither a substantial nor an essential element of the claim.

Roman v. Aviateca S A · filed 1997-07-01

In sum, “equal treaty rights” are neither a substantial nor an essential element of Plaintiffs’ action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state wrongful-death claim merely because federal law supplies the alleged standard of conduct; the right asserted must be federal in nature.

Mozingo v. Consolidated Construction Company · filed 1959-03-10

The case under consideration is further complicated by the fact that it is a death action under the laws of North Carolina. No such right of action existed at common law, and none now exists under federal law. The federal nature of the right to be established is decisive — -not the source of the authority to establish it.

A state-law negligence claim does not arise under federal law for Section 1331 purposes merely because it incorporates federal law by reference.

Zieg v. Shearson/American Express Inc. · filed 1984-09-06

A state law negligence cause of action that incorporates federal law by reference does not “arise under” federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state negligence claim when violation of federal law is only an alternative theory and is not essential to recovery.

Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chemicals Company, Incorporated · filed 1994-07-11

In short, negligence per se under the federal environmental statutes is only one of the Plaintiffs' numerous theories of recovery, so that the federal issue raised thereby is not substantial pursuant to Christianson. Thus, in light of the principles enunciated above, we find that, because the Plaintiffs' alternative theory of negligence per se is not "essential" to their negligence theory, no federal subject matter jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state common law negligence claim merely because it cites federal environmental statutes.

Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chemicals Co. · filed 1994-07-11

In summary, we find that the Plaintiffs’ reference to federal environmental statutes in their state common law negligence action cannot support federal subject matter jurisdiction in the instant case.

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

Kentucky, Ex Rel. Gorman v. Comcast Cable of Paducah, Inc. · filed 1995-03-15

Where a federal standard is used in a state law claim, the court believes that the success of the state claim will only necessarily depend on the federal statute where the two are precisely co-extensive. That is to say, the locus of conduct proscribed by the federal and state statutes must be exactly the same. Where it is possible for a court to conclude that one was violated and the other was not, no substantial federal question exists.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state negligence claim merely because it alleges a violation of a federal statute that provides no private cause of action.

Browning v. Geupel Construction Co. · filed 1995-07-19

The federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, 30 U.S.C. § 801 et seq, affords no private cause of action. ... Accordingly, the Court concludes this action was removed improvidently and without federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state tort claim seeking damages merely because it uses ADA public-accommodation standards to establish negligence when the ADA provides no damages remedy for that claim.

Wagner v. Regent Investments, Inc. · filed 1995-11-14

Because Plaintiff in this case may not pursue his remedy for damages under the ADA, the incorporation of ADA standards in his state tort claim would be insufficient to confer federal jurisdiction on this court, even if those standards were the only basis of his tort recovery.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because state law incorporates federal standards to define the right.

Cinquemano v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. · filed 1996-12-10

The reference in La. R.S. 23:1016 to federal law to define the scope of this right does not convert this state claim into a federal question upon which the Court would have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim incorporating federal standards when the federal statute provides no private remedy.

Brock v. Provident America Insurance · filed 2001-04-17

If, as here, Congress has not drafted the prerequisite federal remedy into the federal statute in question, the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 have not been met.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim when an alleged violation of federal law is only one possible liability theory and the claim does not require resolution of a substantial federal question.

Sercye-McCollum v. Ravenswood Hospital Medical Center · filed 2001-04-25

Thus, plaintiffs need not prove that defendants violated the EMTALA in order to prevail in the instant case. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ claims are not federal claims in state law wrapping paper, nor do they require resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Federal-question jurisdiction does not arise merely because a state-law claim uses federal statutory standards as evidence of a violation of state law, without a federal claim or a right to relief that necessarily depends on a substantial federal question.

Greene v. General Motors Corp. · filed 2003-04-30

Applying these legal principles to the Plaintiffs’ Complaint as amended, clearly there is no basis for exercising federal question jurisdiction, that is, the Plaintiffs have not pled a claim arising under the Magnuson-Moss Act or any other federal statute, nor do any of their asserted rights to relief necessarily depend on the resolution of any federal law question, much less a substantial question of federal law.

A state negligence claim alleging an OSHA violation as an element does not establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 when OSHA provides no private right of action.

Stephens v. High Voltage Maintenance Co. · filed 2004-07-08

It is well-settled that OSHA does not create a private right of action. ... Accordingly, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case and the ease is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim when federal law supplies only an alternative theory of recovery.

Birdsong Tractor & Supply, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. · filed 2004-08-23

Therefore, federal law provides only an “alternative theory of negligence,” and federal subject matter jurisdiction does not exist as to this claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a state-law complaint mentions federal-law matters only as evidence and presents no federal claim.

Comes v. Microsoft Corp. · filed 2005-11-22

Such evidentiary allegations, however, do not necessarily raise federal claims. ... Because there are no federal questions presented, this Court does not have original jurisdiction within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state negligence claim when federal regulations only help establish the standard of care and raise no substantial federal issue.

Sullivan v. BNSF Railway Co. · filed 2006-08-17

The Court finds that there is no substantial federal interest in a wrongful death state claim based on negligence when federal regulations are only cited to assist in establishing a standard by which to measure the negligence.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law tort claim merely because federal standards of care may apply.

Bennett, Mariko L.A. v. Southwest Airlines · filed 2007-04-26

That some standards of care used in tort litigation come from federal law does not make the tort claim one “arising under” federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim merely because a federal statute supplies one of several methods of proving the claim.

Wolf v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co. · filed 2007-09-25

For these reasons, the Supreme Court’s Grable decision does not support Bankers’ assertion that the mention of 18 U.S.C. § 4 as one of several methods of proof on Count V creates federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state negligence claim merely because the complaint frames it as a constitutional claim.

Briscoe v. Doe · filed 2015-09-14

We agree with the District Court that these allegations appear to be an effort to raise a state law tort claim for negligence, and that Brisco’s efforts to cloak that claim in constitutional garb are insufficient to trigger federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because they rely in part on ADA violations.

Rosales v. ReMax LLC · filed 2020-12-18

However, the fact that plaintiff relies in part on ADA violations as the basis for his state law claims, (see Dkt. 1-1, Exh. A, Complaint at ¶¶ 9, 15-18); Bell v. Retail Servs. & Sys., Inc., 2018 WL 3455811, *2 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (“[T]he Unruh Act and the CDPA incorporate the ADA, such that the ADA may serve as a ‘hook’ for an alleged violation of state law.”), is insufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction.

State-law negligence claims do not arise under § 1331 merely because they cite federal laws or regulations to define the standard of care.

Blake at Carnes Crossroads LLC, The v. Grimsley · filed 2021-09-17

Grimsley does not assert a federal law cause of action in his complaint in the State Action. Grimsley simply relies in part on federal laws and regulations in his allegations to define the standard of care for Grimsley’s state-law negligence causes of action. These references are not enough for the court to invoke federal-question jurisdiction.

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

Moriconi v. AT & T WIRELESS PCS, LLC · filed 2003-08-19

It might provide a defense to some or all of Plaintiffs state law theories of recovery, but such defenses would not provide a basis for this Court to exercise federal question jurisdiction.

A state-law complaint does not arise under federal law for Section 1331 purposes merely because the defense will raise federal preemption and First Amendment issues.

Norton Coal Co. v. UMW OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 28, UMWA · filed 1974-12-02

Insofar as defendants are asserting that this case may be said to “arise under” the Constitution or laws of the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or “any Act of Congress regulating commerce,” 28 U.S.C. § 1337, by reason of the preemption issue, the court cannot agree. Petitioner’s complaint alleges violations of state law based on acts of violence. There can be little doubt that by way of response to the complaint and particularly to the relief sought, defendants will raise issues of federal preemption and First Amendment protection. However the fact that such issues are involved in the case does not satisfy the jurisdictional requisite that the case “arise under” federal law.

A state-law claim does not arise under federal law for § 1331(a) merely because federal statutes may defeat a potential defense to the claim.

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Texaco Inc. · filed 1974-02-19(a)

To the extent that the Natural Gas Act and the 1960 Helium Act Amendments may bear on this action for the recovery of the reasonable value of constituent helium in natural gas, it is clear that their effect is no more than to overcome a potential defense to the action. Under the settled precedent of our past decisions noted above, it thus cannot be said that this suit “arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Accordingly, there is no federal jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1331 (a).

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

Carroll v. PROTECTION MARITIME INSURANCE CO., LTD. · filed 1974-07-11

The present suit does not involve a claim arising under the Jones Act. No claim within the federal question jurisdiction of this Court has been alleged.

Section 1331(a) supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a justiciable dispute requiring construction of federal statutes to determine whether a federal administrator had authority to terminate a congressionally created loan program.

Sioux Valley Empire Electric Ass'n v. Butz · filed 1974-09-26(a)

... federal question jui’is-diction adheres pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331(a) jurisdiction exists when a substantial federal question asks whether a federal statute requires district-court review of regulated projects before or during construction.

Citizens Ass'n of Georgetown v. Washington · filed 1974-09-30(a)

The Court also concludes that jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) is well-founded. A substantial federal question exists as to whether the Clean Air Act ... requires that the Maloney and Inland developments be reviewed by a federal district court, prior to or during construction, to determine if construction will interfere with the attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards in the District by May 31, 1977.

A declaratory plaintiff's federal preemption claim falls within Section 1331 when it has independent vitality and is not meaningful only as a defense to threatened state litigation.

Rath Packing Co. v. Becker · filed 1975-10-29

We find neither factor present and consider that Rath has stated claims which are within the federal jurisdiction conferred on the district court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 jurisdiction cannot rest on a federal defense, including federal preemption, that appears only in an answer or is merely anticipated.

Borzello v. Charles D. Sooy & C. Darrell Sooy · filed 1977-02-24

The only mention of federal laws comes in defendants’ answer to causes of action II, III and IV where they assert the defense of federal preemption to plaintiffs’ state law claims. As outlined above, neither the answer nor an anticipated defense may be the basis for federal question jurisdiction. No exception to the rule exists where the defense claimed is federal preemption.

A federal defense, including preemption, does not create Section 1331 jurisdiction when the underlying proceeding and declaratory claim arise under state law.

Home Federal Savings and Loan Association of Algona, Iowa v. Insurance Department of Iowa and Herbert W. Anderson, Commi · filed 1978-02-21

The case before us represents a procedural variation from those heretofore considered, in that here, although the declaratory-plaintiff’s petition clearly states its claimed bases for federal jurisdiction, the allegations remain defensive in nature, merely reiterating the defenses heretofore made of preemption and lack of doing business. As such they will not suffice for federal question jurisdiction. ... It is not a federal case and is not converted to one by Home Federal’s defenses to the state’s basic allegations.

A declaratory action focused on federal preemption and related federal issues presents federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331 even if a consolidated state enforcement action may have been improperly removed.

First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Boston v. Carol S. Greenwald, Etc. · filed 1979-02-05

The matter of preemption and related federal issues were the focal point of the declaratory judgment suit, hence federal question jurisdiction existed in that case under any analysis.

Section 1331 does not support removal of a state-law contract action when federal regulation or preemption supplies only a defense and no federal controversy appears on the complaint’s face.

Madsen v. Prudential Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n · filed 1980-12-03

Since no federal controversy was disclosed on the face of the Madsens’ state court complaint, as amended, removal was improper and the consolidated case must be remanded to state court.

Section 1331 does not support removal of a state-law contract action when federal regulation or preemption supplies only a defense and no federal controversy appears on the complaint’s face.

Madsen v. Prudential Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n · filed 1981-01-23

Since no federal controversy was disclosed on the face of the Madsens' state court complaint, as amended, removal was improper and the consolidated case must be remanded to state court.

When federal law preempts the state law supporting a complaint, the action arises under federal law for Section 1331 purposes even if federal law ultimately provides no remedy.

Billy Jack for Her, Inc. v. New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union · filed 1981-04-02

Accordingly, no illogic inheres in first using preemption analysis to conclude that federal law governs the dispute before the court, meaning that the action arises under federal law, and then proceeding to determine whether the preemptive federal law affords a basis for awarding relief to the plaintiff.

Section 1331 covers a concrete federal-preemption challenge to state regulation, and after the 1980 amendment no amount in controversy is required.

Town of Springfield v. Vermont Environmental Board · filed 1981-08-21

Moreover, it cannot seriously be doubted that the federal preemption issue here “arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” so as to establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. To the extent that counsel for Cavendish urges that the amount in controversy is insufficient to supply jurisdiction under section 1331, it is only necessary to state that Congress has recently amended that section to remove the amount in controversy requirement.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal issue on the face of a well-pleaded complaint; federal preemption ordinarily is a defense and alone does not support removal.

Guinasso v. Pacific First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n · filed 1981-09-21

A suit arises under federal law within 28 U.S.C. § 1331 if the complaint, properly pléaded, 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. ... Federal preemption is ordinarily a matter to be raised in defense. ... Taken alone, it is not a basis for removal.

Section 1331 requires a federal right to be an essential element disclosed on the complaint's face; a defensive federal-preemption claim does not support jurisdiction.

Twin City Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Gelhar · filed 1981-11-03

In order to establish federal jurisdiction, the asserted federal right must be an essential element of the plaintiff’s cause of action, and the federal controversy must be “disclosed upon the face of the complaint, unaided by the answer .... ” ... The claim of federal preemption in this context is defensive in nature and as such will not support federal jurisdiction.

A claim does not arise under federal law for Section 1331 purposes when federal law supplies only a defense to the declaratory-judgment defendant's state-law claim.

Alton Box Board Company v. Esprit De Corp. · filed 1982-04-23

A claim does not arise under federal law within the meaning of section 1331 where it relies on federal law only to establish an immunity or defense which would preclude the declaratory judgment defendant from successfully litigating against the declaratory judgment plaintiff a claim arising under state law.

A declaratory complaint does not arise under § 1331 when its federal issue is merely a defense to a state-law claim.

Exxon Corp. v. Hunt · filed 1982-06-30

In summary, a declaratory judgment complaint does not state a cause of action arising under federal law when the federal issue is in the nature of a defense to a state law claim.

Section 1331(a) does not confer jurisdiction over a declaratory action when federal preemption is merely a defense to threatened state-law enforcement.

Michigan Savings & Loan League v. Francis · filed 1982-07-08(a)

Today this Circuit joins the Fourth, Eighth and Tenth Circuits in holding that there is no federal jurisdiction where federal preemption is raised as a defense to a threatened state action.

Section 1331 does not support removal of a mortgage dispute governed by state law when federal regulatory preemption is uncertain and supplies no clear federal rule for the claim.

Bleecker Associates v. Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n · filed 1982-08-11

Moreover, caution further counsels against jurisdiction based on the preemption regulation for there lurks in this case substantial constitutional issues of the impairment of property ... rights acquired under state law. ... Under the facts here presented, the interpretation of the mortgage is a matter of state law and consequently the Court does not have jurisdiction over the action.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a declaratory action when federal preemption is merely a defense to a threatened state-law action.

First Federal Savings & Loan Association Of Detroit v. Detroit Bond & Mortgage Investment Company · filed 1982-08-25

Although the existence of federal jurisdiction in these situations is a close question, as noted by Chief Judge Edwards' dissent in Michigan Savings & Loan League, we agree that, by virtue of that decision, the law of this circuit is that “there is no federal jurisdiction where federal preemption is raised as a defense to a threatened state action.”

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a declaratory action when federal preemption is merely a defense to a threatened state-law action.

First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Detroit Bond & Mortgage Investment Co. · filed 1982-08-25

Although the existence of federal jurisdiction in these situations is a close question, ... we agree that, by virtue of that decision, the law of this circuit is that “there is no federal jurisdiction where federal preemption is raised as a defense to a threatened state action.”

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a ripe declaratory action claiming that federal law gives a federal agency exclusive jurisdiction, even if federal preemption could also arise as a defense in state proceedings.

Town of Springfield, Vermont v. McCarren · filed 1982-10-15

The plaintiffs’ claim here is that a federal agency has exclusive jurisdiction. This is a proposition of federal law that the plaintiffs have a right to test in federal court. The Declaratory Judgment Act was intended to provide such plaintiffs as these a tool that they might use to test the validity of propositions of federal law— assuming, of course, that a ripe and justiciable controversy exists for the court to adjudicate.

Section 1331(a) permits federal-question jurisdiction over a suit for equitable relief alleging that federal law preempts state action.

BD. OF ELEC. LIGHT COM'RS OF BURLINGTON v. McCarren · filed 1982-12-09(a)

There is no lack of federal question jurisdiction. At the time of this court's decision in Springfield, the court was unaware that the Second Circuit had joined the growing number of courts of appeals that have held that federal preemption can form the basis for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in a suit for equitable relief.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over an equitable challenge to state action based on federal preemption, whether or not an injunction is sought or could issue, when ensuing coercive litigation could be brought in federal court.

Board of Electric Light Commissioners v. McCarren · filed 1982-12-09

There is no lack of federal question jurisdiction. ... federal preemption can form the basis for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in a suit for equitable relief. ... Whether or not an injunction is sought in the complaint, and whether or not an injunction could issue, federal question jurisdiction is proper in a suit challenging state action on the ground of federal preemption if it is “relatively certain” that coercive litigation which could be brought in federal court would eventually result between the parties.

Section 1331 permits a national bank to seek declaratory relief that federal banking law preempts threatened state regulation, even though preemption would function as a defense in a state enforcement action.

First National Bank of Eastern Arkansas v. Taylor · filed 1990-06-25

However, the Supreme Court has since made clear that a party may apply directly to federal court for relief based on an affirmative claim of preemption. ... Jurisdiction is not defeated simply because a plaintiff requests declaratory relief rather than an injunction. ... Thus, we have jurisdiction to review the merits of this case.

Section 1331 permits an affirmative declaratory claim that federal banking law preempts threatened state regulation, even though preemption would otherwise be a defense in state court.

First National Bank Of Eastern Arkansas v. Taylor · filed 1990-07-27

However, the Supreme Court has since made clear that a party may apply directly to federal court for relief based on an affirmative claim of preemption. ... Jurisdiction is not defeated simply because a plaintiff requests declaratory relief rather than an injunction.

A federal statute that operates only as a defense to state-law personal-injury and wrongful-death claims does not create independent arising-under jurisdiction under Section 1331.

No. 88-2436 · filed 1990-12-21

Federal question jurisdiction is not created by the existence of the Act. The Act is really in the nature of a defense, it did not create Appellees' causes of action for personal injury and wrongful death against Appellant. ... No independent federal question jurisdiction lies because of the Act.

A federal treaty’s exclusive remedy does not create Section 1331 removal jurisdiction when the treaty permits state-law causes of action and its preemptive effect operates only as a defense.

Alvarez Ex Rel. Estate of Alvarez v. Aerovias Nacionales De Colombia, S.A. · filed 1991-01-25

Because the plaintiff has set forth a cause of action under state law without bringing in any federal theory and because the Warsaw Convention’s cause of action is not exclusive, the plaintiff’s complaint does not arise under federal law so as to confer removal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. While the Warsaw Convention’s exclusive remedy may indeed serve to preempt inconsistent and contradictory provisions of the plaintiff’s state law theory, this preemption arises only as a defense to the plaintiff’s claims.

A federal defense, including ordinary preemption, does not create Section 1331 removal jurisdiction even if anticipated in the complaint; the federal right must be an essential element apparent on the well-pleaded complaint, absent complete preemption.

Thomas Ex Rel. Estate of Robinson v. Burlington Industries, Inc. · filed 1991-05-24

Consequently, a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense, including the defense of preemption, even if the defense is anticipated in the Plaintiffs Complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over suits seeking to enjoin state regulation on the ground that federal law preempts it.

NGS American, Inc. v. Barnes · filed 1992-02-13

In the instant action plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief from Texas regulation on the ground that such regulation is pre-empted by ERISA. Thus, plaintiffs present a federal question which the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to resolve.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a suit seeking to enjoin local regulation as preempted by federal law.

Storer Cable Communications v. City of Montgomery · filed 1992-10-09

Federal-question jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ preemption claims is also proper, but the route to this conclusion is slightly more circuitous. Ordinarily, federal preemption is a federal defense to a state-law suit, and, as such, it does not create federal-question jurisdiction. ... On the basis of this authority, this court holds that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over all of the plaintiffs’ federal claims.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction over an affirmative declaratory judgment action seeking to establish that federal law preempts a state law.

SELF-INSURANCE INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Claire KORIOTH, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees · filed 1993-07-23

Without entering into the intricacies of the “well-pleaded complaint rule” in the present action, suffice it to say that we are not confronted with a well-pleaded complaint problem because a federal declaratory judgment action affirmatively brought to determine whether a state law is preempted presents a valid basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction when the federal issue arises only as a defense to a state law claim.

People ex rel. Hal D. v. Nine Mile Canal Co. · filed 1993-08-12

Defendants, of course, contend that the orders are invalid under the Compact. That, however, is merely a defense based on federal law.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over a private party’s suit to enjoin state action as preempted under the NLRA’s Garmon doctrine.

Bud Antle, Inc. v. Barbosa · filed 1994-09-09

We would ordinarily have little difficulty deciding this issue, for it appears to be the general rule that a private party may seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the enforcement of a state statutory scheme on the ground of federal preemption. See Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 96 n. 14, 103 S.Ct. 2890, 2899 n. 14, 77 L.Ed.2d 490 (1983) ("A plaintiff who seeks injunctive relief from state regulation, on the ground that such regulation is pre-empted by a federal statute which, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, must prevail, thus presents a federal question which the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 to resolve."). ... Because it is the only conclusion that is consistent with our case law and the principles underlying the Garmon doctrine, we hold that a private party may bring an action in a federal district court seeking injunctive relief on the basis of Garmon preemption.

Section 1331 permits a private party to bring a federal action seeking to enjoin state administrative proceedings on the ground that the National Labor Relations Act preempts them under Garmon.

Bud Antle, Inc. v. Barbosa · filed 1994-09-09

In its amicus submission, the Board expressed its opinion that a private party may bring an action in a federal district court for injunctive relief on the basis of Garmon preemption. We agree.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when federal law appears only as a defense to state-law claims.

Children's Village v. Greenburgh Eleven Teachers' Union Federation of Teachers, Local 1532 · filed 1994-11-09

The Union’s federal defense under the First Amendment and federal labor law does not support district court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or justify removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a suit seeking to enjoin state regulation on the ground that federal law preempts it.

Bunning v. Commonwealth of Kentucky and Kentucky Registry of Election Finance, an Independent Agency of the Common · filed 1994-12-22

The district court’s subject matter jurisdiction to entertain Congressman Bunning’s preemption challenge to the Registry’s investigation is clear. ... A plaintiff who seeks injunctive relief from state regulation, on the ground that such regulation is preempted by a federal statute which, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, must prevail, thus presents a federal question which the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to resolve.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a claim that state utility regulation is preempted by PURPA § 210(e), despite PURPA § 210(g)’s limits on review of state implementation proceedings.

Freehold Cogeneration Associates, L.P. v. Board of Regulatory Commissioners of New Jersey · filed 1995-01-09

Because Freehold is essentially claiming that the BRC is subjecting it to regulations precluded by section 210(e), the jurisdictional limitations of sections 210(g)(1) regarding state proceedings implementing any requirement of a rule enacted under subsection (a) are not relevant to the district court’s jurisdiction. Thus, it was error to dismiss Freehold’s complaint on the basis of PURPA’s jurisdictional limitations. The district court possessed jurisdiction to hear Freehold’s preemption claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim against a state officer or agency seeking to prevent enforcement of a state statute allegedly preempted by federal law.

Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Gallagher · filed 1995-01-30

In accord with Supreme Court case law, we hold that a federal court has federal question jurisdiction to decide a claim against a state officer or agency alleging that a federal statute preempts a state statute under the Supremacy Clause and that the state statute cannot be enforced.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a claim that state utility regulation is preempted by federal law when PURPA’s limits on review of state implementation proceedings do not apply.

Freehold Cogeneration Associates, L.P. v. Board Of Regulatory Commissioners Of The State Of New Jersey · filed 1995-03-07

Because Freehold is essentially claiming that the BRC is subjecting it to regulations precluded by section 210(e), the jurisdictional limitations of sections 210(g)(1) regarding state proceedings implementing any requirement of a rule enacted under subsection (a) are not relevant to the district court's jurisdiction. Thus, it was error to dismiss Freehold's complaint on the basis of PURPA's jurisdictional limitations. The district court possessed jurisdiction to hear Freehold's preemption claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over suits seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against state law on ERISA preemption grounds, even when the plaintiffs cannot sue under ERISA’s civil enforcement provision.

Cigna Healthplan of Louisiana, Inc. v. Louisiana Ex Rel. Ieyoub · filed 1995-04-17

The Court must determine whether § 1331 provides plaintiffs their ticket to a seat in federal court. The Court concludes that it does.

Section 1331 requires the claim for relief to depend on federal law; an anticipated federal defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

CERES TERMINALS, INC. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ILLINOIS · filed 1995-06-01

And a quest for an independent adjudication in federal court founders on the limited scope of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. A case arises under federal law, within the meaning of Sec. 1331, only when the claim for relief depends in some way on federal law, "unaided by anything alleged in anticipation of avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose." Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U.S. 74, 75-76, 34 S.Ct. 724, 724-25, 58 L.Ed. 1218 (1914).

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a substantial claim that federal law preempts state regulation; an unsupported claim of statutory preemption does not present a substantial federal question.

Vaughan Regional Medical Center v. Smith · filed 1995-12-07

After a careful reading of New Orleans Public Service, Inc., the court finds that the defendants’ interpretation is correct. As the court in New Orleans Public Service, Inc. observed, a ‘“plaintiff who seeks injunctive relief from state regulation, on the ground that such regulation is preempted by a federal statute which, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, must prevail, thus presents a federal question which the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to resolve.’” Id. at 1241 (quoting Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 96 n. 14, 103 S.Ct. 2890, 2899 n. 14, 77 L.Ed.2d 490 (1983)). Thus, Vaughan must present evidence of a statutorily-based preemption claim in order to present a substantial federal question and survive the motion to dismiss.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a suit seeking injunctive relief on the ground that local licensing requirements are preempted by federal law.

Boston Coach-Washington Corp. v. District of Columbia Taxicab Commission · filed 1996-02-02

Defendant’s jurisdictional argument, that this dispute does not lie within the “arising under” jurisdiction established by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, must be rejected. This action seeks injunctive relief on the ground that the licensing requirements are preempted by federal law, namely the Washington Metropolitan Area Regulation Compact.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a private party’s suit to enjoin another private party from pursuing a state-court action under allegedly preempted state law.

Avoca Natural Gas Storage v. Concerned Citizens of Cohocton Valley, Inc. · filed 1996-10-07

I find that jurisdiction is lacking, and will therefore grant the motion to dismiss. ... Both Shaw and Finneran, however, were brought by plaintiffs to enjoin state officials from enforcing state laws or regulations. In contrast, plaintiff in the instant ease seeks to enjoin CCCV, a private entity, from pursuing an action against it in state court. Contrary to Avoca’s assertions, that distinction is not insignificant.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a federal issue arises only as a defense or counterclaim to a state-law claim.

Farmers Co-Operative Elevator v. Abels · filed 1996-12-04

Injection of a federal question in a defense or counterclaim does not create the requisite federal ground for removal to federal court.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over suits seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against state regulation alleged to interfere with federal rights.

Associated Builders & Contractors, Saginaw Valley Area Chapter v. Perry · filed 1997-06-05

In the Sixth Cause of Action in Associated’s complaint, Associated seeks a declaration that Michigan’s PWA is invalid and an injunction restraining PWA’s enforcement, on the ground that PWA deprives Associated’s members of the rights, privileges and immunities secured them by the Constitution and federal laws, including ERISA. ... The district court did not err in assuming jurisdiction to ensure that the interests of Associated’s members were not jeopardized by state interference with their federal rights.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the well-pleaded complaint; a federal immunity defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction.

Berger Levee District, Franklin County, Missouri v. United States · filed 1997-10-31

As noted above, the actual or probable assertion of a federal defense is insufficient to confer' federal jurisdiction upon a district court if the plaintiffs well-pleaded complaint fails to implicate a federal statute or a substantial issue of federal law. ... Becáuse the Levee District failed to assert a federal question arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, we conclude that the District Court was without proper jurisdiction to entertain the merits of the Levee District’s claim.

Section 1331 permits federal courts to hear private claims for declaratory and injunctive relief alleging that federal law preempts state regulation, even when the federal statute creates no private right of action.

Air Transport Ass'n of America v. City and County of San Francisco · filed 1998-04-10

The Court concludes, therefore, that private parties such as Plaintiffs may bring an ADA preemption claim for declaratory and injunctive relief in federal court based on the Supremacy Clause.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over an action seeking to enjoin a state law on the ground that ERISA preempts it.

Bellemead Dev. v. NJ COUNCIL, CARP. BEN. FUNDS · filed 1998-05-13

Jurisdiction over ERISA preemption claims exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Accordingly, subject matter jurisdiction exists because, in the instant matter, Bellemead is seeking, inter alia, injunctive relief from the Construction Lien Law on the ground that this statute is preempted by ERISA.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a preemption suit seeking an injunction when the plaintiff also disputes the meaning and application of the state law.

Fleet Bank, National Association v. Burke · filed 1998-11-09

All of these considerations persuade us that Shaw does not extend beyond instances where the plaintiff, seeking an injunction on the ground of preemption, does not dispute the meaning and application of state law.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against state enforcement that allegedly interferes with a federal right.

Valley National Bank v. Lavecchia · filed 1999-08-13

Similarly, the plaintiffs here seek both declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the state’s enforcement of N.J.S.A.17:46B-30.1, which resulted in the denial of their license to sell title insurance, interferes with a federal right granted by Section 92. The Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction to hear this action.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a suit to enjoin state law as federally preempted when the claim requires no disputed construction of state law.

American Financial Services Assn. v. Burke · filed 2001-10-05

In the instant case, AFSA does not dispute the meaning of the Act and does not claim that section 5(7) of the Act does not apply to its members engaged in extending “high cost home loans.” Thus, no construction of Connecticut law is needed, and the Court has jurisdiction to hear AFSA’s claim.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a substantial claim that federal law preempts state law.

United States v. Peter Morros, and State of Nevada R. Michael Turnipseed Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects · filed 2001-10-15

Thus, we hold that the United States’ preemption argument is substantial and that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 therefore supplies jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when federal law arises only as a defense to state-law claims.

In Re Cal. Ret. Nat. Gas & Electricity Anti. Lit. · filed 2001-10-26

While it is likely that the Federal Tariff will play a role in the resolution of this case, that role will be limited to a defensive one — and a defense based on federal law is an insufficient basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over a claim that a state commission order is pre-empted by federal law.

Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Maryland · filed 2002-05-20

We conclude that 28 U. S. C. § 1331 provides a basis for jurisdiction over Verizon’s claim that the Commission’s order requiring reciprocal compensation for ISP-bound calls is pre-empted by federal law.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim seeking to enjoin state regulation on the ground that a federal statute preempts it.

Gillis v. State of Louisiana · filed 2002-07-02

Because the Pilots are implicitly seeking injunctive relief based on a federal statute, federal question jurisdiction clearly exists based on Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 (1983).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a federal conflict-preemption issue arises only as a defense to a state-law claim.

Peak Medical Oklahoma No. 5, Inc. v. Collins · filed 2002-07-19

Since these allegations defensively raise an issue of “conflict preemption,” the Court concludes that they do not provide an independent basis for Court to exercise its federal question jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a federal issue arises as a defense to a state-law claim.

Little v. Purdue Pharma, L.P. · filed 2002-09-20

The imposition of a federal question embedded in a defense does not itself raise a substantial federal question justifying removal.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a suit seeking to enjoin enforcement of a state regulation on the ground that federal law preempts it.

Wright Electric, Inc. v. Minnesota State Board Of Electricity · filed 2003-04-23

Wright Electric argues that Kulinski is not controlling. We agree. ... In contrast here, Wright Electric is not seeking enforcement of ERISA or plan terms. Rather, it is seeking to bar enforcement of a state statute. In its complaint, the company asserted that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because it was seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against state officials from enforcing a state statute on the ground that it was preempted by federal law, in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. ... In Shaw, the Supreme Court explained that "[a] plaintiff who seeks injunctive relief from state regulation, on the ground that such regulation is preempted by a federal statute which, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause, must prevail, thus presents a federal question which the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to resolve."

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a suit seeking to enjoin state regulation allegedly preempted by federal law.

Frank Bros. v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation · filed 2003-07-18

A plaintiff who seeks injunctive relief from state regulation, on the ground that such regulation is pre-empt-ed by a federal statute which, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, must prevail, thus presents a federal question which the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to resolve. ... In addition to requesting declaratory relief, plaintiff is seeking to enjoin state regulation of its activities on the basis of the Constitution’s supremacy clause. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction to address the merits of plaintiffs claims.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims that federal law preempts state law even when the federal statute does not provide the plaintiff a private cause of action.

Planned Parenthood of Central Texas v. Sanchez · filed 2003-08-04

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over preemption claims even when the federal statute that allegedly preempts the state law or regulation at issue does not give the plaintiff a private cause of action.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over an original suit to enjoin local regulation as federally preempted regardless of whether the federal law completely or partially preempts the regulation.

Qwest Corporation v. City of Santa Fe · filed 2004-08-24

Whether a federal statute completely preempts or only partially preempts local enactments can only affect the federal question analysis in a case involving removal jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, we conclude that the district court had federal question jurisdiction over Qwest’s claim of preemption.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction cannot rest on a federal defense, even when that defense becomes the focus of the litigation.

Binder & Binder Pc v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2005-02-17

Even if that defense has now become the focal point of the litigation, a defense does not create a basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over preemption claims seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.

Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Tex. v. Sanchez · filed 2005-03-11

It is well-established that the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over a preemption claim seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law condemnation action merely because the defendants assert federal defenses.

Town of Haverstraw v. Barreras · filed 2005-03-21

But regardless of the truth of these allegations, it is axiomatic that the existence of a federal defense does not justify removal.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over preemption claims seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.

Planned Parenthood v. Sanchez · filed 2005-03-30

It is well-established that the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over a preemption claim seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when federal law supplies only a defense to a state-law claim, unless federal law completely preempts that claim.

Cisneros v. Sanchez · filed 2005-12-07

It is well settled that federal-question jurisdiction cannot be based on a federal defense. ... However, removal is proper when Plaintiffs claims are completely preempted by federal law.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a suit for equitable relief based on federal preemption.

Metro Hydroelectric Co. v. Metro Parks, Serving Summit County · filed 2006-08-14

The Court concludes that it has federal question jurisdiction to determine whether the defendant’s acts are preempted by federal law. Federal preemption forms the basis for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in a suit for equitable relief.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because a federal defense may arise.

D'Angelo-Fenton v. Town of Carmel · filed 2007-01-17

Although, as we have indicated, plaintiffs defamation claims have potential First Amendment repercussions, the existence of a potential federal defense does not trigger federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over preemption claims seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.

In Re NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY TELECOMMUNICATIONS RECORDS LITIGATION · filed 2007-07-24

It is well-established that the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1331 over a preemption claim seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over preemption claims seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.

ABC Charters, Inc. v. Bronson · filed 2008-10-01

Initially, it is well-established that the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over a preemption claim seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against a local ordinance on the ground that federal law preempts it.

National Parks Conservation Assoc. v. Lower Providence Twp. Pennsylvania · filed 2009-04-07

The Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief from the Ordinance on the basis that it is preempted by federal law; therefore, they have presented a federal question and established subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based solely on a defense of ERISA conflict preemption.

Marin General Hosp v. Modesto & Empire · filed 2009-09-10

A defense of conflict preemption under § 514(a) does not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction under either § 1331(a) or § 1441(a).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because ERISA preemption supplies a defense to a state-law claim.

Venturino v. First Unum Life Insurance · filed 2010-07-02

Even if the Defendants were able to raise ERISA preemption as a successful defense to Venturino’s claim, such preemption would not suffice to confer jurisdiction on this Court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when federal preemption is asserted only as a defense to a complaint that raises no federal question.

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Valspar Corp. · filed 2010-09-24

Also, although one of the bases of Valspar’s summary judgment motion in state court was federal preemption, this court may not take jurisdiction of this case on the basis of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because a foreign arbitration agreement supplies a federal defense, absent complete preemption.

Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline LLC v. Welspun Gujarat Stahl Rohren Ltd. · filed 2010-11-05

LNM’s assertion that Welspun’s claims seek to enforce a contract that contains a foreign arbitration clause under the Convention states a defense to Welspun’s claims based on federal law; but, absent a showing that the Convention completely preempts state law, LNM has not established that Welspun’s claims arise under federal law for purposes of establishing federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a condemnation action brought under local law merely because the defendants raise constitutional defenses.

District of Columbia v. 2626 Naylor Road, S.E. · filed 2011-01-21

As the District’s condemnation action was initiated pursuant to District law, and defendants’ constitutional defenses do not create a federal question, federal question jurisdiction does not provide a basis for removal.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a federal preemption claim challenging state regulation.

Chester Bross Construction Co. v. Schneider · filed 2012-08-10

The Court has federal question jurisdiction over Count I because Count I presents a federal preemption claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a federal issue arises only as a defense to a state-law claim.

Veneruso v. Mount Vernon Neighborhood Health Center · filed 2013-03-22

Therefore, Defendant’s federal argument is a defense and, hence, not a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the complaint anticipates a federal defense, even when resolving that defense is necessary to the defendant’s case.

Gaskill v. VHS San Antonio Partners LLC · filed 2013-09-06

It is well-settled that anticipating a federally created defense to a state law claim does not confer federal question jurisdiction. ... The requirements of the well-pleaded complaint rule generally do not yield even when resolution of the federal defense is necessary to the defendants’ case.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous preemption claim seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from state regulation without requiring a determination that the federal statute creates a private right of action.

Independent Training & Apprenticeship Program v. California Department of Industrial Relations · filed 2013-09-18

Defendants contend that subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking because the Fitzgerald Act does not confer a private right of action upon Plaintiffs. However, we need not decide whether such a statutory right of action exists. ... Here, Plaintiffs pursue a preemption claim for declaratory and injunctive relief, and there is no suggestion that the claim is “frivolous” or “made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction.” ... Accordingly, we conclude that federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because they allege parallel violations of federal medical-device requirements to avoid preemption.

Hilyard v. Medtronic, Inc. · filed 2014-05-08

In the instant case, plaintiff claims that defendants violated state law. Plaintiff alleges parallel violations of federal law in the complaint in order to avoid preemption. This is not enough to support jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law contract claims merely because tribal sovereign immunity or federal requirements governing contract validity may provide defenses.

Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation · filed 2014-10-21

Here, Becker’s federal issues are merely federal defenses, which do not give rise to federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law contract claims merely because federal defenses, including tribal sovereign immunity or federal contract-approval requirements, may bar relief.

Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah · filed 2014-10-21

Here, Becker’s federal issues are merely federal defenses, which do not give rise to federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on a possible federal defense to state-law claims.

Bowler v. AlliedBarton Security Services, LLC · filed 2015-08-12

Nonetheless, any proof regarding the impact of the FLSA would be in the form of a defense, and, as stated above, a possible federal defense does not create federal question jurisdiction.

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

Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Milasinovich · filed 2016-03-30

The Court agrees that Milasinovich’s defenses fail — by themselves — to provide federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim seeking to enjoin state regulation as preempted by federal law, even though the plaintiff must separately satisfy the requirements for equitable relief.

Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. Texas, Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation · filed 2017-03-20

This holding requires Air Evac proceed under Ex parte Young, if at all; but, it does not contradict Shaw’s plain grant of federal-question jurisdiction under Article III and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim based solely on a defendant’s potential federal constitutional defense.

Cox v. Bishop England High School · filed 2019-09-17

The defendants’ potential constitutional defense cannot confer federal question jurisdiction. Thus, this court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over Cox’s wrongful discharge claim.