28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction through ERISA complete preemption when the plaintiff lacks standing to sue under ERISA’s civil enforcement provision.

Healthtek Solutions, Inc. v. Fortis Benefits Insurance · filed 2003-05-19

As there is no allegation of diversity by the parties, the propriety of removal in this case rests on whether federal question jurisdiction is conferred on the court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Since Healthtek lacks standing to sue under ERISA, the doctrine of complete preemption is inapplicable and does not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction by this Court.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when federal law completely preempts them.

Cedarapids, Inc. v. Chicago, Central & Pacific Railroad · filed 2003-05-21

In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that this case was properly removed because federal subject matter jurisdiction for purposes of removal is present under the complete preemption doctrine.

A state-law claim supports federal-question jurisdiction through complete preemption only when federal law provides a cause of action that replaces the state claim.

King v. Marriott International, Incorporated Karl I. Fredericks · filed 2003-07-28

Thus, a vital feature of complete preemption is the existence of a federal cause of action that replaces the preempted state cause of action. Where no diseemable federal cause of action exists on a plaintiffs claim, there is no complete preemption, for in such cases there is no federal cause of action that Congress intended to be the exclusive remedy for the alleged wrong. ... Consequently, her state wrongful discharge claim is not completely preempted, and removal of her claim was inappropriate.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state malpractice claim against an HMO when the claim concerns a mixed eligibility and treatment decision outside ERISA’s civil enforcement provision.

Land v. Cigna Healthcare · filed 2003-07-30

Therefore, Land’s complaint did not present a federal question and removal jurisdiction was inappropriate. The district court thus lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case and remand to state court was required.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a removed state-law claim when ERISA completely preempts and converts it into a federal claim; ordinary ERISA conflict preemption does not suffice.

Sonoco Prods Co v. Physicians Health Pl · filed 2003-07-31

The federal courts possess original jurisdiction over, among other things, "civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The only state law claims properly removable to federal court are those that are "completely preempted" by ERISA's civil enforcement provi- sion, § 502(a). ... As a result, Sonoco has no standing to assert the breach of contract claims under § 502(a)(3); those claims are not completely preempted; and the federal courts lack jurisdiction over them.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the absence of an ERISA plan prevents complete preemption.

Moore v. Powers · filed 2003-08-18

Since no ERISA plan exists in this case, ERISA cannot completely preempt the Plaintiffs’ state law claims. ... Thus, there is no federal question jurisdiction and no basis for removal.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim through complete preemption only when Congress clearly intended the federal statute to convert such claims into federal claims.

Turner Ansley v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company · filed 2003-08-20

Nothing in the Parity Act establishes that the preemptive force of the Act is so extraordinary that Congress clearly manifested an intent to convert state law claims into federal question claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction through artful pleading when federal law does not completely preempt the state-law claims pleaded.

Anderson v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp. · filed 2003-08-22

However, in this court’s opinion, the Fifth Circuit has made it clear that in the absence of complete preemption, the artful pleading exception does not apply.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over state-law claims that ERISA completely preempts and converts into federal claims.

Levy Ex Rel. UnumProvident Corp. v. Chandler · filed 2003-10-17

Because the bulk of Plaintiffs’ state law causes of action assert claims based on alleged misconduct growing out of the administration of ERISA plans, those claims are completely preempted by ERISA and, therefore, removable to federal district court.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that federal law completely preempts, because those claims arise under federal law.

New Process Steel Corp. v. Union Pacific Railroad · filed 2003-11-10

We find that, as in Hoskins, the state- law tort claims asserted by New Process for negligence and negligent misrepresentation constitute claims for “loss or damages to goods arising from the interstate transportation of those goods by a common carrier” under a receipt or bill of lading and thus are completely preempted because they fall within the scope of the Carmack Amendment. Therefore, New Process’ state tort claims necessarily “arise under federal law” and removal was proper under the federal removal statute, §1441.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law insurance claim through ERISA complete preemption only if the claim falls within ERISA’s civil enforcement provision; without an ERISA plan, that basis for jurisdiction fails.

Metoyer v. American International Life Assurance Co. · filed 2003-12-16

Because Defendant bears the burden of proving the existence of an ERISA plan as well as valid subject-matter jurisdiction, and because all doubts concerning removal must be resolved against federal jurisdiction, the Court concludes that the AIG Policy falls within the safe harbor provision and is therefore not an ERISA plan. Lacking jurisdiction, the Court must REMAND to the Texas Court.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a federal cause of action completely preempts it; absent complete preemption, the claim does not confer federal-question jurisdiction.

Husko v. Geary Electric, Inc. · filed 2003-12-23

Because the defendants have failed to satisfy all three of the prongs of the Jass test, they have failed to demonstrate that Husko’s claim is completely preempted by ERISA. Without complete preemption, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over any of Husko’s claims.

A state-law claim falls within § 1331 through complete preemption when federal law makes it necessarily federal in character.

Chille v. United Airlines · filed 2004-01-14

Such cases involve claims that are “of necessity so federal in character that [they] arise[] under federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.” ... As to the second exception, it is clear that complete preemption does not exist here under the RLA or any other federal statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law discrimination claims when federal law does not completely preempt them.

Adams v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · filed 2004-02-13

As it currently stands, however, defendants' attempts to transform plaintiffs' state law claims into federal discrimination claims are barred by the absence of complete preemption in the discrimination area, and this case must therefore be remanded.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims under the artful pleading doctrine only when federal law completely preempts those claims.

Archer v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp. · filed 2004-03-31

For the artful pleading doctrine to apply, the alleged federal claims must completely preempt the state law claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims through complete preemption when the federal statute provides no cause of action encompassing those claims.

Williams v. Midwest Express Airlines, Inc. · filed 2004-04-26

Thus, the relevant statutes do not contain a cause of action encompassing plaintiffs’ claims. Therefore, such statutes are not completely preemptive, and plaintiffs’ state law claims may not be recharacterized as federal claims and removed based on federal question jurisdiction.

Ordinary preemption alone does not establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 for removal of state-law claims; complete preemption can.

Summerlin v. Scott Petroleum Corp. · filed 2004-07-06

Accordingly, the Court further finds that the CPSA does not “replace” or completely preempt Plaintiffs claims in this cause of action. ... Based on the analysis and holdings presented above, the Court must remand this case to state court for want of federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims for damages from Medicare care decisions that do not seek benefits when the Medicare Act does not completely preempt those claims.

Kennedy v. Health Options, Inc. · filed 2004-07-21

The Plaintiffs claim in the instant case is not for reimbursement of medical benefits. Instead, Plaintiff seeks damages which resulted from the delay and denial of medical care. Absent a strong showing that Congress intended to completely preempt state law claims arising from the administration of Medicare benefits, the Court declines to find that Plaintiffs claims are completely preempted.

Section 1331 does not support removal of state law claims on complete preemption grounds when the removing party fails to show that the claims fall within a federal cause of action and that Congress intended to permit removal.

Mersmann v. Continental Airlines · filed 2004-09-20

Removal jurisdiction may exist if the action could have been brought originally in federal court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1337. ... This Court concludes that Continental has not met this burden. ... Under Railway Labor, a party seeking to establish removal jurisdiction on the basis of the complete preemption doctrine must demonstrate that the state law claims fall within the scope of a federal cause of action, and also that Congress intended to permit the removal of the asserted state claims.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over disputes about liability limits in inter-modal carrier contracts when federal law completely preempts state law.

E.J. Rogers, Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2004-09-23

Federal common law occupies the field, and a dispute relating to limitation of liability in an inter-modal carrier contract of carriage, like the one presently before the Court, is properly adjudicated pursuant to the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law complaint when federal law completely preempts the claims.

Freeman v. Duke Power Company · filed 2004-09-27

Actions brought in state court are removable to federal court if the complaint raises a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a) (2000). ... Because Freeman’s claims of breach of contract and wrongful dis- charge are preempted by § 301 of the LMRA and therefore raise a federal question, the district court properly retained jurisdiction over Freeman’s case against Duke Power, and no remand to state court was in order.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction merely because a federal law may preempt a state-law claim as a defense; the claim must be completely preempted.

Kline v. Security Guards, Inc. · filed 2004-10-06

Thus, §§ 7 and 8 of the NLRA may provide Defendants with a preemption defense to Appellants' claims under § 16 of the Detective Act upon remand to the state court. Such preemption, however, is not the type of complete preemption that would provide Defendants with a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a removed state-law claim when it presents a colorable federal question under the complete preemption doctrine.

Warner v. Atkinson Freight Lines Corp. · filed 2004-11-01

Therefore, despite sounding in state law, Plaintiffs’ claim under 26 M.R.S.A. § 626 raises a colorable federal question under the artful pleading doctrine.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim completely preempted by ERISA when resolving the claim requires interpreting an ERISA plan.

Hintze v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. · filed 2004-12-15

Pioneer removed the state petition on grounds of federal question jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction is limited to “cases arising under the' Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Hintze’s request for declaratory relief requires inquiry into terms of an ERISA plan. As such, Hintze’s state-based claims are preempted by ERISA’s civil enforcement scheme “to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan.” ERISA § 502, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). Accordingly, Hintze’s Motion to Remand (Clerk’s No. 9) is DENIED.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a federal statute completely preempts state law in the area of the claim, even if the statute does not expressly create a cause of action.

Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Illinois v. Cruz · filed 2005-01-24

Section 1331 of 28 U.S.C. confers federal question subject matter jurisdiction on cases that arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Even if a federal statute does not explicitly create a cause of ac- tion, a claim may arise under federal law if the statute com- pletely preempts state law in a particular area.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a removed state-law claim based on complete preemption only when the complaint and notice of removal establish that basis; post-removal evidence cannot supply it.

Mattel, Inc. v. Bryant · filed 2005-03-04

Thus constrained by the evidence it may consider, the court cannot find that Mattel’s conversion claim was preempted by the Copyright Act at the time of removal. Consequently, Bryant has failed to show that the court has federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a state-filed claim that complete preemption recharacterizes as a federal claim.

O'Neal v. Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund · filed 2005-07-01

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over, among other cases, cases involving federal questions, or cases “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... When a complaint purports to raise only state law claims, those claims may be recharacter-ized as á federal claim so that removal is proper if the preemptive force of a statute is so strong as to displace all state law causes of action in the particular area. ... Having determined that Plaintiffs claim is an ERISA claim, the court finds that jurisdiction is proper in this court.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when ERISA completely preempts state-law claims, treating them as federal claims.

Radcliff v. El Paso Corp. · filed 2005-07-20

ERISA therefore completely preempts the plaintiffs claims under the test established by the Supreme Court in Davila. Accordingly, the complaint contains a federal question, and this court may properly exercise jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 does not support federal-question removal based on complete preemption when the asserted federal statute provides no cause of action in district court.

Nordan v. Blackwater Security Consulting, LLC · filed 2005-08-11

Accordingly, where the DBA (incorporating the LHWCA) does not provide a cause of action in the federal district courts, removal based upon complete preemption by the DBA is foreclosed.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims concerning a union’s representation of retirees under 11 U.S.C. § 1114, because § 1114 does not completely preempt those claims.

Nelson, Roy G. v. United Steelwo 12213 · filed 2005-08-29

Although we do not believe that § 1114 carries with it a preemptive force so powerful that it completely preempts the area, we do not rule out the possibility that viable defenses based on federal law, including § 1114, may well preempt otherwise valid state-law based causes of action. This is a matter, however, for the defendants to present to the state courts as a matter of defense.

Section 1331 does not give federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims against a union for its representation of retirees under Bankruptcy Code § 1114, because § 1114 does not completely preempt those claims.

Roy G. Nelson, Clarence Alsip, Charles Andrews v. John Stewart, Donald R. Say, and United Steelworkers of America, Local · filed 2005-08-29

We do not discern in this focused statutory provision any congressional intent, expressed or implied, of a preemptive force so “powerful” as to preempt entirely every aspect of the relationship between the retirees and the entity representing them. ... For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the district court’s denial of the retirees’ motion to remand to state court their claims against the Union.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when federal law completely preempts it; an ERISA claim outside the civil enforcement provision does not qualify.

Taylor-Sammons v. Bath · filed 2005-10-25

However, a “complete preemption exception” to the “well-pleaded complaint rule” has been recognized in cases where Congress’ intent in enacting a federal statutory scheme was to completely preempt state law and create federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Since plaintiffs claims do not constitute a civil enforcement action under ERISA, complete preemption is lacking, and this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction over state law claims completely preempted by ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B).

Regency Hospital Co. v. United Healthcare of Georgia, Inc. · filed 2005-11-21

The Court holds that the Plaintiffs causes of action, brought against an ERISA fiduciary to remedy a denial of benefits under an ERISA benefit plan, are completely preempted by ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B). Thus, removal to this Court was permissible based upon federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Under § 1331, complete pre-emption converts a state-law claim into one arising under federal law for removal jurisdiction.

Harvey v. Life Insurance Co. of North America · filed 2005-12-13

According to the well-pleaded complaint rule, the face of Plaintiffs complaint must state claims that arise under federal law in order for federal courts to have jurisdiction pursuant to section 1331. ... For purposes of removal, if there is complete pre-emption, then the state law complaint is converted to one arising under federal law and satisfying the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when federal law completely preempts the claim; defensive preemption alone does not create jurisdiction.

Clark v. Ameritas Investment Corp. · filed 2005-12-27

Complete preemption creates federal question jurisdiction; defensive preemption alone does not.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims completely preempted by ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), but independent provider-contract claims do not arise under federal law on that basis.

Crossroads of Texas, LLC v. Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance · filed 2006-01-26

State law claims seeking relief within the scope of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) § 502(a)(1)(B) must be treated as arising under federal law, and as such, are removable to federal court even if relief is not explicitly plead under federal law. ... Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of the One Health Plan PPO contract are not preempted by ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B).

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that a federal law completely preempts and transforms into federal claims.

Singh v. North American Airlines · filed 2006-03-31

Because this Court holds that the Warsaw Convention completely preempts those claims that fall within its scope so as to provide a district court with subject matter jurisdiction over such claims, and that plaintiffs’ claims fall with the scope of Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention, plaintiffs’ motion to remand is denied.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a state-law benefits claim completely preempted by ERISA because the claim arises under federal law.

Ankney v. Metropolitan Life Insurance · filed 2006-07-05

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts possess original jurisdiction over “federal questions,” which are claims that “arise under” federal law. ... Thus, plaintiffs claim meets' all three elements, and has been completely preempted by ERISA. ... Accordingly, removal from the District Court of Maryland was proper.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that is not completely preempted by federal law.

Valinski v. Edison · filed 2006-08-04

In this case, Plaintiff’s state law cause of action was not preempted by the LMRA, and so there is no basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when federal railroad safety regulations completely preempt state-law claims.

Olberding v. Union Pacific Railroad · filed 2006-08-07

Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiffs claims are completely preempted by the FRA regulations and defendant’s removal of the case was therefore proper.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim based only on a federal preemption defense when complete preemption is not established.

Albritton v. ABC CORP. · filed 2006-08-25

Medtronic has failed to meet its burden of showing that the complete preemption exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule applies in this case.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over state law claims that the Federal Railroad Safety Act completely preempts.

Kutilek v. UNION PACIFIC RR CO. · filed 2006-09-29

Thus, this Court retains federal question jurisdiction as to plaintiffs' claims regarding the adequacy of the illumination warning devices on the train; the alleged negligent operation of the subject train by the engineer; and the failure to monitor the audible warning devices.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when federal law completely preempts that claim.

Hodge v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. · filed 2006-11-21

In instances where the preemptive force of the federal law is so clearly and strongly stated with respect to an area of state law, so "extraordinary", the state law claim is considered to be a federal claim from its inception and therefore, arising under federal law, making removal proper.

Section 1331 permits original federal-question jurisdiction over a facially state law claim when complete preemption converts it into a federal claim.

Palmer v. Local 8285 United Steel Workers of America · filed 2007-04-20

Here, the purported jurisdiction of the district court was based on the suit presenting a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. State law claims that do not, on their face, reference any issue of federal law may nonetheless involve a federal question sufficient to confer original federal question jurisdiction on a district court under the doctrine of complete preemption, as explained in this opinion.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction when a state-law claim seeks relief available under ERISA and is therefore completely preempted.

Darlene Smith v. Wynfield Dev. Co., Inc. · filed 2007-06-08

Because some of Smith’s claims in her original complaint were completely preempted by ERISA, the removal of Smith’s complaint to federal court was proper and the district court had subject matter jurisdiction.

Federal-question jurisdiction does not arise through complete preemption of state law claims by the Federal Communications Act, so a state consumer protection claim that can be maintained without reference to federal law must be remanded.

In Re Nos Communications, Mdl No. 1357 · filed 2007-07-10

Where, as here, no diversity of citizenship exists, a federal question is required for removal. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987); 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The Second Circuit's reasoning in Marcus is persuasive and we hold that complete preemption does not apply to federal regulation under the FCA. Unlike in Cahnmann, Sound Travel's claim under the Washington Consumer Protection Act at issue here can be maintained without reference to federal law. ... Thus, we hold that complete preemption does not apply, and reverse the district court's denial of Sound Travel's motion to remand to the state court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law telecommunications claims through complete preemption by the Federal Communications Act.

Fisher v. Nos Communications · filed 2007-07-10

Thus, we hold that complete preemption does not apply, and reverse the district court’s denial of Sound Travel’s motion to remand to the state court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction through complete preemption over a FEHBA-related state-law claim based on an independent duty of the health plan.

Orthopedic Specialists of New Jersey PA v. Horizon Blue Cross/Blue Shield · filed 2007-10-03

Based on this limitation, the Court is satisfied that the doctrine of complete preemption would provide no basis for jurisdiction over Plaintiffs promissory es-toppel claim in this Court, even if Defendant had raised the issue.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a state-law claim completely preempted by § 301 of the Copyright Act because the claim arises under federal law.

College of Charleston Foundation v. Ham · filed 2008-01-24

Section 1331 grants district courts “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Thus, the court must decide whether Plaintiffs claims “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... For this reason, Plaintiffs conversion claim is completely preempted by § 301 of the Copyright Act, meaning that this court has subject matter jurisdiction over such a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state condemnation action when the federal rail statute does not completely preempt the claim.

City of Sachse, Texas v. Kansas City Southern · filed 2008-03-20

Therefore, the ICCTA does not preempt this matter, and jurisdiction is lacking under Section 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state wrongful termination claim invoking federal immigration policy when federal immigration statutes do not completely preempt the claim.

Tiengkham v. Electronic Data Systems Corp. · filed 2008-05-06

This Court finds that the complete preemption doctrine does not provide grounds for federal jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claim against Defendants.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a removed action when the original petition includes a claim completely preempted by ERISA.

LONE STAR OB/GYN ASSOCIATES v. Aetna Health, Inc. · filed 2008-05-29

Because Lone Star included preempted claims in its Petition, removal was proper and this Court has jurisdiction over this case, including supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over removed state-law claims when no federal claim appears on the complaint and the claims are not completely preempted.

Hahn v. Rauch · filed 2008-08-15

Because Plaintiffs complaint is not completely preempted, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and such determination must be left to the state court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a federal treaty supplies only an affirmative defense and does not completely preempt the claim.

Narkiewicz-Laine v. Scandinavian Airlines Systems · filed 2008-09-12

Because the conditions and limits of the Montreal Convention are defenses to the state-law claims raised by plaintiff, they do not provide a basis for federal-question subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when none is completely preempted by ERISA.

Long v. Boston Scientific Corp. · filed 2008-09-15

Since all three of Plaintiffs state law causes of action are not completely preempted by ERISA, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs complaint, and remand is therefore appropriate.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction through complete preemption when the federal statute does not displace the pleaded state-law claims.

Gutierrez v. Flores · filed 2008-09-22

Based upon the unique circumstances presented here and the particular cause of action at issue, we find that Appellees have not met their burden of establishing that the CSRA completely preempts Gutierrez’s claim.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim on complete-preemption grounds only when federal law wholly displaces that state-law cause of action.

Kudlek v. Sunoco, Inc. (R & M) · filed 2008-10-03

Given the Second Circuit’s conclusion that the PMPA “neither expressly nor impliedly preempts all state law relating to any aspect of the termination or non-renewal of petroleum franchises,” I conclude that PMPA does not have the complete preemptive force that would be required to recharacterize Plaintiffs’ common-law rescission claim as a federal question and justify its removal to federal court.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when Congress has unmistakably made federal law the exclusive regulation of its subject matter.

Medical Card System, Inc. v. Equipo Pro Convalecencia · filed 2008-11-24

We have original federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A federal statute expressly preempts state law remedies, conferring federal question jurisdiction, where Congress has “unmistakably ... ordained” that its enactments alone regulate a given subject matter.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when federal law completely preempts that claim.

Bourda v. Caliber Auto Transfer of St. Louis, Inc. · filed 2009-05-19

In a limited class of cases an action may arise under federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 even if the complaint in the case asserts no claim for relief under federal law where state law is “completely preempted” by federal law.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim completely preempted by ERISA when ERISA supplies the exclusive remedy for the asserted right.

McLain v. Andersen Corp. · filed 2009-06-03

Thus, although McLain’s original complaint “purport[ed] to raise only state law claims, [it was] necessarily federal in character” and removal was proper.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting only state-law claims when federal law completely preempts those claims; the IDEA does not completely preempt state law.

Kalbfleisch v. Columbia Community Unit School District Unit No. 4 · filed 2009-08-05

In a limited class of cases an action may arise under federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 even if the complaint in the case asserts no claim for relief under federal law where state law is “completely preempted” by federal law. ... The Court concludes that the IDEA does not completely preempt state law so as to permit removal of this case in federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331’s complete preemption exception does not provide jurisdiction for SLUSA-precluded state law claims because SLUSA supplies a federal defense rather than replacing state law with a federal rule of decision.

Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. · filed 2009-10-09

In other words, SLUSA does not provide a federal rule of decision in lieu of a state one, but instead provides a federal defense precluding certain state law actions from going forward. ... and would not fall under the complete preemption exception to § 1331’s well-pleaded complaint rule.

Section 1331’s complete-preemption exception does not extend to a federal statute that supplies a defense precluding state-law claims without replacing state law with a federal rule of decision.

Proctor v. Intertchnolog · filed 2009-10-09

Thus, what we termed complete preemp- tion in pre-Kircher cases,8 by which we are no longer bound on this issue given the Supreme Court’s more recent pro- nouncement, see Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899-900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc), is actually a federal preclusion ... defense, and would not fall under the complete preemption exception to § 1331’s well-pleaded complaint rule.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a facially state-law complaint when complete preemption converts its claims into federal claims.

Flagg v. Ali-Med, Inc. · filed 2010-07-30

Under complete preemption, a court will treat a complaint that on its face alleges only a state law claim as one alleging a federal claim, giving rise to federal question jurisdiction.

Federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim can rest on complete preemption, which makes the claim arise under federal law; ordinary preemption is only a defense and does not support removal under § 1331.

Hughes v. United Air Lines, Inc. · filed 2011-02-08

But “complete preemption” is not a defense. It means that the claim itself arises under federal law. ... Graf’s holding that the RLA completely preempts retaliatory-discharge suits under state law is overruled.

Section 1331 provides original federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence per se claim completely preempted by the ICCTA because the claim arises under federal law.

Elam v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co. · filed 2011-03-15

For the reasons stated, the Elams’ negligence per se claim arises under the ICCTA, and the district court would have had original jurisdiction over the claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337.

Section 1331 does not support federal-question removal through ERISA complete preemption when the plaintiff lacks standing to sue under ERISA.

Hansen v. Harper Excavating, Inc. · filed 2011-04-13

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and thus to be removable on that basis, a federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; that the defendant possesses a federal defense is not sufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction. ... Thus, under the statute as interpreted in Firestone and Felix, Hansen does not have standing to sue under ERISA, and his claim cannot be completely preempted.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction through complete preemption unless Congress clearly intended the federal action to be exclusive.

Meisel v. USA SHADE AND FABRIC STRUCTURES INC. · filed 2011-06-14

Accordingly, Bank has failed to carry its burden to show that Congress clearly intended for civil actions against furnishers of credit information to be exclusively litigated in federal court, the court lacks federal-question jurisdiction, and this case should be remanded to the state court from whence it came.

Section 1331 applies the well-pleaded complaint rule, with an exception for state-law claims that federal law completely preempts.

Whitmore v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc. · filed 2011-06-27

The usual test for federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 is the “well pleaded complaint rule,” which requires federal courts to look only at the complaint itself “to determine if the case arises under federal law.” ... “Complete preemption, therefore, creates an exception to the rule that courts look only to the plaintiffs well-pleaded complaint to determine whether federal jurisdiction exists. If the complaint pleads a state-law claim that is completely preempted by federal law, the claim is removable to federal court.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because federal preemption supplies a defense; the claim must arise under federal law or be completely preempted.

Partlow v. Person · filed 2011-07-12

But such an argument is a federal defense that will not support federal question jurisdiction. ... Based on the pleadings in their present state, the Court must find that the complaint does not arise under federal law, and the claim is not completely preempted. Therefore, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, and the case must be remanded to state court.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when federal law completely preempts a claim pleaded under state law, transforming it into a federal claim.

Councell v. Homer Laughlin China Co. · filed 2011-10-11

Federal jurisdiction based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires that a question “arising under the Constitutions, laws, or treaties of the United States” be present on the face of the plaintiffs well pleaded complaint. However, there is an exception to the well pleaded complaint rule in cases where a plaintiff’s complaint contains state law causes of action which are subject to complete preemption by federal law. In these situations, the state law cause of action actually pled “transform[s]” into a federal claim by operation of law, and removal is proper.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when at least one claim is completely preempted by federal law.

Smallwood v. Allied Van Lines, Inc. · filed 2011-10-18

Because at least one of Smallwood’s claims was preempted by the Carmack Amendment, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims completely preempted by ERISA when the plaintiff could have brought them under ERISA and no independent legal duty supports them.

Ehlen Floor Covering, Inc. v. Lamb · filed 2011-10-18

A federal district court has original jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal question jurisdiction generally exists only when the plaintiffs’ well-pleaded complaint presents issues of federal law, but the complete preemption doctrine of ERISA creates an exception to that rule. ... Because there is federal question jurisdiction over these claims, supplemental jurisdiction provides us with subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims within the Montreal Convention’s scope because the Convention completely preempts those claims.

Mateo v. Jetblue Airways Corp. · filed 2012-01-24

This suggests that the Convention provides “the exclusive cause of action” for such claims and therefore has complete preemptive power. ... Plaintiffs’ claims plainly fall within the scope of the Convention, as they seek compensation for damages arising from an injury that occurred “in the course of ... disembarking” from an aircraft following an international flight. ... This Court therefore has jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims grounded in independent, non-negotiable duties that can be resolved without interpreting a collective bargaining agreement.

Foster Anderson v. Dresser, Incorporated · filed 2012-03-28

Appellants chose to sue in tort, without reference to the CBA, and their claims may be adjudicated by sole resort to Louisiana tort law. Applying the Supreme Court’s construction of § 301, the district court was without jurisdiction and therefore erred in denying the motions to remand and in granting the motions to dismiss.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim through complete preemption, but field preemption alone does not establish that jurisdiction.

NH Attorney General v. Bass Victory Committee · filed 2012-07-10

Unlike complete preemption, which creates federal subject-matter jurisdiction over preempted state law claims, field preemption is a defense to a state law cause of action and cannot, by itself, be a basis for removal to federal court.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a removed state-law claim when ERISA completely preempts it; without complete preemption, the federal court must remand.

Nixon v. Vaughn · filed 2012-10-16

If complete preemption exists, therefore, a plaintiffs state claims are subject to removal under federal question jurisdiction, and ERISA offers the sole framework for relief. If complete preemption does not exist, however, then the reviewing federal court must remand the case to state court.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims completely preempted by federal law, even when the complaint pleads only state-law claims.

WJ Global LLC v. Farrell · filed 2013-04-17

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... However, because the Copyright Act has completely preempted some of plaintiffs’ state law claims, the artful pleading doctrine provides that removal to this Court was in fact proper.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim through ERISA complete preemption only when the claim falls within § 1132(a)(1)(B), including its requirement that no independent legal duty underlies the claim.

Gardner v. Heartland Industrial Partners · filed 2013-05-10

The issue before us is jurisdictional: whether Plaintiffs’ complaint stated a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, thereby allowing Defendants to remove the case from state court to federal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. ... Davila’s second requirement for preemption under § 1132(a)(1)(B) is not met here. The district court therefore lacked jurisdiction over the case.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over a state law claim when a federal statute completely preempts that claim.

Ciferni v. Day & Zimmerman Inc · filed 2013-06-27

Where a state law cause of action is completely preempted by a federal statute, the suit is deemed within the original jurisdiction of the district court and subject to removal.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims completely preempted by ERISA that seek plan benefits or relief for breach of fiduciary duties in plan administration.

Polanco-Bezares v. Rodriguez · filed 2013-08-12

Thus, inasmuch as plaintiffs seek redress for FGR’s alleged failure to provide benefits under the medical plan, plaintiffs’ complaint is completely preempted by ERISA and raises a federal question. ... Accordingly, because plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty claim is preempted by ERISA, plaintiffs’ complaint presents a federal question and the Court has subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over facially state-law claims that the Montreal Convention transforms into federal claims through complete preemption.

Fadhliah v. Société Air France · filed 2013-10-01

After reviewing Air France’s response and the relevant case law, the Court determines that it has federal-question jurisdiction under the complete-preemption doctrine and DISCHARGES the Order to Show Cause. ... Several considerations compel this Court to conclude that the preemptive force of the Montreal Convention is so strong that it transmutes Plaintiffs’ facially state-law claims into federal ones under the complete-preemption doctrine.

Federal-question jurisdiction extends to state-law claims completely preempted by ERISA’s civil enforcement scheme.

Enigma Management Corp. v. Multiplan, Inc. · filed 2014-01-27

For the reasons set forth below, I find that Enigma’s causes of action against United are preempted by ERISA, thereby giving this court federal subject matter jurisdiction over the action. ... A federal court has original jurisdiction over cases “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... There is an exception to this rule, however, if “a federal statute wholly displaces the state-law cause of action through complete pre-emption.”

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over state-law contract claims completely preempted by § 301 of the LMRA because they require interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement.

Manos v. United Food & Commercial Workers International Union · filed 2014-03-28

Under the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 may only be granted when a federal question is presented on the face of the complaint. ... By expressly relying upon the CBA to assert these state-law contract claims, Plaintiff requires a court to inquire into the terms of the CBA regarding the Defendants’ contractual obligations with Plaintiff. This demands preemption and grants this Court subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction through complete preemption over state-law employment claims that neither arise from nor require interpretation of a contract governed by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.

Madsen v. American Federation of Musicians of the United States · filed 2014-04-01

The plaintiff is the master of her claim, and may avoid federal jurisdiction by relying exclusively on state law. ... Because this case’s sole § 301 contract neither requires interpretation nor gives rise to any claim plaintiff chose to plead, preemption, powerful as it otherwise can be, is inappropriate in this case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over local-law claims relating to FEHBA benefit denials on the basis of complete preemption.

López-Muñoz v. Triple-S Salud, Inc. · filed 2014-05-09

In light of the Empire Court's teachings and our examination of both the FEHBA preemption clause and the OPM regulatory framework, we hold that the FEHBA does not completely preempt local-law claims relating to the denial of benefits. Thus, the removal of this case to federal court cannot be justified on the basis of complete preemption.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law personal injury claims merely because the Montreal Convention applies, because its preemptive effect operates as a defense rather than complete preemption.

DeJoseph v. Continental Airlines, Inc. · filed 2014-05-12

Based on those considerations, I find that Article 29 of. the Montreal Convention does not completely preempt all state and local causes of action to allow removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Its preemptive effect is not so clear, strong, and categorical as to obviate state law from the get-go, and require a court to conclude that a state-law complaint is really a federal-law one. Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is nowhere near a certainty, and Defendants’ removal of DeJoseph’s Complaint is not appropriate.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims completely preempted by ERISA’s civil-enforcement provision because those claims are transformed into federal claims.

Innova Hospital San Antonio, L.P. v. Humana Insurance · filed 2014-06-11

If the state-law cause of action is preempted by ERISA’s § 502(a), the action is thereby removable to federal court because that state-law claim is effectively transformed into a new federal claim.

For purposes of § 1331 jurisdiction, a court may examine material outside the complaint when a defendant asserts complete preemption.

Hawaii Ex Rel. Louie v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. · filed 2014-08-01

However, when a defendant asserts that a claim is completely preempted, examination of extra-pleading material is permitted.

Federal-question jurisdiction over one state-law claim completely preempted by ERISA suffices to support removal even when the other claims are not completely preempted.

Salzer v. SSM Health Care of Oklahoma Inc. · filed 2014-08-06

Although we have ... concluded that most of Salzer’s claims are not preempted, federal jurisdiction over any one claim is sufficient to support removal.

Federal-question jurisdiction permits removal of state-law claims completely preempted by ERISA even when the complaint expressly disclaims federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Nielsen v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of America · filed 2014-09-02

Accordingly, despite its express disclaimer of federal subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiffs Complaint is removable if the Plan is governed by ERISA, which would preempt its asserted state law claims.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims completely preempted by a union’s federal duty of fair representation.

Walsh v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (I.B.E.W.) Local 503 · filed 2014-10-07

Plaintiffs may not avoid federal jurisdiction by disguising a federal fair representation claim in state law negligence terms. ... Accordingly, because plaintiffs’ state law claims are preempted by the duty of fair representation, removal was proper.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction through copyright preemption over state-law claims whose fiduciary or confidentiality duties make them qualitatively different from copyright infringement claims.

Sleppin v. Thinkscan.com, LLC · filed 2014-10-23

Under the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” federal jurisdiction is present only if a question of federal law appears on the face of the plaintiffs “well-pleaded complaint” — thus requiring a court to ignore any and all answers, defenses, and counterclaims. ... The Court finds that because the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants owed the Plaintiffs a fiduciary duty, the claim is “qualitatively different” than a copyright claim and is therefore not preempted by the Copyright Act. ... For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds there is no basis for federal jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law unjust-enrichment claim completely preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA because its resolution requires interpreting a collective-bargaining agreement.

Cefarrati v. Jbg Properties, Inc. · filed 2014-11-06

Mr. Cefarrati’s claim, by contrast, requires the analysis of the scope of employment established by the CBA, so his claim is dependent upon the interpretation of the CBA and is completely preempted.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over ordinary state-law contract, quasi-contract, and property claims that the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act does not completely preempt.

Tres Lotes LLC v. BNSF Railway Co. · filed 2014-11-21

Because this Court declines to hold that the ICCTA completely preempts Tres Lotes’s claims, there is no federal question present in this case and the Court must turn to the question of diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims completely preempted by LMRA section 301 when their resolution requires interpreting a union constitution's mandatory arbitration provision.

District No. 1, Pacific Coast District, Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, Afl-Cio v. American Maritime Officers · filed 2014-12-05

As explained above, to the extent that MEBA’s state law claims require, or depend upon, interpretation of a labor contract, this case falls under a rare exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule because “[s]ection 301 of the LMRA is one of the few federal statutes that the Supreme Court has found to completely preempt state law” under those circumstances. Heintzman, 825 F. Supp. 2d at 166 (citing id. at 64). Moreover, given that the AFL-CIO constitution is a labor contract that contains a mandatory arbitration provision, this Court concludes that resolution of MEBA’s state law claims necessarily depends upon interpreting that contract to decide whether or not MEBA is required to arbitrate its claims—an issue that the Court addresses below.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law wage claims merely because a defense relies on a collective bargaining agreement when resolving the claims does not substantially depend on interpreting that agreement.

Vasserman v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital · filed 2014-12-05

As noted, defenses based on the terms of a CBA cannot create preemption or federal question subject matter jurisdiction. ... For the reasons stated, the court concludes that Vasserman has alleged claims that arise under state law, rather than the CBAs that governed her employment and that of putative class members,, and that resolution of her claims will not substantially depend on interpretation of those agreements. Accordingly, the court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law employment claims that cannot be recharacterized as claims under ERISA’s civil enforcement provisions.

Rivera v. Los Alamos National Security, LLC · filed 2015-02-05

On the other hand, if Plaintiff is correct that his claims are not completely preempted by ERISA, then jurisdiction cannot exist pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 since all of his claims are grounded in state law. ... Because Plaintiffs claims arise under state law, involvé nondiverse parties, and are not completely preempted by ERISA, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 permits removal based on preemption of a state-law claim only when preemption is complete if the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint contains no federal claims.

Smith v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2015-02-11

However, it is well settled that only “complete preemption” can support federal question jurisdiction upon removal if the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint contains no federal claims. See Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6–8 (2003).

Federal-question jurisdiction encompasses state-law claims completely preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act even if federal law provides no remedy for the alleged conduct.

Clee v. MVM, Inc. · filed 2015-03-10

Therefore, Clee’s state law claims are pre-empted and removal to the federal court was proper. ... The fact that federal law may not provide a remedy for the conduct of which Clee complains does not qualify this conclusion.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the Communications Act expressly preempts them, because the Act does not completely preempt those claims.

Johnson v. American Towers, LLC · filed 2015-03-25

As set forth below, we find that the Communications Act does not completely preempt the Johnsons’ claims. Accordingly, the district court erred in finding the existence of federal question jurisdiction.

Federal-question jurisdiction based on complete preemption requires a substitute federal cause of action encompassing the state-law claims, rather than merely a federal preemption defense.

Griffioen v. Cedar Rapids and Iowa City Railway Co. · filed 2015-05-07

The absence from the ICCTA of a substitute federal cause of action that would embrace the Griffioen Group’s claims leads us to conclude that Congress has not expressed the clear intent necessary to overcome the exceptionally strong presumption against complete preemption, as set forth in MFA Petroleum, 701 F.3d at 252. ... Our holding is, of course, limited to the issue of federal-question jurisdiction, and so we offer no views regarding any preemption defense that may be raised in state court.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when federal law completely preempts that claim, bringing it within the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Hayes v. Bayer Cropscience, LP · filed 2015-10-05

For purposes of § 1331, an action arises under the laws of the United States if a federal claim appears on the face of a well-pleaded complaint. ... The complete preemption corollary to the well-pleaded complaint rule also applies to claims under § 301 of the LMRA. ... Thus, the plaintiffs claim must rise and fall with the terms of the CBA, and it is thus clear to me that his claim is so inextricably intertwined with' consideration 'of the terms of the CBA that it is necessarily preempted by § '30l of the LMRA.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because it relates to an ERISA plan; an ERISA conflict-preemption defense alone does not support removal.

McGill v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. · filed 2015-10-15

Even if Plaintiffs Complaint is related to an ERISA-covered plan under § 514(a), mere relation does not on its own furnish a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim based on complete preemption when the defendant has no applicable federal statutory immunity.

N.G. v. Downey Regional Medical Center · filed 2015-10-23

The Court also finds that no federal immunity applies to Defendant, and as such, there is no federal question based on the complete preemption doctrine.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a state wage claim when ERISA does not completely preempt it, even if a demand letter mentioned retirement benefits.

Bergen v. Tualatin Hills Swim Club, Inc. · filed 2016-03-16

At most, Plaintiffs attorney referred to ERISA-governed benefits to which Plaintiff was entitled in the written demand letter in order to articulate and quantify damages. However, this is an insufficient basis upon which to find complete preemption. In other words, nothing in the record suggests that Plaintiff could have proceeded under ERISA or that an ERISA-gov-erned plan may grant what Plaintiff is asking for — past wages due and penalty wages, pursuant to Oregon state law obligations. Thus, the Court finds that neither prong of the Supreme Court’s Davila analysis has been satisfied. Defendant fails to meet its burden to establish federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state wage claims when LMRA § 301 does not completely preempt them.

Chu v. Chinese-American Planning Council Home Attendant Program, Inc. · filed 2016-07-11

Thus, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ state law claims are not preempted by the LMRA, and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the asserted federal treaty does not preempt those claims.

McCubbins v. United Airlines, Inc. · filed 2016-07-18

Because the Montreal Convention does not preempt McCubbins’s state-law claims, no federal question exists, and this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a removed state-law claim when a federal statute completely preempts that claim.

Keller v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2017-01-13

The complete preemption exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule provides that “when a federal statute wholly displaces the state-law cause of action through complete pre-emption,” the state claim can be removed. ... The court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs FCRA and supplemental state claims.

Section 1331 does not support federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that are not completely preempted by federal law.

Morales-Ramos v. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals LLC · filed 2017-01-26

Because plaintiffs are not seeking to recover benefits of an ERISA plan, to enforce Morales’ rights under an ERISA plan, or to clarify her rights to future benefits, the claims in the amended complaint do not constitute an alternative enforcement mechanism for ERISA’s § 502(a) civil enforcement scheme and are not, therefore, completely preempted by that federal statute. The Court thus lacks continuing federal subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over state-law claims when a federal statute completely preempts them.

Prince v. Sears Holdings Corporation · filed 2017-01-27

District courts have original jurisdiction over claims “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. To determine whether a plaintiff’s claims “arise under” the laws of the United States, courts typically use the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” which focuses on the allegations of the complaint. Aetna, 542 U.S. at 207. An exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule occurs when a federal statute completely preempts state law causes of action.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a federal statute completely preempts that claim.

Durham v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America · filed 2017-02-15

Thus, a federal defense — such as preemption — typically does not give rise to federal question jurisdiction. ... The only exception is where “a federal statute wholly displaces the state-law cause of action through complete pre-emption.”

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction through complete preemption when the ICCTA provides no federal cause of action encompassing a state-law easement claim.

Christensen v. BNSF Railway Co. · filed 2017-03-16

The absence of a federal cause of action under the ICCTA that would encompass plaintiffs’ claims leads the court to conclude that Congress has not manifested an intent for the ICCTA to provide plaintiffs’ exclusive cause of action or serve as the basis for removal here. ... So the complete preemption doctrine does not apply to this case, and the court thus lacks jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs’ claims.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when ERISA completely preempts the claim.

Quiñones v. Sepúlveda Perez · filed 2017-08-07

Prudential’s removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c)(1), and this Court has jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiffs’ claim against Prudential under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because the removed complaint raises a federal question through the complete preemption exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule.

In a Section 1331 complete-preemption inquiry, the well-pleaded complaint rule does not prevent the court from considering contracts outside the complaint.

Miller v. Starkey Labs., Inc. · filed 2018-03-02

In assessing whether federal question jurisdiction exists, the Court employs the "well-pleaded complaint rule" and looks only to the face of the complaint. ... But that doctrine does not apply to cases of complete preemption. ... It is rational to consider the other contracts, particularly given that Miller does not challenge their authenticity.

Section 1331 supplies federal question jurisdiction over a state-law claim asserted to be completely preempted by ERISA only when the removing party shows that the claim could have been brought under ERISA.

Miller v. Starkey Laboratories, Inc. · filed 2018-03-02

The only jurisdictional basis for removal here is federal question jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction applies to actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... As such, it has failed to demonstrate that the “essence” of Miller’s claims could have been brought under ERISA. The Court’s “doubts about federal jurisdiction sh[all] be resolved in favor of remand to state court.”

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a removed state-law claim when a colorable claim of LMRA complete preemption exists at removal.

Lawless v. Steward Health Care Sys., LLC · filed 2018-06-25

After careful consideration, we hold that federal subject-matter jurisdiction existed at the time of removal because there was then a colorable claim of complete preemption under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction through complete preemption when the state-law claims rest on legal duties independent of the federal benefit plan.

Hansen v. Group Health Cooperative · filed 2018-09-04

Accordingly, the Providers’ three claims for unfair and deceptive business practices are based on independent duties beyond those imposed by three of their patients’ ERISA plans. These claims do not satisfy the second prong of Davila, and hence this case was improperly removed to federal court.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction through LMRA § 301 complete preemption only when resolving a state-law claim requires interpreting a specific collective bargaining agreement provision.

Hustle Industries, LLC v. BIMBO Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC · filed 2018-11-15

Thus, as the parties seeking removal and opposing remand on the theory of section 301 preemption, Defendants must show that Plaintiffs’ claims require “interpretation of some specific provision of a [CBA]” to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims on an LMRA § 301 complete-preemption theory when the claims do not require interpretation of a specific collective bargaining agreement provision.

Guenther v. BIMBO Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC · filed 2018-11-16

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... Defendants thus have not met their burden of proving that Mr. Guenther’s claims are “inextricably intertwined” or otherwise “dependent upon analysis” of a CBA. Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction through LMRA § 301 preemption when the state-law claims do not require interpreting a specific provision of a collective bargaining agreement.

Schutz v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC · filed 2018-11-16

Defendants thus have not met their burden of proving that Mr. Schutz’s claims are “inextricably intertwined” or otherwise “dependent upon analysis” of a CBA. Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim on an LMRA complete-preemption theory unless the claim rests on rights created by a collective bargaining agreement or requires interpretation of a specific provision of one.

Roberts v. Teamsters Local 955 · filed 2018-11-16

There is no CBA setting forth the rights upon which Mr. Roberts has based his claims. ... The Union thus has not met its burden of proving that Mr. Roberts’ claims are “inextricably intertwined” or otherwise “dependent upon analysis” of a CBA. Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim completely preempted by LMRA § 301, without requiring the Grable test.

Elliott v. Tulsa Cement, LLC · filed 2019-01-11

Because complete pre-emption is available, the ...court need not apply the Grable & Sons test.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when complete preemption converts it into a federal claim.

Goss v. Aetna, Inc. · filed 2019-01-31

Complete preemption, however, is an exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule and exists where the preemptive force of a federal statute is so extraordinary that it converts an ordinary state law claim into a statutory federal claim.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when complete preemption makes a complaint framed under state law rest on federal law governing collective bargaining.

Miller v. Southwest Airlines Company · filed 2019-06-13

Although the class aoempted to frame a complaint re- lying entirely on state law, the complaint concerns collective bargaining regulated by federal law. That brings into play a doctrine misleadingly called “complete preemption,” but perhaps beoer labeled as a rule that when federal law com- pletely occupies a field any claim within that scope rests on federal law, no maoer how a plaintiff tries to frame the com- plaint.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over state-law claims completely preempted by federal law.

Mount Olive Pickle Company, Inc. v. Tidewater Transit Co., Inc. · filed 2019-08-09

But district courts also have federal question jurisdiction over state law claims that are completely preempted by federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction over state law claims based on duties independent of ERISA when those claims are not completely preempted.

Sanjiv Goel M.D., Inc. v. Cigna Healthcare of California, Inc. · filed 2019-10-09

Those allegations are sufficient to establish a duty independent of ERISA, and therefore Plaintiff’s state law claims are not completely preempted. The Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when federal law completely preempts that claim.

Black v. Mantei & Associates, Ltd. · filed 2019-10-10

A notable exception to the well-plead compliant rule is where there is complete preemption of the claim under federal law. ... Accordingly, SLUSA preemption applies inasmuch as the four elements described above are met. As such, federal jurisdiction is present and this case is unsuited for remand.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims concerning non-ERISA insurance plans when ERISA complete preemption is not established.

Health Net Life Insurance Company v. ABC Services Group, Inc. · filed 2019-11-13

Additionally, when “an area of state law has been completely pre-empted” by federal law, a purported state law claim “is considered, from its inception, a federal claim, and therefore arises under federal law” within the meaning of § 1331. ... As such, the case appears to deal only with non- ERISA plans and state law claims. Because removal jurisdiction is strictly construed in favor of remand, and because the Court is unconvinced that federal jurisdiction obtains, the Court hereby REMANDS this action to the state court.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over state-law claims completely preempted by the Railway Labor Act.

Pegues v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers · filed 2019-12-10

Accordingly, Defendants removal of the case to this Court was proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) because the RLA preempts Pegues’ state law claims, creating federal question jurisdiction over Pegues’ claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because a federal preemption defense may apply; those claims must be completely preempted.

Delgado v. Lincoln Transportation Services, Inc. · filed 2019-12-27

Defendants’ federal preemption defense does not appear on the face of the SAC. Accordingly, the mere possibility that it precludes liability is insufficient to confer federal jurisdiction. ... Instead, the Court only has subject matter jurisdiction if some or all of Plaintiff’s claims are “completely preempted” and “wholly displaced” by federal law. ... Lincoln Defendants have not established complete preemption.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state law claims when the Montreal Convention supplies only an affirmative defense and does not completely preempt those claims.

Mozingo v. Japan Airlines Co., Ltd · filed 2020-01-09

In the absence of binding authority from the Ninth Circuit, the Court follows the “majority approach” and concludes that the Montreal Convention does not completely preempt Plaintiff’s state law claims, but rather serves as an affirmative defense. ... The Court therefore concludes that Defendant has failed to establish that the Court has federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an Ohio wrongful-discharge claim when the False Claims Act does not completely preempt that state-law claim.

Blanchard v. Impact Community Action · filed 2020-01-17

Second, the Undersigned has found no authority to support the conclusion that the FCA wholly preempts Plaintiffs’ wrongful discharge claims for purposes of removal. ... Defendant has, therefore, failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that this Court has original jurisdiction over the Ohio Public Policy Action.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a federal statute completely preempts that cause of action.

Gillum v. High Standard, LLC · filed 2020-01-27

Finding such FAAAA preemption afforded this Court jurisdiction to consider the matter, and that same preemption compels the Court to grant Defendant Danco’s motion to dismiss.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims completely preempted by a federal statute.

Shamoun v. Old Dominion Freight Line Inc · filed 2020-02-04

District courts have original jurisdiction over civil cases “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Frank v. Bear Stearns & Company, 128 F.3d 919, 922 (5th Cir. 1997). ... Accordingly, the court concludes that both of the plaintiff’s claims are subject to complete preemption under the Carmack Amendment. The court therefore DENIES the plaintiff’s motion to remand.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a claim pleaded under state law when federal law completely preempts it.

Brunner v. Beltman Group Incorporated · filed 2020-02-11

But federal question jurisdiction can arise from complete preemption.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim through complete preemption only when federal law converts that claim into a federal one.

West v. iHandy Ltd. · filed 2020-03-19

Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the subject matter asserted by the complaint is “necessarily” equivalent to that protected by federal copyright law, and thus they have failed to carry this burden. ... The Court concludes that neither of Defendants’ asserted bases of removal is sufficient to establish federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim completely preempted by LMRA § 301 because deciding it requires interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement.

Schroeder v. Spire Missouri, Inc. · filed 2020-03-30

But there is an exception to this rule in cases of “complete” preemption, that is, where a federal statute “so completely pre-empt[s] a particular area that any civil complaint raising this select group of claims is necessarily federal.” Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 65 (1987). ... Because Plaintiff’s claim is substantially dependent on the analysis of the CBA and the Policy, it is preempted by the LMRA.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that is completely preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.

Fernandez v. Kerry, Inc. · filed 2020-04-10

Because plaintiffs’ BIPA claim necessarily requires interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement, it is preempted by § 301 of the LMRA.5 This Court has original jurisdiction over the claim, and the case was removable.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over state-law claims that present a federal question through complete preemption.

Smith v. Kelso · filed 2020-04-16

Thus, the court has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims under § 1331, pursuant to the Carmack Amendment’s preemption of state law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a federal statute completely preempts that claim.

Zamorano v. Zyna LLC,et al · filed 2020-05-11

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 exists in cases of “complete preemption,” where a “federal statute completely preempts the state-law cause of action,” because such “a claim which comes within the scope of that action, even if pleaded in terms of state law, is in reality based on federal law.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims based on an individual employment promise merely because the NLRA could provide an alternative claim; complete preemption is required.

Thompson v. Harley-Davidson Motor Company · filed 2020-06-04

Accordingly, in line with the Court’s decision in Caterpillar, the court finds that the complete preemption doctrine does not apply to Thompson’s claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a putative class action through LMRA complete preemption when the named plaintiff’s claim does not require interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement.

Darty v. Columbia Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, LLC · filed 2020-06-24

Accordingly, I hold that because Ms. Darty is not a member of the Union, and her claim does not require interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a removed state-law claim based solely on an ordinary preemption defense.

Woodard-Hall v. STP Nuclear Operating Company DO NOT DOCKET. CASE HAS BEEN REMANDED. · filed 2020-07-20

As explained above, ordinary preemption cannot create removal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction through complete preemption when the pleaded state-law claim falls outside the federal statute’s scope.

Rodina v. Big Blue Healthcare, Inc. · filed 2020-08-19

Because the PREP Act does not apply, it cannot be used to establish federal question jurisdiction under the doctrine of complete preemption.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction through complete preemption when the federal statute invoked does not apply to the plaintiff’s state-law allegations.

Jackson v. Big Blue Healthcare, Inc. · filed 2020-08-19

Because the PREP Act does not apply, it cannot be used to establish federal question jurisdiction under the doctrine of complete preemption.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction through complete preemption when the federal statute invoked does not apply to the pleaded state-law claims.

Baskin v. Big Blue Healthcare, Inc. · filed 2020-08-19

Because the PREP Act does not apply, it cannot be used to establish federal question jurisdiction under the doctrine of complete preemption.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction through complete preemption when the plaintiff’s claims fall outside the federal statute invoked.

Campbell v. Big Blue Healthcare, Inc. · filed 2020-08-19

Because the PREP Act does not apply, it cannot be used to establish federal question jurisdiction under the doctrine of complete preemption.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims completely preempted by ERISA.

Johnson v. Highmark Health, Inc. · filed 2020-08-26

Because Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Highmark are completely preempted by ERISA, the Court has federal question jurisdiction over the suit, and the suit was properly removed.

Section 1331 gives a federal court original jurisdiction over a removed state-law claim based on ERISA preemption only when ERISA completely preempts the claim.

Cretella v. Azcon, Inc. · filed 2020-10-28

In other words, to establish original federal jurisdiction on removal, Azcon must show that ERISA completely preempts Cretella’s claim based on the Illinois Insurance Code.