28 U.S.C. § 1331

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

CARPENTERS PENSION AND ANNUITY FUND v. Banks · filed 2003-07-18

While it is true that the Bankses, had they answered the complaint, might have contended that their loan was a “prohibited transaction” under ERISA, federal court jurisdiction cannot be based on a federal law defense.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the properly pleaded claim; a federal defense to a state law claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

King v. Intl · filed 2003-07-28

In particular, a claim in which the federal question arises only as a defense to an otherwise purely state law action does not "arise under" federal law, and hence jurisdiction would not lie under section 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense to state-law claims does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Alfaro v. Crowley Liner Services, Inc. · filed 2003-11-26

In determining whether a claim “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” for purposes of federal question jurisdiction, the Court must look solely to the plaintiffs complaint. ... In the present case, a federal question appears solely as a defense to Plaintiffs state law claims.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; an anticipated federal defense does not establish jurisdiction.

Dowd v. Alliance Mortgage Co. · filed 2004-08-31

Defendant’s invocation of the dormant Commerce Clause argument, however, is merely an anticipated defense to liability under RPL 274-a, and this Court must ignore fit for purposes of deciding whether Plaintiffs claim “arises under” federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a claim rests on state or local law and a federal statute supplies only a defense.

City of Chicago v. Comcast Cable · filed 2004-10-01

So the federal defense in §542(b) does not supply jurisdiction if the claim itself rests on state or local law—which it does.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a federal claim appears on the face of a well-pleaded complaint; a potential federal pre-emption defense does not suffice.

Pascack Valley Hospital, Inc. v. Local 464a Ufcw Welfare Reimbursement Plan · filed 2004-12-23

A civil action filed in a state court may be removed to federal court if the claim is one "arising under" federal law. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a). Under the "well-pleaded complaint" rule, the plaintiff is ordinarily entitled to remain in state court so long as its complaint does not, on its face, affirmatively allege a federal claim.

Section 1331 requires the complaint itself to arise under federal law; anticipated federal preemption of a defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh · filed 2005-01-14

Moreover, even if federal law is likely to preempt McVeigh’s defenses and thereby to affect the outcome of the case, this is insufficient to create federal jurisdiction. The well-pleaded complaint rule requires that the complaint itself arise under federal law in order for there to be federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; a potential federal defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Salman v. Arthur Andersen LLP · filed 2005-01-31

And that potential, if not likely, defense of its alleged misconduct does not convert this case to one involving a federal question and thus bestowing federal question subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because the defendant raises federal preemption as a defense to a state-law claim.

Bonilla v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. · filed 2005-02-23

The complete preemption doctrine does not abrogate the general rule that a defense of preemption does not create federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the well-pleaded complaint; an anticipated federal defense cannot establish jurisdiction.

Truong v. American Bible Society · filed 2005-03-18

However, federal jurisdiction must be apparent from the the well-pleaded complaint; reliance on an assumed defense is insufficient.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a potential federal defense does not confer jurisdiction.

New Mexico Ex Rel. Stein v. Western Estate Services, Inc. · filed 2005-06-29

It is hornbook law that in order to establish jurisdiction under § 1331, a plaintiff must show that a question of federal law appears on the face of his well- pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 generally does not permit a defendant to establish federal-question jurisdiction by raising a preemption defense unless the complaint itself presents a federal question.

Smitherman v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2005-09-19

A defendant is accordingly prohibited from invoking jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 by asserting a federal defense, including the defense of preemption, unless a federal question exists independently on the face of the plaintiffs complaint.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the federal constitutional issue appears only as a defense.

GRIEVANCE ADM'R, ATTY. GRIEVANCE COM'N v. Fieger · filed 2005-10-21

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. ... The Formal Complaint in this case alleges professional misconduct in violation of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct. It is Respondent who brings a constitutional defense into play. The law is well settled: A federal defense provides no basis for removal.

Section 1331 requires a federal question apparent on the face of the complaint; a federal defense cannot establish jurisdiction.

JOHN DOE (1) v. Archdiocese of Denver · filed 2006-02-07

It is now axiomatic that jurisdiction cannot be predicated upon a defense that raises a federal question, no matter that the issue might prove to be dispositive. ... This rule applies to invocations of both original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446.

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

Atanasio v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen · filed 2006-03-27

As a defense, ordinary pre-emption cannot be considered under the well-pleaded complaint rule and, therefore, cannot be the basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction entitling the defendant to removal.

Section 1331 requires a federal issue to appear in a well-pleaded claim; a federal affirmative defense is insufficient.

McCullough v. Ligon · filed 2006-05-11

Not all cases that implicate federal law, however, are within § 1331 jurisdiction. ... Affirmative defenses founded upon federal law do not satisfy the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Section 1331 does not make a state-law claim a federal question merely because the claim faces a federal preemption defense.

Cardello v. CRC Industries, Inc. · filed 2006-05-31

Restated, the mere fact that a state law claim is subject to a federal preemption defense does not convert the state law claim into a federal question within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; a tribal sovereign-immunity defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim.

County of Madera v. Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians · filed 2006-12-18

Second, the complaint does not allege a federal cause of action on its face, and the defense of tribal immunity is not a basis for removal.

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

Kuntz v. Illinois Central Railroad · filed 2007-01-05

It is obvious that federal law enters this case, if at all, solely by way of a defense of preemption of state law by federal law, so that a finding that this case presents a substantial federal question merely on the basis of ICR’s preemption defense would be manifestly contrary to the well-pleaded complaint rule.

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

American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees, Council 93 v. Gordon · filed 2007-06-04

Thus, removal jurisdiction is dependent on whether this case “arises under” the laws of the United States for purposes of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... It is long settled, however, that federal district courts do not have jurisdiction over a federal question that may be raised in defense to a complaint that alleges purely state-law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the federal issues arise only as defenses to state-law claims.

Bloomfield v. MacShane · filed 2007-11-09

Local 580 Fund’s preemption defense is not a “necessary federal question” for purposes of the “well pleaded complaint” rule, and, like the IRC § 401(a)(13) defense to be raised by SBA Fund, does not create subject matter jurisdiction, as discussed above.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint presents no federal claim and the defendant only anticipates federal defenses.

Deuley v. DynCorp International, Inc. · filed 2008-11-17

Here, the plaintiffs have not alleged any causes of action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. So, there is no federal question presented on the face of the plaintiffs’ complaint.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the act of state doctrine arises only as a defense and the complaint raises no necessary, substantial federal issue.

Prov Govt Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc. · filed 2009-09-29

Fatal to the district court’s removal jurisdiction, how- ever, is that the act of state doctrine is implicated here only defensively and the complaint does not “necessarily raise a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial.”

Section 1331 requires a complaint, as pleaded, to present a federal issue for removal; an ordinary federal preemption defense does not supply one.

Domnister v. Exclusive Ambulette, Inc. · filed 2010-06-04

In order to remove a case to federal court, a defendant must show that the complaint, as pled, presents an issue of federal law. The state-court complaint whose dismissal we are reviewing here presents no such issue, and does not, as written, provide defendants with a preemption defense that might otherwise create removal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the District Court lacked jurisdiction over the complaint, and should not have dismissed it.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when federal preemption would arise only in response to an anticipated defense.

California Shock Trauma Air Rescue v. State Compensation Insurance Fund · filed 2011-03-31

It is evident that CALSTAR’s federal preemption argument is not necessary to its state-law claims — it is merely a potential response to a defense. Because CALSTAR’s preemption issue cannot satisfy the well-pleaded complaint rule, there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 jurisdiction turns on whether the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint presents a federal question; defenses do not affect that inquiry.

Nova Design Build, Inc. v. Grace Hotels, LLC · filed 2011-07-26

But Grace’s defenses—whether based on federal law or state law—do not affect jurisdiction under sections 1331 or 1338. What does matter is whether “a federal question is presented on the face of the plain- tiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction only when a federal claim appears in the well-pleaded complaint; a federal preemption defense does not suffice.

Woodsville Guar. Sav. Bank v Silverstein · filed 2011-11-02

The well-pleaded complaint rule governs whether a case arises under federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). ... That rule “prohibits the exercise of federal question jurisdiction if no federal claim appears within the four corners of the complaint.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the defendant raises a federal-law defense, even one based on federal preemption.

Colorado v. Western Sky Financial, L.L.C. · filed 2011-12-27

The assertion of a federal law defense to a state law claim, even federal preemption, does not enable defendants to remove a claim stated under state law to federal court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a state-law complaint mentions federal law only to anticipate and refute a federal defense.

State of New York v. Shinnecock Indian Nation · filed 2012-06-25

Because the complaint’s references to federal law only anticipate and refute the Shinnecock’s defenses, they do not give rise to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires courts to look to the complaint for a federal question; a federal defense does not establish jurisdiction.

Asociacion Puertoriquena de Duenos de Laboratorios Clinicos Privados, Inc. v. Humana Health Plans of Puerto Rico, Inc. · filed 2013-06-05

The precedent regarding Section 1331 requires the court to examine the complaint to determine jurisdiction, rather than the defenses.

Federal-question jurisdiction requires a federal question on the face of the well-pleaded complaint; a federal preemption defense alone does not establish jurisdiction.

Castro v. Molecular Systems Inc. · filed 2013-08-28

This removal was based on the defense of federal preemption. Yet, federal-question jurisdiction requires a federal question to be presented on the face of the well-pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims based on tangential connections to federal law or a federal defense.

Cutrone v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. · filed 2013-11-06

But, such tangential connections do not support federal question jurisdiction. Even assuming MERS’s lament amounts to a federal defense, federal defenses to state law causes of action do not support federal question removal. The propriety of removal is determined by the causes of action a plaintiff asserts, not the defenses a defendant interposes.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because a local charter refers to federal law or a defense raises a federal constitutional issue.

Pidgeon v. Parker · filed 2014-08-28

The fact that the plaintiffs asserted a claim under Article II, Section 22 of the Houston City Charter, which contains a clause describing the Mayor’s obligation to comply with federal law, does not transform the defense into an element of the plaintiffs’ claims. References to federal law or to the United States Constitution in a plaintiffs complaint do not, on their own, create federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction for removal based on a defense arising under federal law.

Lott v. Duffy · filed 2014-09-04

A defense based on federal law does not establish federal question jurisdiction for removal purposes, Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 399 (1987).

Federal-question jurisdiction cannot be created by asserting federal claims or defenses that an opposing party might raise.

Gregory S. Markantone DPM PC v. Podiatric Billing Specialists · filed 2015-04-27

But Markantone cannot create federal jurisdiction by asserting claims or defenses Podiatric Billing might raise.

Section 1331 requires a federal question supporting jurisdiction to appear in the elements of the plaintiff’s claim; an anticipated federal preemption defense does not suffice.

Carmine v. Poffenbarger · filed 2015-12-29

Thus, the federal question triggering jurisdiction must appear in the elements of Carmine’s causes of action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the only federal issue in a state-law claim arises as a sovereign-immunity defense.

Abba Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Grubbe · filed 2016-03-22

Appellants have failed to establish that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides that federal courts “shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... Federal law is relevant to appellants’ state-law claims only to the extent that appellees assert sovereign immunity as a defense to enforcement of the state-court judgment.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the well-pleaded complaint; a federal defense does not establish jurisdiction.

Panther Brands, LLC v. Indy Racing League, LLC · filed 2016-06-27

The federal question must appear in the well-pleaded complaint; a federal defense will not do. ... Jurisdiction under sections 1331 and 1441 is therefore lacking.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a federal defense to a state-law claim does not support federal-question jurisdiction.

Sanders v. Farina · filed 2016-07-06

Specifically, defendant’s third removal attempt failed because it was premised on a federal defense to plaintiffs state law cause of action, which is not a basis for removal jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Section 1331 confers no federal-question jurisdiction when no federal issue appears on the face of the well-pleaded complaint.

Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Hormel Foods Corporation · filed 2017-04-05

Because no federal issue appears on the face of Plaintiff’s well-pleaded Complaint, federal question jurisdiction does not exist in this case.

Section 1331 requires the plaintiff’s complaint to present a claim arising under federal law; a federal defense alone does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Hialeah Anesthesia Specialists, LLC v. Coventry Health Care of Florida, Inc. · filed 2017-06-29

The perennial well-pleaded complaint rule holds that federal question jurisdiction over an action exists only when the plaintiffs claims, as stated in the complaint, arise under federal law notwithstanding any federal defenses.

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

Loeb v. Vergara · filed 2018-05-18

Vergara's arguments regarding her constitutional rights and the constitutionality of the Louisiana laws pertaining to IVF created embryos are defenses to the applicability of the UCCJEA. ... Federal question jurisdiction cannot be based on a defense that raises a federal question.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction cannot be based on a federal defense to a claim.

Cintron v. Jetblue Airways Corp. · filed 2018-08-15

And the provisions of the Airline Deregulation Act that JetBlue cites appear to be defenses, not causes of action. See Wright & Miller, 13D Federal Practice & Procedure § 3566 (2018 update) (explaining that the well-pleaded complaint rule "bars invoking jurisdiction on the basis of a federal defense raised by the defendant's answer").

Section 1331 requires a federal claim on the face of a well-pleaded complaint; invoking a federal defense to state-law claims does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Harris v. TD Ameritrade Inc. · filed 2018-09-24

It is well-settled, however, that "in assessing whether federal question jurisdiction lies," the court must "ask if the well-pleaded complaint asserts a federal claim on its face." ... "The mere existence or invocation of a federal defense does not furnish a sufficient basis for jurisdiction to attach." ... Federal question jurisdiction therefore does not lie.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; federal defenses to state-law claims do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Scotiabank De Puerto Rico v. Halais-Borges · filed 2018-10-22

The federal statutes that Halais raises in defense of Scotiabank's Puerto Rico law claims are insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court. In actions premised exclusively on state law, litigants cannot invoke federal jurisdiction by asserting defenses pursuant to federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense does not create federal-question jurisdiction.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. DeFranco · filed 2019-07-12

Because Deutsche Bank’s Underlying Complaint lacks a federal claim from which federal question jurisdiction attaches, Ms. DeFranco’s purported defense under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act does not result in this Court having federal jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint, rather than a defense, raises a federal question.

Christiana Trust v. Garcia · filed 2019-07-12

Thus, it is the allegations of a complaint and not a defense that raises a federal question which confers federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the defendant raises a federal defense.

Rehabbers Financial Inc. v. Doe · filed 2019-08-13

The assertion of a federal defense to a state-law claim does not convert the state-law claim into one “arising under” federal law for purposes of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is determined from the complaint’s allegations, without considering potential defenses such as sovereign immunity.

Sutton v. State of Maryland Department of Human Services · filed 2019-09-17

To determine whether a plaintiffs claims “arise under” the laws of the United States, this Court adheres to the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” which requites an assessment of the allegations of the Complaint, rather than potential defenses.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense to a state law claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Morton v. Griffin · filed 2019-09-25

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, the fact that a defendant may interpose federal law as a defense to a state law cause of action does not give rise to federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the well-pleaded complaint; a federal defense cannot supply federal-question jurisdiction on removal.

CITIMORTGAGE, INC. v. Davis · filed 2019-10-28

But a defense based on federal law does not provide the basis for federal question jurisdiction on removal.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the identified federal issue is an affirmative preemption defense rather than a necessary element of the claim.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JUICE MAN LLC · filed 2019-11-07

The only federal question Juice Man has identified in non- conclusory terms is the preemption issue, which, as an affirmative defense, is not a federal question in this context.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law unlawful detainer claim merely because the defendant asserts federal defenses.

(UD)(PS) MTGLQ Investors LP v. Jackson · filed 2019-11-21

Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as alleged by Defendant.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim to appear in the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; an actual or anticipated defense cannot supply federal-question jurisdiction.

Colarossi v. Harris · filed 2019-12-16

“Arising under” in this context means that the claim must be presented as a part of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint, not as an actual or anticipated defense.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint pleads only a state-law unlawful detainer claim and the defendant raises a federal defense.

(UD)(PS) U.S. Bank National Association v. Chang · filed 2020-01-06

Here, Plaintiff’s one cause of action is for unlawful detainer under state law. At most, Defendant alleges that he has a defense under federal law. ... Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law unlawful detainer claim merely because the defendant asserts a federal defense.

(PS)(UD) Wells Fargo Bank, National Association v. Sherzad · filed 2020-01-07

Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction under 23 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a defendant’s federal claims or defenses do not establish jurisdiction.

Ivory Holdings, LLC v. Bertrang · filed 2020-01-17

The well-pleaded complaint rule requires a federal question to be evident from the face of the plaintiff’s complaint for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to exist.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law unlawful detainer claim merely because the defendant raises a federal defense.

AVA Real Estate Holdings v. Furman · filed 2020-01-17

There is no federal question jurisdiction simply because there is a federal defense to the claim.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a defendant’s federal defense does not supply jurisdiction.

Lott v. Miller · filed 2020-01-23

The PTFA, nor any other federal statute, is part of Plaintiff’s Complaint. As such, this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Bird Rock Home Mortgage, LLC v. Damiano · filed 2020-01-30

Plaintiff’s must plead a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States to invoke federal-question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. ... Defendant cannot create federal jurisdiction through an actual or anticipated defense.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law unlawful detainer claim merely because the defendant asserts a federal defense.

(UD)(PS) The Sheldon Family 1993 Trust v. Macias · filed 2020-01-31

Here, Plaintiff's one cause of action is for unlawful detainer under state law. At most, Defendants argue that they have a defense under federal law. ... Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense to a state law claim does not create federal question jurisdiction.

Florida Capital Bank Mortgage v. Nunley · filed 2020-01-31

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, the fact that a defendant may interpose federal law as a defense to a state law cause of action does not give rise to federal- question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a federal defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

JG & M Properties LLC v. Sarandos · filed 2020-03-09

Here, review of plaintiff's petition shows it is based solely upon Missouri law. It presents no federal question, and therefore can provide no basis for federal question jurisdiction. Defendants can be understood to invoke this Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because they have a defense premised upon federal law. However, it is well- settled that a case cannot be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense, even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiffs complaint. Caterpillar Inc., 482 U.S. at 393.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s complaint expressly alleges violations of the U.S. Constitution or asserts a Section 1983 claim.

Spann v. Bogalusa City Police Department · filed 2021-04-08

Like Warner, plaintiff makes clear references to the U.S. Constitution and Section 1983. Throughout both pleadings, plaintiff expressly alleges that defendants’ denial to an administrative hearing and unauthorized entry onto his mother’s property were violations of their rights proscribed by the U.S. Constitution and state laws.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the anticipated claim arises under state law and federal preemption would be only a defense.

Shands Teaching Hospital & Clinics, Inc. v. Morgan · filed 2021-05-13

The existence of a federal defense is not a basis for federal jurisdiction. ... If Morgan were to sue Shands for the records, his complaint would be based on state law and Shands would raise federal preemption as a defense.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a removed state-law claim based only on federal defenses raised by the defendant.

ELITE 2016 LLC v. CAUTHON · filed 2021-07-16

However, these constitute defenses to the underlying state action, and the law is clear that subject matter jurisdiction in removed actions cannot be based on defenses to a claim, but only on the claims asserted in the complaint itself. As such, Cauthon has failed to establish federal question jurisdiction as a basis for removal of the state court Complaint, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal issues are defenses to a state-law claim.

HSBC Bank USA, NA v. Vitti · filed 2021-10-15

But those are federal defenses to a state foreclosure proceeding, and thus they cannot satisfy the well- pleaded complaint rule.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because an anticipated defense raises a federal question or requires interpreting federal law.

Worldway International Investment Holdings Limited v. Advanced Bioenergy LP · filed 2021-12-07

That their defense may raise a federal question or hinge on interpretation of registration requirements under federal law does not convert this state common law case into one arising under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because a federal statute affords the defendant immunity or a preemption defense.

Iskowitz v. Northridge Subtenant, LLC · filed 2021-12-08

The fact that the PREP Act affords immunity to the defendants and otherwise provides a preemption defense does not create the basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because federal common law may govern issues underlying them when the complaint pleads no federal claim and complete preemption is absent.

State of Delaware v. B.P. America Inc. · filed 2022-01-05

In sum, Plaintiff only asserts state-law claims in its complaint, and Defendants fail to show complete preemption. Therefore, Plaintiff's claims do not arise under federal law for jurisdiction purposes. Federal common law, even if (as Defendants insist) implicated in Plaintiff's state-law claims, does not provide a proper basis for removing this case.

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

WAGNER v. BROKERS INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC · filed 2022-03-09

Mr. Perry and Brokers' jurisdictional claim is based on their argument that the underlying arbitration award is not valid under FINRA rules. This is a defense, and thus does not create federal jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not permit federal-question jurisdiction based solely on a defense that implicates federal law.

ERA Property Management v. McCormack · filed 2022-07-11

Accordingly, defenses that implicate federal law can never be the basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the defendant raises a federal defense.

Suttlar v. Thurston · filed 2022-07-13

Defendants cannot transform a state-law claim into a federal claim conferring § 1331 jurisdiction by raising a federal defense.

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded complaint showing that federal law creates the claim or that relief necessarily depends on a substantial federal question; citing the statute does not establish jurisdiction over state-law libel and slander claims.

Billett v. Morales · filed 2023-03-14

None of this is sufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction as a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction arises from “those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27–28 (1983). Slander and libel are claims that arise under Virginia state law, not federal law.

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

Mendoza v. Western Water Features, Inc. · filed 2023-12-07

Defendant may raise the CBA and the dispute resolution provision as a defense to plaintiff’s state law claims; however, “the presence of a federal question, even a § 301 question, in a defensive argument does not overcome the paramount policies embodied in the well-pleaded complaint rule.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 398–99 (1987). ... The court has no subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts no federal claim and the defendant relies on a federal defense.

Rock Creek Capital, LLC v. Johnson · filed 2024-02-06

The complaint here cites no federal claims. Moreover, any defensive claims Defendant Johnson may wish to present cannot provide a basis for removal jurisdiction. See In re Blackwater Sec. Consulting, LLC, 460 F.3d at 584 (“A defendant may not defend his way into federal court because a federal defense does not create a federal question under § 1331.”). Thus, the case cannot be sustained in this court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s complaint; a defendant’s federal defenses do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Jones · filed 2024-03-31

Defendants’ arguments and affirmative defenses raising federal law, including claims that Plaintiff violated their federal constitutional rights, cannot form a basis for federal question subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires the plaintiff’s original cause of action to arise under federal law; a defendant’s asserted federal-law defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Smith · filed 2024-08-20

District courts have original jurisdiction over cases where a “federal question” is present, which occurs if a plaintiff’s original cause of action arises under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Second, the basis for jurisdiction in the Notice of Removal—Defendant Smith’s assertion of federal question jurisdiction based on Plaintiff’s alleged violation of the FDCPA—does not establish federal subject matter jurisdiction here.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because a defendant raises a potential federal defense.

TD BANK NA v. MONAGHAN · filed 2024-09-10

Applying the well-pleaded complaint rule to the case at hand, the Court concludes that Mr. Scott has not presented a federal question essential for this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The court there concluded, as this Court does, that when the plaintiff is proceeding under state law, the suggestion of a potential federal defense does not justify removal.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint cannot be construed to raise a federal question.

EDWARDS v. WAYNE STEWART TRUCKING COMPANY · filed 2025-03-05

Although Plaintiff does not specifically allege federal question jurisdiction, the Court has considered whether the Complaint can be construed to assert federal question jurisdiction and has determined that it cannot.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when federal issues arise only in an answer to a state-law complaint.

(UD)(PS) Hanegan v. Pacheco · filed 2025-04-07

Further, to the extent Defendant Perez’s answer may depend on federal law, that is insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not permit federal-question jurisdiction based on a federal defense to a state-law claim.

Luna Sands Resort, LLC v. Garvey · filed 2025-04-17

However, Defendant’s arguments in this regard relate to his defense, rather than to Plaintiff’s claims, and “a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense,” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when federal law is raised only as a defense to a state-law claim.

Pama IV Properties LP v. Cervantes · filed 2025-09-04

Second, to the extent that statute offers a defense against Plaintiff’s action, that alone does not provide the Court with a basis to assert federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a state-law complaint merely anticipates a federal preemption defense.

State of Texas v. Community Capital Partners LP · filed 2026-02-24

Texas could not plead its way into federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 by merely “anticipating” a federal preemption defense.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal issue arises only as a defense, including a defense concerning tribal sovereignty.

Farrer · filed 2026-03-25

The present case thus appears to be analogous to the many other cases where the presence of a federal, and even a constitutional, defense to state law claims is insufficient to create § 1331 jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a defendant’s federal defense does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

(UD)(PS) Konrad v. Williams · filed 2021-06-02

Because the Complaint indicates that the only cause of action is one for unlawful detainer, which arises solely under state law, this action does not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the defendant raises federal preemption as a defense.

La Freniere v. General Elec. Co. · filed 1983-10-21

Whether removal of the present case is proper hinges on defendants’ assertion that the cause of action arises under federal law and the district court, therefore, has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Federal law is invoked by defendants solely by way of defense. The fact that the defamation issue may ultimately depend upon resolution of defendants’ affirmative defense of privilege does not miraculously transform plaintiff’s claim into a federal cause of action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law action solely because the defendant raises a federal defense.

Ferro v. Ass'n of Catholic Schools · filed 1985-12-16

An action may not be removed on the basis of a defense brought under federal law, even if both parties admit that the defense is the only thing truly at issue.

Section 1331 does not provide independent federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law breach-of-lease counterclaim.

Wentworth v. Hedson · filed 2008-01-15

The Wentworths brought their suit under federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Thus, for the Court to retain jurisdiction absent the Wentworths’ claims, Hedson must be able to raise his counterclaims under independent federal question jurisdiction. Hedson’s breach-of-lease counterclaim arises under state law and therefore does not present an independent federal question.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a petition to compel arbitration depends on the underlying plaintiff’s claim; a defense or counterclaim does not establish it.

Nakiwala v. Velocity Investments, LLC · filed 2025-05-29

Further, whether subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is determined by the nature of the plaintiff’s claim in the underlying action (Velocity)—not a defense or counterclaim by the defendant (Ms. Nakiwala).

Section 1331 jurisdiction depends on the plaintiff’s claim, not a defense or counterclaim.

80 Fountain Street, LLC v. Cronan · filed 2025-04-17

However, whether subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is determined by the nature of the plaintiff’s claim—not a defense or counterclaim by the defendants.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the original plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a counterclaim or third-party complaint cannot create federal-question jurisdiction.

Cross Country Bank v. McGraw · filed 2004-06-15

However, this Court fails to find a distinction between a counterclaim and a third-party complaint that would enable a cause of action contained in the latter to create federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331’s arising-under jurisdiction cannot rest on a defendant’s federal counterclaim, including one allegedly preempted by ERISA.

Aetna Health, Inc. v. Kirshner · filed 2006-02-16

Although Holmes Group was concerned with federal patent law jurisdiction, the same reasoning applies with equal force to “arising under” jurisdiction under § 1331. ... Thus, whether Kirshner’s counterclaim may require the state court to “interpret” the terms of an ERISA plan document, ... is irrelevant because Kirshner’s counterclaim is insufficient to create federal “arising under” jurisdiction.

Section 1331’s well-pleaded complaint rule requires a federal question to appear in the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal counterclaim cannot supply jurisdiction for removal.

UTrue, Inc. v. Page One Science, Inc. · filed 2006-10-24

It is pellucidly clear that the term “claim or cause of action within the jurisdiction conferred by section 1331” in § 1441(c) does not embrace counterclaims, since the well-pleaded complaint rule is a construction of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a federal counterclaim cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Beane v. Beane, et al. · filed 2008-04-18

But, even s o , Holmes requires rejection of the argument that defendants’ counterclaims establish federal- question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a federal claim appears only in a counterclaim or third-party complaint and not in the original pleading.

Cohn v. Charles · filed 2012-01-30

Even if the Trustees and Nationstar were “defendants” in the state proceeding, inasmuch as the federal question arises only from the Counterclaim and Third Party Complaint — not from the Order to Docket — the Court lacks jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s original cause of action; federal defenses and counterclaims do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Town of Southold v. Go Green Sanitation, Inc. · filed 2013-06-12

The Section 1331 federal question determination requires a limited inquiry, looking only at the Plaintiffs original cause of action to ascertain whether it includes a federal question while ignoring any and all answers, defenses and counterclaims.

Section 1331 does not support removal when the complaint states no federal claim and federal jurisdiction is asserted only through a related federal defense, counterclaim, or pending action.

Sovereign Bank, N.A. v. Lee · filed 2013-09-12

Where, as here, no federal claim is stated on the face of Plaintiffs complaint, and the only basis asserted for removal is a claim of a related federal defense, counterclaim or other pending action, the matter is properly remanded to the state court.

Federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331 is determined from the well-pleaded complaint and cannot rest on a federal counterclaim.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Baxter · filed 2013-09-18

In other words, under Section 1441(a), “determining whether a particular case arises under federal law turns on” what is contained within the “well-pleaded complaint.” ... In Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831, 122 S.Ct. 1889, 1894, 153 L.Ed.2d 13 (2002), the Court stated that “a counterclaim — which appears as part of the defendant’s answer, not as part of the plaintiffs complaint — cannot serve as the basis for ‘arising under’ jurisdiction.” ... Wells Fargo could not remove the case under Section 1441(a).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint relying exclusively on state law merely because a defendant asserts a federal defense or counterclaim.

Green Tree Servicing LLC v. Dillard · filed 2015-02-27

Consequently, because the face of Plaintiffs Complaint identifies no federal question, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, irrespective of Defendants’ reliance upon a federal defense and/or assertion of a federal counterclaim.

Under § 1331, a federal counterclaim cannot establish arising-under jurisdiction when the complaint raises only state-law claims.

Van Scyoc v. Equitrans, L.P. · filed 2015-03-23

Nor can the Defendants’ eminent domain counterclaim provide a basis for removal or otherwise support subject matter jurisdiction in this Court as of the time of removal, or now. The well-pleaded complaint rule prohibits a federal counterclaim from serving as the basis for a district court’s “arising under” jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on a defendant’s federal counterclaim when the plaintiff’s complaint raises only state-law claims.

Abraham v. Smith · filed 2016-03-07

Moreover, Defendants’ assertion of a counterclaim arising under federal law or the Constitution is insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction. ... Consequently, the Court does not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331’s well-pleaded-complaint rule prevents a federal counterclaim from supplying arising-under jurisdiction.

Erdman v. Falkner · filed 2019-04-09

Based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Holmes Group, Inc., Defendants’ request to file a supplement to their response to the pending Motion to Remand to address the jurisdictional effect of their counterclaims would run counter to the longstanding well-pleaded-complaint-rule.

Section 1331 requires a federal basis in the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal counterclaim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Bank of New York v. Consiglio · filed 2019-08-01

Although he refers to himself as the plaintiff, or sometimes the “purported defendant,” it is clear that the Defendant’s “complaint” is a counterclaim. And as this Court (Haight, J.) has already held, “counterclaims, even if they rely exclusively on federal substantive law, do not qualify a case for federal-court cognizance.”

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a federal defense or counterclaim does not establish jurisdiction.

Broadway Vistas v. Larnenta Porter · filed 2019-08-02

There is no federal question jurisdiction even if Defendants have alleged an actual or anticipated federal defense to the claim or a counterclaim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the only federal-law claim appears in a counterclaim.

Kokosing Construction Company, Inc. v. Local 860 Laborers' International Union of North America · filed 2019-08-14

Even though Defendant seeks relief in the Counterclaim for Breach of Contract under 29 U.S.C. § 185, that is legally insufficient to justify the exercise of federal jurisdiction when the “arising under” basis resides in the Counterclaim only.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint presents a federal cause of action or a state-law claim dependent on a substantial federal question; a defendant’s counterclaim cannot supply that basis.

Uber USA LLC v. Cooper · filed 2019-09-27

Federal question jurisdiction arises from cases in which a plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint establishes a cause of action either arising out of federal law or where Plaintiff’s state law claim depends on a substantial question of federal law. ... But Plaintiff’s state court petition, which is the controlling document for purposes of federal question jurisdiction, asserts none of these federal issues, and Defendants’ counterclaim cannot form the basis for removal.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction cannot rest on an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim; the plaintiff’s complaint must show a federal basis for the claim.

(PS)(UD)Barzgar v. Paysinger · filed 2019-10-22

Federal question jurisdiction cannot be based on an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense, counterclaim, or reliance on federal law in an answer does not establish jurisdiction.

McKinley Berendo, LLC v. Carpo · filed 2019-10-24

There is no federal question jurisdiction even if there is a federal defense to the claim or a counterclaim arising under federal law or if Defendants’ Answer purports to rely on federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense, counterclaim, or demurrer invoking federal law does not establish jurisdiction.

William Penn Ventures, LLC v. Lamb · filed 2019-11-06

There is no federal question jurisdiction even if there is a federal defense to the claim or a counterclaim arising under federal law or if Defendant’s Demurrer purports to rely on federal law.

Section 1331 does not allow a defendant’s counterclaim to establish federal-question jurisdiction; the federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

LVNV Funding LLC v. Hall · filed 2019-11-22

Moreover, a counterclaim cannot be a basis for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal counterclaim cannot supply jurisdiction.

Mendez v. Moonridge Neighborhood Association Inc · filed 2019-12-11

This is the complaint that must contain a federal question for this Court to have jurisdiction. ... Further, Mendez’s counterclaims cannot supply this Court with jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense or counterclaim cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction.

(UD)(PS) OREP 2927 Marconi, LLC v. Essilfie · filed 2019-12-13

The instant Complaint therefore relies solely on California state law and does not state any claims under federal law. As articulated above, removal cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim raising a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a federal defense or counterclaim cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction.

(UD)(PS) Wasatch Pool Holdings, LLC v. Cooper · filed 2020-01-21

The instant Complaint therefore relies solely on California state law and does not state any claims under federal law. Based on the well-pleaded complaint rule as articulated above, removal cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim raising a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s complaint asserts only a state-law claim, even if the defendant raises a federal defense or counterclaim.

(UD)(PS)Arbor Pointe, LLC v. Strong · filed 2020-01-22

Because plaintiff’s complaint is not based upon federal law, the court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the action.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction in a removed case depends on the allegations in the underlying complaint, not an answer or counterclaim.

Mendez v. Moonridge Neighborhood Association Inc · filed 2020-02-11

Without opposing authority, the Court’s previous decision is plainly correct; a federal court must base its jurisdiction in a removal off the facts and allegations contained in the underlying complaint, not in an answer or a counter-complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense or counterclaim to a state-law claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

(PS) Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. McMahon · filed 2020-02-12

Thus, while Defendants seem to contend in the Notice of Removal that Plaintiffs have violated federal law, this assertion relates only to an affirmative defense or potential counterclaim, which cannot be considered in evaluating whether a federal question appears on the face of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a federal defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim does not establish jurisdiction.

(PS) Bynum v. County of Siskiyou Board of Supervisors · filed 2020-02-21

Based on the well-pleaded complaint rule articulated above, removal cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim raising a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; an affirmative defense or potential counterclaim cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction.

(UD)(PS)Kazerooni v. Torres · filed 2020-03-11

In sum, while Defendant seems to contend that Plaintiff has violated the PTFA, this assertion relates only to an affirmative defense or potential counterclaim, which cannot be considered in evaluating whether a federal question appears on the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Section 1331 requires the complaint itself to show a federal-law basis; an anticipated defense or counterclaim cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction.

(UD)(PS)Hodge v. Glass · filed 2020-03-13

As explained above, defendants’ anticipated defense or counterclaim cannot serve as the basis for federal question jurisdiction. ... Because plaintiff’s complaint does not show that it is based upon federal law, the court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the action.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a federal defense or counterclaim does not create federal-question jurisdiction.

Essex Portfolio, LP v. Taylor · filed 2020-03-19

There is no federal question jurisdiction even if Defendant has alleged an actual or anticipated federal defense to the claim or a counterclaim arising under federal law.

Federal-question jurisdiction requires a federal claim on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a defendant’s federal defenses or counterclaims cannot establish it.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Toggas · filed 2020-03-20

But the Toggases’ newly-invoked defenses or counterclaims cannot support jurisdiction.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is determined from the well-pleaded complaint; a federal defense or counterclaim cannot create it.

Quality Investment Group, Inc. v. Silverman · filed 2020-03-20

Contrary to what Ms. Gawley-Uy indicates in her notice of removal, federal question jurisdiction is lacking. The issue of whether a claim arises under federal law (for purposes of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331) is determined by reference to the well-pleaded complaint. See Catamount, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32160, at *5. A defendant cannot create federal question jurisdiction by raising a defense based on federal law or asserting a counterclaim based on federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a defendant’s federal counterclaim or defenses do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Memphis and Shelby County Office of Construction Code Enforcement v. TI Properties, LLC · filed 2020-04-27

Because the only federal questions raised in this case arise out of Defendant’s apparent constitutional counterclaim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and its several asserted federal constitutional defenses, and because the Complaint presents no federal question on its face that could have allowed the case originally to be filed in federal court, this Court does not have removal jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a federal counterclaim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Coffee County Board of Commissioners v. McVeigh · filed 2020-06-03

However, it is well-settled that federal claims raised as part of a counterclaim are not sufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over counterclaims that allege only state-law causes of action.

Court of Master Sommeliers Americas v. Broshious · filed 2025-10-08

The complaint must show that the claim is one “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, Defendants’ allegations do not assert that Plaintiff has violated a federal statute or constitutional provision. Instead, Defendants allege state law causes of action for Intentional Interference with Contract Relations and Breach of Contract. Therefore, there is no federal-question jurisdiction over Defendants’ claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the only federal law cited is the Declaratory Judgment Act, which supplies no independent jurisdictional basis.

Landers v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC (JRG1) · filed 2020-07-09

The only provision of federal law Plaintiff cites is the Declaratory Judgment Act, which does not provide an independent basis for subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires the plaintiff’s own well-pleaded claim to present the federal question; an anticipated federal defense does not create arising-under jurisdiction, including in a declaratory-judgment action.

Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. · filed 1950-06-05

The plaintiff’s claim itself must present a federal question “unaided by anything alleged in anticipation of avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose.”

In a declaratory-judgment action, federal-question jurisdiction depends on the nature of the threatened action, not a federal defense asserted preemptively by the declaratory plaintiff.

WR Grace & Co. v. Union Carbide Corporation · filed 1970-09-25

Since in a declaratory judgment action it is the nature of the impending state action which determines whether federal-question jurisdiction exists, and since it is well established that an action on a patent license agreement for royalties does not arise under the patent laws, this Court is without jurisdiction of the instant action. That is, since Grace has essentially asserted a defense to the pending state action of Carbide for royalties due under the license agreement, “federal-question jurisdiction” is obviously lacking.

Section 1331 does not support declaratory or injunctive jurisdiction where the federal issue would arise only as a defense to a threatened state proceeding.

Allegheny Airlines, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission · filed 1972-07-21(a)

We believe that the district court correctly determined that § 1331 jurisdiction was lacking, even though the issue may not be completely laid to rest.

Section 1331 does not support declaratory jurisdiction when the federal issue would arise only as a defense to a threatened state-law action.

Safeguard Mut. Ins. Co. v. Commonwealth of Pa. · filed 1974-03-08

Clearly, the Insurance Commissioner’s state court complaint would raise no federal question; a federal question would enter the case, if at all, only when such question is interposed by Safeguard as a defense to the complaint of the Insurance Commissioner. In view of such circumstances, jurisdiction is lacking here.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint; for a declaratory action against a private party, the court examines the complaint that party could have filed.

City of Beloit v. Local 643 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Afl-Cio · filed 2001-04-20

In a declaratory judgment action, the well-pleaded complaint rule requires this court to determine whether a federal question would be present on the face of a complaint by the declaratory defendant in a presumed suit against the declaratory plaintiff, unless the declaratory defendant is a government entity.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a declaratory judgment plaintiff invokes tribal immunity as a defense to underlying state-law claims.

Oglala Sioux Tribe v. C & W Enterprises · filed 2007-06-11

The existence of a tribal immunity defense, for example, will not convert a claim based on state law into a federal cause of action, even though tribal immunity is a matter of federal common law and even if it might potentially resolve the case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the claimed federal issue is only a defense, including a defense asserted through a declaratory judgment action against a threatened state-law suit.

Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians v. State of Washington · filed 2019-01-22

The Tribe invokes federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides for jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, federal question jurisdiction exists only if the plaintiff’s cause of action is based on federal law. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987). Neither a defense based on federal law nor a plaintiff’s anticipation of such a defense is a basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment request based on state law that does not arise under federal law.

Purgatory Recreation I v. United States · filed 2025-10-21

We conclude this request based on state law does not arise under federal law, so the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over it.

Section 1331 supports jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action when the defendant could bring a coercive claim arising under a federal statute.

Nicholas J. Janakes, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. United States Postal Service · filed 1985-08-15

Thus, we hold that section 8132 creates a right of action on which the government may base a claim for reimbursement in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law defamation claim merely because the defendant raises LMRA preemption as a defense; absent complete preemption, the federal question must appear in the complaint.

Messina v. Tri-Gas Inc. · filed 1993-02-12

A defendant’s ability to remove an action from state court is further restricted by the well-pleaded complaint rule; federal question jurisdiction exists only if the federal question is presented on the face of the complaint. Actions may not be removed on the basis of a federal defense such as preemption even if the defense is anticipated in the complaint and both parties concede that it is the only question at issue.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law complaint merely because the defendant may raise an ERISA preemption defense; removal requires applicable complete preemption.

Cannon v. Sheller · filed 1993-06-28

In deciding whether the case properly was removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (relating to federal question jurisdiction), the court first noted that the complaint — like the complaint here at issue — did not rely in any respect on federal law. Based thereon, and in accordance with the well-pleaded complaint rule, it held that "the mere fact that the Plan may have a preemption defense does not alone permit removal." 879 F.2d at 93. That holding is equally applicable to the case at bar.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the defendant raises an ERISA preemption defense; the federal basis must appear in the complaint or arise through complete preemption.

Lupo v. Human Affairs International, Inc. · filed 1994-06-30

The well-pleaded-complaint rule confines the search for a basis of federal question jurisdiction to “what necessarily appears in the plaintiffs statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided by anything alleged in anticipation or avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose.” ... While HAI defends against the action by arguing that Lupo’s claims are preempted by ERISA, this ERISA issue is not raised directly in Lupo’s complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting only state-law claims when neither artful pleading nor complete preemption applies.

KVHP TV PARTNERS, LTD. v. Channel 12 of Beaumont, Inc. · filed 1995-01-04

As such, no federal question exists on the face of plaintiffs' complaint and the artful pleading exception does not apply. ... Here, plaintiffs' state actions do not arise under federal law and do not fall within the complete preemption exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the defendant raises an FCRA preemption defense; absent complete preemption, a federal question must appear on the face of the complaint.

Harper v. TRW, INC. · filed 1995-03-31

A court has federal question jurisdiction over an action when that action “arises under” the Constitution or law of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The foregoing discussion makes clear that, while Defendant TRW may have an FCRA preemption defense to Plaintiffs invasion of privacy claims, the FCRA does not provide for the removal of the claims. Thus, removal of this action must be decided by application of the “well-pleaded complaint” rule. ... For these reasons, the Court finds that Defendant’s removal of this action was improper and Plaintiffs motion to remand must be granted.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that do not arise under federal law; a preemption defense alone does not permit removal, and complete preemption must apply to recharacterize the claims as federal.

Weinberg v. Sprint Corp. · filed 1996-04-10

The Court therefore finds that this action was removed without federal question jurisdiction for three reasons: 1) the causes of action set forth in plaintiffs complaint do not “arise under” federal law; 2) a defense of preemption may not be a basis for removal; and 3) the action does not fall within the doctrine of complete preemption.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because a federal statute may apply or supply a preemption defense; the federal question must appear on the face of the complaint unless complete preemption converts the claims into federal claims.

Jackson v. Bank One · filed 1996-07-31

Because the complete pre-emption doctrine does not convert the plaintiffs state-law claims into claims under the TILA and because a defendant may not remove a case based upon a federal pre-emption defense, the court finds the defendants have failed to establish that the complaint on its face pleads a federal question. In other words, the court does not have original jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 requires the federal question to arise from the plaintiff’s own claim; complete preemption can create jurisdiction, but a federal preemption defense alone cannot.

Pauley v. Ford Electronics and Refrigeration Corp. · filed 1996-08-16

Although the tests are the same for determining both “ordinary” preemption and “complete” or “jurisdictional” preemption, the difference is that the latter is subject to the well-pleaded complaint rule. Thus, this court will look solely to the claims in plaintiff’s complaint in determining whether it has subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the only federal issue is a defense and complete preemption does not apply.

City of Park City v. Rural Water District No. 2, Sedgwick County · filed 1997-04-16

Plaintiffs claim relied exclusively on state law and could not have been filed here originally. The only federal issue arises by way of a defense to the plaintiffs claim. The complete preemption doctrine is a narrow exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule and should not be applied to the facts of the present case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because an ERISA preemption defense is asserted; absent complete preemption, the complaint itself must present a federal question.

STONEWALL JACKSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL v. American United Life Insurance Company · filed 1997-04-30

Moreover, the defendants’ assertion that these claims are preempted by § 514(a) of ERISA is merely a defense to such claims and therefore insufficient, in and of itself, to establish federal question jurisdiction under the auspices of the “well-pleaded complaint rule.”

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint, unless complete preemption converts a state-law claim into a federal one.

Balcorta v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. · filed 2000-04-06

The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint. ... In such instances, any claim purportedly based on that preempted state law is considered, from its inception, a federal claim, and therefore arises under federal law. ... Because § 301 of the LMRA does not completely preempt Balcorta’s claims under § 201.5 of the California Labor Code, the district court correctly concluded that his case should be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Federal-question jurisdiction does not arise merely because a plaintiff could have asserted a federal claim but chose to plead state-law claims, absent complete preemption or a substantial, disputed federal issue necessary to a state-law claim.

Blakeley v. United Cable System · filed 2000-06-22

Furthermore, a plaintiff desirous of avoiding a federal forum is generally permitted to forego available federal claims and rely exclusively on state law in order to stay in state court, unless her putative state law claims are either completely preempted by federal law or it appears that some substantial, disputed question of federal law is a necessary element of at least one of her state law claims.

Section 1331 permits removal based on a federal question in the well-pleaded complaint, including a state-law claim made federal through complete preemption.

Barton v. Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance · filed 2001-01-18

As a general rule, federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 only exists when the plaintiffs well-pleaded complaint raises an issue of federal law. ... Therefore, the Court finds that the doctrine of complete preemption, under which this Court could maintain jurisdiction over this case upon its removal from state court, has not been implicated, and that the case should be remanded to the state court in which it was originally filed.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when a federal question appears on the face of the complaint or complete preemption makes state claims necessarily invoke federal law.

Colorado Ex Rel. Salazar v. ACE Cash Express, Inc. · filed 2002-03-04

Thus, the Complaint presents no federal question on its face. ... Under the doctrine of “complete preemption,” a complaint that alleges only state law causes of action may be removed when the state claims necessarily invoke a federal law. ... Accordingly, I find that Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant, as set forth in the Complaint, do not evoke the NBA.