28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the Montreal Convention limits their remedies; the treaty must completely preempt those claims.

Ebnother v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · filed 2020-12-10

Claim preemption only implicates the effect of an affirmative defense; whereas, complete preemption creates federal question jurisdiction. ... This Court finds the reasoning of those district courts’ persuasive and concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims based on an anticipated federal preemption defense when the federal law does not completely preempt those claims.

Perez v. Sierra Mountain Express, Inc. · filed 2021-01-12

Removal pursuant to § 1331 is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” which provides that federal question jurisdiction exists only when “a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” ... Because the Court finds the MCSA is not a statute with extraordinary preemptive force, Defendants’ argument for removal jurisdiction based on complete preemption fails.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim through ERISA complete preemption when the benefit program is not an ERISA plan.

Syrowik v. Vineyards Development Corporation · filed 2021-01-12

Because the Program is not an ERISA plan, “the doctrine of complete preemption is inapplicable and no federal question jurisdiction exists.” Stern, 326 F.3d at 1374.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim based on a federal preemption defense unless the federal statute completely preempts the claim by providing an exclusive cause of action.

Hardwick v. Hoovestol, Inc. · filed 2021-01-19

Section 31141 is not one of these statutes. It does not provide any private right of action, much less the exclusive cause of action. ... The Court therefore does not have federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction through complete preemption when the asserted federal statute preserves the state-law claim under its safety exception.

Grant v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC · filed 2021-01-28

Federal courts have jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Because the FAAAA’s safety exception, Section 14501(c)(2)(A), precludes complete preemption, the Court need not address the parties’ other arguments.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction through complete preemption when the federal statute provides immunity from state law claims but no substitute federal cause of action.

Lyons v. Cucmber Holdings, LLC · filed 2021-02-03

Second, the PREP Act does not provide a substitute cause of action for Plaintiff's claims. Instead, when applicable, the PREP Act provides immunity to defendants on state law claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the defendant fails to show that federal law completely preempts it.

Ettedgui v. WB Studio Enterprises Inc. · filed 2021-02-18

The Court thus declines to recharacterize Plaintiff’s meal period claim as arising under federal law based on this theory.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the Montreal Convention does not completely preempt them.

Sun Coast Merchandise Corp. v. Hecny Transportation, Inc. · filed 2021-02-22

Thus, because Sun Coast alleges only state law claims, and because Hecny has not established that the Montreal Convention completely preempts state law, the Court finds that Hecny has failed to establish that federal question jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when federal law completely preempts it; a provider’s claims based on independent duties outside an ERISA plan do not arise under federal law on that basis.

Soba Living LLC v. California Physicians Service · filed 2021-03-02

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. Id. (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987)). ... Consequently, because Plaintiffs’ state-law claims could not have been brought under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), and are based on independent legal duties, they are not completely preempted. See Davila, 542 U.S. at 210. Accordingly, removal was improper, and the Court hereby REMANDS this action to the state court.

Section 1331 treats a state-law claim as arising under federal law when a federal statute completely preempts the claim.

Evon Smith v. Colonial Care Center, Inc. · filed 2021-03-19

Under the complete preemption doctrine, however, a state law claim is treated as arising under federal law if it is completely preempted by federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal statute does not completely preempt those claims.

Maltbia v. Big Blue Healthcare, Inc. · filed 2021-03-30

Congress has not completely preempted any of this plaintiff’s state law claims. Because that exception to the “well-pleaded complaint” rule does not apply here, the court cannot conclude that plaintiff brings a “civil action[ ] arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.12 Thus, § 1331 cannot provide a statutory basis for the court to exercise “original jurisdiction” over the action.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction on removal when there is a plausible claim of complete preemption of a state-law cause of action.

CONSTANTINO v. SHAWS SUPERMARKETS INC · filed 2021-04-09

In any event, where the case for complete preemption is plausible, in effect a state law cause of action is treated as arising under federal law for jurisdictional purposes, at least for purposes of removal to evaluate the complete preemption question. Lawless v. Steward Health Care Sys., LLC, 894 F.3d 9, 17-18 (1st Cir. 2018). That standard is met here.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on ERISA preemption when the underlying claim is not completely preempted.

Estate of Peter Goudreau, through its Administrator Jeffrey Goudreau v. Estate of Linda Faye Goudreau, through its Admin · filed 2021-04-16

Because the claim advanced by Peter’s Estate does not satisfy the Davila test, the claim is not completely preempted by ERISA. As such, there is no federal question before the Court, which means the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this claim, and the Court must dismiss this case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim on a complete-preemption theory when the asserted federal statute is not a complete-preemption statute.

Evans v. Melbourne Terrace RCC, LLC · filed 2021-04-29

However, the PREP Act is not a complete preemption statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a California Code of Civil Procedure § 1800 claim on the theory that the Bankruptcy Code completely preempts it.

Genius Fund I ABC, LLC v. Shinder · filed 2021-05-26

For the same reasons the Viz Media LLC and Spector courts concluded a Section 1800 claim is not completely preempted by federal bankruptcy law, the Court rejects Defendants’ arguments that Plaintiff’s Section 1800 claim is preempted completely and confers federal question subject matter jurisdiction here.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a federal statute wholly displaces that claim through complete preemption.

Interstate Service Provider, Inc. v. Jordan · filed 2021-06-09

“Under the artful-pleading doctrine, a federal court may have federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim in only two circumstances,” the relevant one here being “when a federal statute wholly displaces the state-law cause of action through complete pre-emption.”

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

Rose v. RTN Federal Credit Union · filed 2021-06-10

A defendant may remove a case to federal court under federal question jurisdiction by virtue of complete preemption — a jurisdictional doctrine that operates when "the pre-emptive force of a [federal] statute is so 'extraordinary' that it 'converts an ordinary state common-law complaint into one stating a federal claim.'" Id. at 393 (quoting Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 65 (1987)).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law usury claims against a nonbank through FDIA § 27 complete preemption, even assuming that provision completely preempts such claims against state-chartered banks.

District of Columbia v. Elevate Credit, Inc. · filed 2021-07-15

For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that even if Section 27 of the FDIA completely preempts state law usury claims against state-chartered banks, it does not completely preempt the District’s claims against Elevate, a non- bank entity. Accordingly, Section 27 does not provide a basis for removal of this action to federal court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law employment claims through complete preemption when resolving the claims does not require interpreting a collective bargaining agreement.

Moore v. DNATA US INFLIGHT CATERING LLC · filed 2021-07-19

So too for dnata’s alternative theory of removal on federal question subject matter jurisdiction. ... Removal is appropriate only when a case presents a federal question, or involves diversity of citizenship and meets the statutory amount in controversy. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. ... Because dnata has not shown that an interpretation of a labor contract is necessary to decide Moore’s state law claims, complete preemption does not apply.

A federal preemption defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim absent complete preemption.

The People of the State of California v. Credit One Bank, N.A. · filed 2021-07-23

Even if Defendant may set forth a colorable preemption defense, absent a showing of complete preemption, Defendant’s removal is improper.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim that is facially independent of a collective bargaining agreement and therefore not completely preempted by the LMRA.

PELLOT v. GGB LLC · filed 2021-07-30

Because preemption provided the sole basis for federal jurisdiction in this case, and because Plaintiff has raised a state law claim that is facially not preempted, the Court lacks jurisdiction and must remand this case to state court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction through complete preemption when the asserted federal statute supplies an administrative remedy rather than an exclusive federal cause of action.

Rivera-Zayas v. Our Lady of Consolation Geriatric Care Center · filed 2021-08-11

As Dupervil explains in detail, however, the PREP Act establishes an administrative remedy in the first instance and therefore does not create an exclusive federal cause of action. ... That reasoning and conclusion hold equally true here.

Section 1331 does not give federal-question jurisdiction over state-law medical malpractice claims through complete preemption by the PREP Act, which does not provide an exclusive federal cause of action for those claims.

Leroy v. Hume · filed 2021-08-12

Similarly, here, the PREP Act does not give this court original jurisdiction over the claims within its scope.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim based solely on ERISA conflict preemption; complete preemption is required.

Hyla v. Bezou · filed 2021-08-23

Thus, the mere presence of conflict preemption does not raise a federal question.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction through complete preemption only when federal law replaces the asserted state-law claims with federal causes of action covering the same subject matter.

Hernandez-Ortiz v. Holsum de Puerto Rico Inc · filed 2021-08-30

But Section 564 does not satisfy this requirement, for there is no shared subject matter between that section of the FDCA and the unlawful discharge and discrimination due to age claims under Puerto Rico law as advanced by Plaintiff Hernández-Ortiz in her Amended Complaint.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that present no federal question under the well-pleaded complaint rule and are not completely preempted.

Dorsett v. Highlands Lake Center, LLC · filed 2021-08-31

Accordingly, because Dorsett’s complaint does not raise any question arising under federal law such that it overtakes the well-pleaded complaint rule, federal question jurisdiction is not implicated.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction over state law claims when the PREP Act supplies only a federal preemption defense and does not completely preempt those claims.

Martinez v. Spruce Holdings, LLC · filed 2021-08-31

This Court agrees with the majority position and finds that the PREP Act does not completely preempt Martinez’s claims. As such, the PREP Act merely supports a defense of federal preemption, which does not support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction through complete preemption only when Congress displaces a state-law cause of action and provides a substitute federal cause of action; the PREP Act does not completely preempt these claims.

Palamides v. Silverado Senior Living, Inc. · filed 2021-09-14

The Ninth Circuit has “held that complete preemption for purposes of federal jurisdiction under § 1331 exists when Congress: (1) intended to displace a state-law cause of action, and (2) provided a substitute cause of action.” Id. at 906. ... Even if Plaintiff’s claims did fall within the scope of the PREP Act, that statute is not one of complete preemption.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction through complete preemption when the PREP Act provides no exclusive federal cause of action for the state-law claims.

In Re: Silverado Senior Living, Inc · filed 2021-09-14

Even if Plaintiffs’ claims did fall within the scope of the PREP Act, that statute is not one of complete preemption.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims through complete preemption by the PREP Act.

Ringo v. Silverado Senior Living, Inc. · filed 2021-09-14

Even if Plaintiffs’ claims did fall within the scope of the PREP Act, that statute is not one of complete preemption.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that raise no federal question when complete preemption does not apply.

Turner v. The Bristol at Tampa Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, LLC · filed 2021-09-20

Accordingly, because Turner’s complaint does not raise any question arising under federal law, federal question jurisdiction is not implicated.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal statute invoked as the basis for jurisdiction does not completely preempt those claims.

Martin v. Petersen Health Operations, LLC · filed 2021-09-22

Given that the PREP Act does not completely preempt either of Plaintiff’s claims, Defendant cannot establish federal question jurisdiction on that basis.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction through complete ERISA preemption when the removing party fails to show an ERISA plan that could support the plaintiff’s federal claim.

APARICIO v. COPPER RIVER SALON, LLC · filed 2021-10-29

Section 1331 of Title 28 provides that district courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... One recognized exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule is the doctrine of complete preemption. ... Here, Tyrrell does not show the fundamental ingredient for ERISA preemption: an ERISA plan. ... After careful consideration, the Court finds that Tyrrell has not met her heavy burden of showing that her case is properly before the federal court.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction over a removed state-law claim through complete preemption under the PREP Act only when the claim involves covered countermeasures.

Singer v. Montefiore · filed 2021-12-27

Because Section 247d-6d(a) extends immunity to all claims under federal and State law for loss relating to covered countermeasures, complete preemption for removal purposes turns on Defendants’ use of covered countermeasures in the first instance.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when complete preemption makes it a federal claim, but doubts about whether the claim is completely preempted require remand.

Hester v. Whatever It Takes Transmissions & Parts, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan · filed 2022-01-07

“To determine whether a case arises federal law within the meaning of § 1331, the Court must ascertain if a federal cause of action would appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.” ... The Supreme Court has created a limited exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule: the complete preemption doctrine. ... Because the Plan could be interpreted either as a Top Hat plan or a bonus plan, the Court must remand this case back to state Court.

Section 1331 supports complete-preemption jurisdiction only if the state-law claims fall within the scope of an exclusive federal cause of action.

Kulhanek v. Atria Rancho Penasquitos · filed 2022-01-13

In other words, in order for jurisdiction to exist under the complete preemption doctrine, a court must determine that the plaintiffs could have brought their claims under the PREP Act’s specific cause of action for willful misconduct.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction over a removed state-law claim when ERISA completely preempts it: the plaintiff could have brought the claim under ERISA § 502(a), and no independent legal duty is implicated.

FELDMAN v. NATIONAL BENEFITS NETWORK, INC. · filed 2022-01-13

As a result, state law causes of action in a complaint are completely preempted by ERISA and therefore removable to federal court only when (1) plaintiff could have brought his claim under ERISA § 502(a) (29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)), and (2) no other independent legal duty is implicated by a defendant’s actions. ... Because the Court finds that Defendants have met their burden of establishing removal jurisdiction under both Davila prongs, Mr. Feldman’s Motion to Remand will be DENIED.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the Railway Labor Act may apply; the Act does not completely preempt those claims.

Boyle v. United Parcel Service Co. (Air) · filed 2022-01-14

While the RLA may ultimately have application in this case, a question we do not decide, such proposed application does not provide a valid basis for removal under federal question jurisdiction in the Sixth Circuit.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because federal law may preempt them; complete preemption is required.

Moeller v. Holland LP · filed 2022-02-09

But that a state law may be preempted by federal law does not in and of itself mean that the competing state law is completely preempted such that claims brought under it present a federal question.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint pleading only state-law claims when at least one claim is completely preempted by a federal statute.

Crupi v. Heights of Summerlin, LLC · filed 2022-02-17

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, district courts have federal question subject matter jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... However, district courts may retain federal question subject matter jurisdiction in cases alleging purely state law claims in limited circumstances where at least one state law claim is completely preempted by a federal statute. ... Therefore, complete preemption is not an avenue to federal question jurisdiction in this case, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is granted.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims based on ancillary references to protective equipment when the claims do not concern covered countermeasures under the PREP Act.

Huntingon v. Yate Holdings, LLC · filed 2022-02-18

The complaint’s ancillary references to PPE are insufficient to convert Huntingon’s purely state-law claims into federal ones based on the PREP Act.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction through the PREP Act over state-law negligence claims that allege no use of a covered countermeasure.

LaMonica v. Heights of Summerlin, LLC · filed 2022-02-23

This rule provides that district courts can exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 only when a federal question appears on the face of a well-pleaded complaint. ... Even assuming that Heights of Summerlin is a “covered person” under the statute and that the PREP Act enjoys “complete preemption” status,2 it is immaterial since LaMonica’s state law tort claims do not include the alleged use of any “covered countermeasures” as defined under the Act—nor does Heights of Summerlin point to any such countermeasures in LaMonica’s complaint. (ECF No. 1-2).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because federal law may preempt it; complete preemption is required to treat the claim as federal.

BMW AUTO SALES, INC. v. RED WOLF LOGISTICS, LLC · filed 2022-03-02

Because Defendant fails to argue or cite authority that the FAAAA completely preempts Plaintiff’s state-law claims, Defendant does not meet its burden of establishing the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim through ERISA complete preemption only when the claim lacks an independent legal duty.

SAME DAY PROCEDURES, LLC v. UNITED HEALTHCARE INS. CO. · filed 2022-03-17

To determine whether a complaint alleges a federal question, courts are generally guided by the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, wherein “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” ... Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff sufficiently alleges an oral contract that created an independent legal duty removing Plaintiff’s state law claims from the scope of ERISA’s § 502(a) complete preemption.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that are neither founded on rights created by a collective bargaining agreement nor substantially dependent on interpreting one, because the LMRA does not completely preempt those claims.

Division of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Save Mart Supermarkets · filed 2022-03-21

Here, as discussed in detail below, the Save Mart Employees’ right to paid sick days on which the Division sues exists independently from the CBAs and does not substantially depend on an analysis of the CBAs. Accordingly, the LMRA does not preempt the Division’s causes of action. The claims are pure state-law claims, and the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

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

Tur v. Nettleton · filed 2022-04-26

As such, the state law claims presented by Plaintiffs remain state law claims which provide no basis for an exercise of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331’s grant of subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law.

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

C Evans Consulting LLC v. Sortino Financial, LLC · filed 2022-05-16

Federal question jurisdiction also exists where a state law claim asserted by a plaintiff is completely preempted by federal law. ... Because all three Sonoco elements are satisfied, Plaintiffs’ claims are completely preempted by ERISA, giving this Court federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims based solely on an ordinary federal preemption defense; without a federal claim on the face of the complaint or complete preemption, remand is appropriate.

Cochran v. Newrez LLC · filed 2022-05-19

While the FCRA may provide the defense of preemption, such ordinary preemption does not make removal proper. Where, as here, no federal cause of action appears on the face of the well-pleaded complaint, remand is appropriate.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal law invoked does not completely preempt them.

Hrones v. Rideout Memorial Hospital · filed 2022-06-10

The hospital has not shown any of Ms. Hrones’s claims are preempted under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, so her complaint raises no federal question. For that reason, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction when complete preemption makes a claim framed under state law rest on federal law.

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

... examining what the union knew and agreed to also means that United was entitled to remove the suit to federal court under the federal-question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state negligence claims on a PREP Act complete-preemption theory when those claims cannot be brought under the Act’s willful-misconduct cause of action.

Estate of Randolph Wichlacz v. Country Villa Assisted Living in Pulaski Inc · filed 2022-06-27

Bound by Seventh Circuit precedent, and further persuaded by the reasoning of the Third, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits, the Court reaches the same conclusion here: Plaintiffs’ state law claims are not preempted because they could not have brought their claims under the PREP Act’s cause of action for willful misconduct. ... Country Villa has failed to establish that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action and that removal was proper.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over these state-law nursing-home claims on a complete-preemption theory because the PREP Act does not completely preempt state law.

Sigala v. Oxnard Manor, LP · filed 2022-06-27

For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Remand. ... This case presents nearly identical issues as Saldana v. Glenhaven Healthcare, LLC, a recent Ninth Circuit case analyzing whether the PREP Act qualifies as a complete preemption statute. ... Upon review of the PREP Act, the Ninth Circuit held that as the Act is not a complete preemption statute, the facility was not entitled to removal.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim based on complete preemption only when federal law supplies the exclusive cause of action and its procedures and remedies.

Johnell Harris, Jr. v. Venture Transport, LLC · filed 2022-07-06

A state law cause of action is only completely preempted when “the federal statute[] at issue provide[s] the exclusive cause of action for the claim asserted and also set[s] forth procedures and remedies governing that cause of action.” ... The Court therefore does not have federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim. ... The same reasoning and outcome apply here.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over these state-law negligence and intentional tort claims because the PREP Act does not completely preempt them.

Ravain v. Ochsner Medical Center - Kenner, L.L.C. · filed 2022-08-12

In conclusion, we find that the PREP Act does not completely preempt Plaintiff's claims. Because Defendants have not carried their burden of demonstrating that removal was proper, this action must be remanded.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the removing party fails to establish complete preemption by ERISA.

ERLC, LLC v. Health Care Service Corporation d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas DO NOT DOCKET. Case remanded to C · filed 2022-09-19

Because Blue Cross has failed to satisfy the second prong of the Davila test, it cannot show ERLC’s claim is completely preempted by ERISA. So there is no federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction through complete preemption only when the federal statute supplies a replacement cause of action for the state-law claim.

Byrd v. BNSF Railway Company · filed 2022-09-22

Because defendants have not shown any replacement federal cause of action for Byrd’s negligence per se claim, the court concludes that defendants have failed to establish that the complete preemption doctrine applies, and thus, they have not satisfied their burden of showing that the court may exercise federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law wage claim when LMRA Section 301 does not preempt it.

BALLARD v. BHI ENERGY I SPECIALTY SERVICES LLC · filed 2022-09-26

Although the Court finds herein that the LMRA is not applicable to Plaintiff’s PMWA claim, and that the Court therefore does not have federal question jurisdiction over such claim, the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this matter since the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 and there is complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff (a North Carolina citizen) and BHI (a business corporation being a resident of the State of Massachusetts).

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction through complete preemption when the claims fall outside the scope of the asserted federal statute.

Levert v. Montefiore Home · filed 2022-09-30

Because the allegations in the Complaint do not relate to the administration or use of covered countermeasures, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claims do not fall within the scope of the PREP Act resulting in a lack of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims through PREP Act complete preemption because the Act does not completely preempt state law.

Nemeth v. Montefiore · filed 2022-10-03

A district court has federal question jurisdiction when the action “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treatises of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The PREP Act does not completely preempt state law.

Section 1331 can cover claims pleaded under state law when complete preemption makes them federal in substance.

Dorsey v. Safeway, Inc. · filed 2022-10-05

Although Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges violations of state law, his claims are founded on federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state negligence claim when the asserted federal law does not completely preempt it.

RAMOS v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION · filed 2022-10-13

Accordingly, I conclude that the ACAA and its regulations do not completely preempt Ramos’s negligence claim in Count III, and JetBlue cannot establish federal question jurisdiction on this basis.

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

Healthcare Ally Management of California, LLC v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. · filed 2022-10-25

There is federal question jurisdiction where “a federal statute wholly displaces the state-law cause of action through complete pre-emption.” ... The claims, therefore, are not preempted by ERISA.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction through complete preemption when the PREP Act does not completely preempt the state-law claims.

Estate of Nora Vasquez Acebes v. The Residences at Royal Bellingham Inc · filed 2022-11-09

Plaintiffs’ claims are not completely preempted by the PREP ACT and there is no federal jurisdiction based on complete preemption here.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims through complete preemption unless federal law supplies a cause of action encompassing those claims.

Fisher v. Rome Center LLC · filed 2022-11-15

Rather, Sullivan merely requires Congress to create a federal cause of action that encompasses the asserted state-law claims. ... Accordingly, the Court agrees with Dupervil and its progeny that the PREP Act does not completely preempt Plaintiff’s claims, and thus does not establish federal jurisdiction over the action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over these state-law claims because the PREP Act does not completely preempt them.

Shumlai v. Glad Investments, Inc. · filed 2022-12-13

As to the first basis for removal asserted by defendant Eretz—federal question based on complete preemption—the court rejects defendant Eretz’s argument that the PREP Act preempts plaintiffs’ claims in this action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction through complete preemption when the alleged facts do not show that the plaintiff’s claims arise from an interstate-shipping contract.

Saleh Sportswear, Inc. v. Hercules Forwarding, Inc. · filed 2022-12-27

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under” federal law. Removal based on § 1331 1s governed by the “well-pleaded complaint” rule. ... Here, there are no facts in the Notice of Removal or the Complaint from which the Court can plausibly conclude plaintiff's claims are preempted. ... For the foregoing reason, the Court concludes that Defendant has not met the burden of showing this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim under the artful pleading doctrine when Congress expressly provides for it or federal law completely preempts the claim.

Breland v. Law Office of Debra Jennings, PLLC Case remanded to Probate Court No. 3 of Harris County · filed 2023-02-13

Defendants have failed to show either that Congress has expressly provided for federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims against them or that Plaintiffs’ claims against them have been wholly displaced through complete preemption.

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

GGB Management Company v. J.P. Farley Corporation · filed 2023-02-21

Under the complete preemption doctrine, a federal court will have jurisdiction “when the complaint, on its face, alleges only state law claims but when those claims would also state a cause of action under a federal statute that ‘completely preempts’ an area of state law.” ... Accordingly, GGB’s breach of contract claim is completely preempted.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims based on PREP Act preemption because the Act lacks complete preemptive force.

Springer v. Parker Jewish Institute for Healthcare & Rehabilitation · filed 2023-03-02

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the PREP Act does not confer federal question jurisdiction, warranting remand.

Section 1331 permits federal-question removal based on ERISA complete preemption, but ERISA conflict preemption alone does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Stoddart v. Heavy Metal Iron, Inc. · filed 2023-03-15

Only the complete preemption doctrine under § 502(a) provides a basis for federal question removal jurisdiction; § 514(a) does not.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when federal law completely preempts it, because the claim then arises under federal law.

Alexander v. Bio-Pacific, LLC · filed 2023-03-20

Thus, when federal law completely preempts an area of state law, “any claim purportedly based on that pre-empted state law is considered, from its inception, a federal claim, and therefore arises under federal law.” Id.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims through complete preemption when the federal statute supplies only a potential preemption defense.

Garcia v. Welltower OpCo Group LLC · filed 2023-03-23

Therefore, Saldana forecloses the possibility of exercising federal question jurisdiction over this action based on complete preemption, despite the Garcias having pled a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when ERISA completely preempts a state-law claim by bringing it within ERISA’s civil enforcement provision.

Mallory v. Terminal Investment Corporation · filed 2023-04-20

Thus, Mallory’s two allegations of negligence by defendants in administration of the plan operate as core § 502(a) claims and confer federal question jurisdiction over this action.

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

Stendal v. Memorial Health Services · filed 2023-05-08

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has original jurisdiction over civil claims “arising under” federal law. ... “In other words, a civil complaint raising claims preempted by § 301 raises a federal question that can be removed to a federal court.” ... This Court does as well.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim on an ERISA complete-preemption theory when the plaintiff lacks standing to sue under ERISA § 502(a).

Zhang v. CIGNA Healthcare, Inc. · filed 2023-05-30

For removal to be proper here, CIGNA must therefore demonstrate that Zhang’s state law claims are completely preempted by ERISA’s civil enforcement provision under § 502(a). ... Accordingly, the Court finds that Zhang lacks standing under § 502(a) to pursue a claim, and complete preemption does not exist. Accordingly, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action, has no jurisdiction to consider the Motion to Dismiss, and remands the action to the Circuit Court of Arlington County.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction through complete preemption when the cited federal statute expressly subjects federal government attorneys to state regulation.

In Re: Jeffrey B. Clark · filed 2023-06-08

As to the third, the Court struggles to see anything in a statute that explicitly subjects federal government attorneys to regulation by states that preempts their regulation by states. This case does not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction through complete preemption when no federal statute authorizes a claim vindicating the same interest as the state-law claim.

PLATKIN v. CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. · filed 2023-06-20

Defendants’ preemption argument (ECF No. 1 at 14-27) fails because such an argument requires reliance on the “rare” federal statute that authorizes federal claims “vindicating the same interest as the state claim.” ... Because Defendants pointed to no such statute, that preemption argument is unavailable.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that ERISA completely preempts because the claim arises under federal law.

Graves v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company · filed 2023-06-28

Federal courts have jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Such cases are removable because “when the federal statute completely pre-empts the state-law cause of action, a claim which comes within the scope of that cause of action, even if pleaded in terms of state law, is in reality based on federal law.” Id. at 207-08 (cleaned up). ... Thus, this Court has federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that ERISA does not completely preempt.

Hatfield v. Cordant Health Solutions · filed 2023-06-28

Accordingly, there is no federal question jurisdiction for this Court to assert in this matter because all of Hatfield’s claims rely on state law and there is no complete preemption.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim based on an ordinary preemption defense; complete preemption is required.

Morgan v. Hansen & Adkins Auto Transport, Inc. · filed 2023-07-12

Ordinary preemption, however, does not create federal jurisdiction. ... Given the doubts as to whether Congress intended § 14501(c)(1) of the FAAAA to completely preempt state-law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers, the Court finds there is no federal-question jurisdiction here.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers when the FAAAA does not completely preempt those claims.

Pruitt v. Hansen & Adkins, Inc. · filed 2023-07-12

Given the doubts as to whether Congress intended § 14501(c)(1) of the FAAAA to completely preempt state-law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers, the Court finds there is no federal-question jurisdiction here.

For removal based on preemption, Section 1331 requires complete preemption; an ordinary preemption defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Dunnavant v. Hansen & Adkins Auto Transport, Inc. · filed 2023-07-12

Ordinary preemption, however, does not create federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when section 301 of the LMRA does not completely preempt it.

H Carr & Sons, LLC v. New England Painting · filed 2023-07-13

Because the state-law claim is not preempted by section 301 of the LMRA, the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim completely preempted by federal law.

Bliss v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2023-07-14

Therefore, based on the information presently before the Court, Section 301 of the LMRA completely preempts the contract claim in Count 3 of the Amended Complaint, conferring on this Court subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441(a).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state wrongful-discharge claim merely referencing ERISA when the claim is not completely preempted.

Risdorfer v. Ascentage Pharma Group Inc. · filed 2023-07-19

Therefore, plaintiff’s wrongful discharge claim is not completely preempted, as plaintiff has not pleaded that his internal complaints occurred in the context of an inquiry or proceeding. It follows that defendant had no basis on which to remove the case to federal court.

Section 1331 does not provide original jurisdiction over state law employment claims that the PREP Act does not completely preempt.

Hughes v. Terminix Pest Control, Inc. · filed 2023-08-07

As a result, the Court does not have original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s wrongful termination, retaliation, and breach of contract claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim on a complete-preemption theory when the claim is not completely preempted.

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 126 v. AMERICAN LIGHTING AND SIGNALIZATION, LLC · filed 2023-08-16

Because Plaintiff’s claim is not substantially dependent on analysis of the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, it is not completely preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. In the absence of complete preemption, there is no basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the Copyright Act completely preempts a pleaded state-law claim.

Yu v. ByteDance Inc. · filed 2023-09-01

For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that a portion of the first cause of action is preempted by the federal Copyright Act and thus defendants’ removal of this case was proper.

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

Ariola v. Raytheon CA Technologies Corporation · filed 2023-09-06

This Court has federal question subject- matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims because the claim under California Labor Code section 204 is completely preempted by federal law, and the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when complete preemption turns at least one state-law claim into a federal claim.

Prater v. Trustees of the Hamline University of Minnesota · filed 2023-09-15

The Court concludes that preemption applies here under the second prong because at least one of Ms. López Prater’s claims require interpretation of the CBA and thus vest this court with federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that federal law completely preempts.

Hart v. The General Electric Company · filed 2023-09-22

One exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule is complete preemption. ... Thus, for Hart’s claims against UAW, this Court has federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over removed state-law claims when ERISA does not completely preempt them.

Dames v. Mercy Health · filed 2023-09-30

Federal courts have jurisdiction over claims that raise federal questions, i.e., “actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Plaintiffs have not brought any claims under ERISA, and the state law claims they did bring are not completely preempted.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the defendant relies on a collective bargaining agreement only as a defense and has not established complete preemption.

Cabrera v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group · filed 2023-10-11

Under the circumstances, the court is unpersuaded that defendant has established a basis for federal question jurisdiction. ... Here, there is no preemption because defendant is relying on a defensive use of the CBA.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that are completely preempted by federal law.

Fast Post Shanghai Logistics Co., Ltd v. B612 Tima Inc · filed 2023-10-13

Accordingly, the Court finds that all of Fast Post’s state law claims against Best Bay raise a federal question because they are completely preempted by the Carmack Amendment.

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

Jacobsen v. Quadra Productions, Inc. et · filed 2023-10-25

Generally, a federal law defense to a state law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even where there is preemption. ... However, an exception exists when a federal statute “completely preempt|s]” an area of state law. ... As such, complete preemption does not apply.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state law claims for medical-service reimbursement rates when ERISA does not completely preempt them.

Stanford Health Care v. Health Care Service Corporation d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois and d/b/a Blue Cros · filed 2023-11-01

Courts use the well-pleaded complaint rule to determine whether a claim arises under federal law for purposes of § 1331. ... Accordingly, there are no grounds for removal.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts original jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal statute does not completely preempt those claims.

Picou v. Terminix Pest Control, Inc. · filed 2023-11-15

As a result, the Court does not have original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law wrongful termination, retaliation, and breach of contract claims.

Section 1331 does not provide original jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal statute invoked does not completely preempt them.

Chauvin v. Terminix Pest Control, Inc. · filed 2023-11-15

As a result, the Court does not have original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law wrongful termination, retaliation, and breach of contract claims.

Complete preemption can bring a state-law claim within § 1331, but the PREP Act does not completely preempt wrongful termination, retaliation, or breach of contract claims.

Liner v. Terminix Pest Control, Inc. · filed 2023-11-17

As a result, the Court does not have original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law wrongful termination, retaliation, and breach of contract claims.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims completely preempted by ERISA’s civil enforcement provision.

Hanson v. Mid Central Operating Engineers Health & Welfare Fund · filed 2023-11-29

In this circumstance, the plaintiff’s state law claim is “recharacterized” as a federal claim, making removal proper on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. ... Plaintiffs are thus seeking to enforce their rights under an ERISA plan, if not complaining about a breach of fiduciary duty, both of which fall within the scope of § 502(a). Accordingly, the claims are completely preempted and properly removable to federal court.

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

Walker v. Dignity Health · filed 2023-12-04

A case presents a federal question if a claim “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... A civil complaint raising claims preempted by § 301 raises a federal question that can be removed to a federal court. ... Based on the above, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ overtime claim is preempted under “step one” of the § 301 preemption analysis, and the Court need not address Plaintiffs’ arguments at “step two.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that LMRA § 301 does not completely preempt.

MACK v. SIX FLAGS GREAT ADVENTURE, LLC · filed 2024-01-05

It follows that there is no federal question raised in Plaintiff's Complaint and, as a result, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that ERISA does not completely preempt.

Invictus Special Situations Master I, L.P. v. Invictus Global Management, LLC · filed 2024-01-12

In order for a case to be removable to this Court, the Court must have original jurisdiction by either a federal question or diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1441. ... Plaintiff’s allegations relate to different duties than ERISA; the claims do not meet the preemption criteria of Davila. I therefore do not think that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Removal was improper.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction when LMRA complete preemption makes a state law claim arise under federal law.

Rose v. Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC · filed 2024-01-26

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over actions arising under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... As explained above, several of plaintiffs’ state law claims are completely preempted by section 301 of the LMRA. Accordingly, the court has federal question jurisdiction and will deny plaintiffs’ motion to remand.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a federal statute completely preempts a state-law claim; one completely preempted claim suffices.

California Spine And Neurosurgery Institute v. Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company · filed 2024-01-31

The court’s determination that ERISA completely preempts Plaintiff’s breach of written contract claim is alone sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction through complete preemption when the federal statute creates no cause of action replacing the state-law claim.

Torres v. Minnaar · filed 2024-02-26

ARL’s complete preemption argument fails because, although the FAAAA may afford a preemption defense to ARL, it does not meet the prerequisites for complete preemption and therefore cannot create federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that the PREP Act does not completely preempt.

Martin v. Baj Management, Inc. · filed 2024-03-20

For the foregoing reasons, the PREP Act does not completely preempt Plaintiffs’ claims. Therefore, the PREP Act does not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law reimbursement claim when the dispute concerns the rate of payment and ERISA does not completely preempt the claim.

Affiliated Dialysis of Joliet, LLC v. Health Care Service Corporation · filed 2024-03-20

The motion turns on a single question: whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) completely preempts Affiliated’s claims for breach of an implied contract and quantum meruit. Because this is a dispute over the rate of payment as opposed to the right of payment, the Court determines it does not, and therefore remands the case back to state court.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when complete preemption makes state-law claims arise under federal law.

Shaw v. United Parcel Service Inc · filed 2024-04-04

Regardless of whether the Court applies the Carmack Amendment, or the ADA and federal common law, all of Shaw’s claims are preempted, and the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the matter.

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

De Wong v. Laurine Lu Cheng, Altice USA, Inc. · filed 2024-04-04

Accordingly, her state-law claims are not completely preempted. In light of this conclusion, I lack federal-question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims completely preempted by ERISA.

Tutungian v. Massachusetts Electric Company · filed 2024-04-09

Accordingly, because ERISA completely preempts the claims in Count 4 of the complaint and the Safe Harbor Exception does not apply, this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this dispute.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over state-law claims for severance benefits that ERISA completely preempts.

Williams v. Ascension Medical Group-Southeast Wisconsin Inc · filed 2024-04-17

Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s state-law claims for severance benefits based on the Employment Agreement and Workforce Transition Position Elimination Policy are completely preempted by ERISA, and the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these claims under § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a state-law claim that ERISA completely preempts, even when the complaint does not expressly plead a federal claim.

Diaz-Morales v. Royalty Fund Merchandized Cargo Local 1575-ILA · filed 2024-04-24

Thus, complete preemption applies, and removal to this Court is proper.

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

Jenkins III, M.D. v. Aetna Health Inc. · filed 2024-04-25

More broadly, a complaint pleaded entirely under state law (as here) cannot be removed on federal question grounds unless its claims are “wholly displace[d]” by a federal statute that “completely” preempts them.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over state law claims that ERISA does not completely preempt.

The Regents of the University of California v. Health Care Service Corporation · filed 2024-05-14

Referred to as “federal question” jurisdiction, district courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Applying the principles articulated in these cases, the Court concludes that UCLA Health’s claims against HCSC are not completely preempted by ERISA. Consequently, this action should be remanded to state court.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction through complete preemption only when Congress intended to displace a state-law cause of action and provided a substitute federal cause of action.

CA Land Stewardship Council LLC v. County of Shasta · filed 2024-07-08

While identifying a substitute cause of action may not be necessary in the Eighth Circuit, the law is clear in the Ninth: complete preemption applies only if both prongs of the two-part test are satisfied. ... Therefore, Defendant has failed to meet its burden in demonstrating the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under a theory of complete preemption.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction through ERISA complete preemption when the plaintiffs lack standing to assert their claims under ERISA § 502(a).

Western Virginia Regional Emergency Physicians, LLC v. Anthem Health Plans of Virginia, Inc. · filed 2024-07-22

Because complete preemption requires that the plaintiffs have standing to assert their claims under ERISA § 502(a), the conclusion that they do not ends the ERISA complete preemption analysis. ... Anthem has not clearly demonstrated that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case due to ERISA complete preemption, so remand to the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond is proper.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on a preemption defense unless Congress intended federal law to displace the state cause of action entirely.

Lewis-Price & Associates, Inc. v. Grey Ghost, LLC · filed 2024-07-23

Grey Ghost asserts a preemption defense, and has not established that Congress intended for either the PPA or the FAR to displace entirely any cause of action involving recovery of interest owed on a government contract.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the federal duty of fair representation completely preempts it.

Reed v. United Steel Workers District 7 · filed 2024-07-26

If a claim is preempted by federal law, federal subject matter jurisdiction exists even if the complaint is entirely based on state law and does not mention a basis for federal jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that Reed’s IHRA claim is preempted by the federal duty of fair representation, and Defendant properly removed the case to federal court.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that are completely preempted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.

Ubalde v. Maimonides Medical Center · filed 2024-07-26

Therefore, because the Complaint alleges only state-law claims, the Court must determine whether Plaintiff’s claims as to the Union Defendants are completely preempted. ... Plaintiff’s claims against the Union Defendants are completely preempted by section 301 of the LMRA.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim based on FAA preemption because the FAA does not completely preempt state law.

Loans on Fine Art LLC v. Peck · filed 2024-09-03

Because complete preemption does not apply to the FAA, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over this case.

Complete preemption by the Montreal Convention makes a covered state contract claim a federal claim supporting federal-question jurisdiction.

Deugoue v. Icelandair, ehf · filed 2024-09-05

Accordingly, as to circumstances where the Montreal Convention applies, the court has jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the court considers this state contract claim as a federal claim under the Montreal convention.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when federal law completely preempts that claim, even if the complaint does not plead a federal claim.

D7 Roofing, LLC v. United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers, and Allied Workers Local 2 · filed 2024-09-10

Rather than determining whether a federal question exists by looking only at the face of a well-pleaded complaint, complete preemption requires a peek behind it. ... Defendant’s removal was proper in that Plaintiffs claim for tortious interference with its business relations is complete preempted by the NLRA.

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

BART FLANAGAN TREE SERVICE LLC v. RKD TRANS INC · filed 2024-09-20

Federal 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 complete preemption doctrine requires “exclusive federal regulation of the subject matter of the asserted state claim” and “a federal cause of action for wrongs of the same type.” Id. at 46. ... Because Plaintiff alleges damages of at least $34,512.41, which amount exceeds the $10,000 statutory requirement, Plaintiff’s negligence claims are completely preempted by the Carmack Amendment.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that is completely preempted; conflict preemption alone does not provide removal jurisdiction.

Young v. Western-Southern Agency, Inc. · filed 2024-09-20

Complete preemption differs from conflict preemption, which only creates a federal defense to a plaintiff’s suit but does not provide removal jurisdiction.

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

Country Carpet, Inc. v. Kansas Building Trades Open End Health and Welfare Trust Fund · filed 2024-09-25

Complete preemption is a jurisdictional doctrine that allows a defendant to remove a state claim to federal court “when a federal statute wholly displaces the state-law cause of action[.]” Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 8 (2003). ... The court concludes that § 301 of the LMRA completely preempts some of plaintiff’s claims. That conclusion suffices for the court to exercise jurisdiction, even though ERISA doesn’t completely preempt any of plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when federal law completely preempts it; a mere reference to a collective bargaining agreement does not establish that jurisdiction.

Hendree v. UPS, Inc. · filed 2024-10-18

Federal question jurisdiction thus exists when a federal law “completely preempts” a state cause of action. ... Here, no interpretation is required. ... Because of this, plaintiff’s state law claims are not preempted.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law usury claim completely preempted by the National Bank Act.

State of Minnesota v. GoodLeap LLC · filed 2024-10-22

Finally, because there is no dispute that the usury claim in Count V is completely preempted by the NBA, Fifth Third’s removal was proper.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law wage claim when resolving it requires only applying a collective bargaining agreement and LMRA § 301 does not preempt it.

Tercero v. C&S Logistics of Sacramento/Tracy LLC · filed 2024-11-18

Federal courts also have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. ... Accordingly, the court finds Plaintiff’s allegations of overtime and meal and rest break violations—and the derivative allegations based thereon—do not depend substantially on interpretation of the CBAs, and consequently are not preempted. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to remand this action based on a lack of diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction will be granted.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that ERISA does not completely preempt.

PIH Health Hospital - Whittier v. Health Care Service Corporation · filed 2024-12-26

For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims could not have been brought under ERISA and are not preempted under Davila prong one. ... For all of the above reasons, the Court finds that federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. The case is remanded.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction through LMRA complete preemption when state-law claims neither assert rights under a collective bargaining agreement nor require its interpretation.

Morrow v. Kroger Limited Partnership I · filed 2025-01-29

Because Morrow’s state law claims neither assert a right under the collective bargaining agreement nor require proof of its interpretation, Kroger has not established that the LMRA confers federal question jurisdiction over those claims.

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

OEG Inc v. Korum · filed 2025-01-31

While this may be true, the weight of authority—and the analysis conducted by that authority—leads the Court to conclude that the Copyright Act can trigger complete preemption.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when federal law completely preempts it, even if the complaint states no federal cause of action.

DAVIS v. BENIHANA, INC. · filed 2025-02-20

A defense of complete preemption “operates to confer original federal subject matter jurisdiction notwithstanding the absence of a federal cause of action on the face of the complaint” or a lack of complete diversity between the parties.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims based on alleged complete preemption by the Railway Labor Act because that Act does not completely preempt those claims.

Howell v. Gate Gourmet, Inc. · filed 2025-02-26

A district court may exercise federal question jurisdiction over any action “arising under” federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Accordingly, the Court concludes that complete preemption does not exist under the RLA.

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

Adams v. South Carolina State University · filed 2025-03-31

For all these reasons, the Court concludes federal question jurisdiction in this case is “doubtful” such that the case must be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law crop insurance claims when the Federal Crop Insurance Act does not completely preempt them.

Roberts v. Farm Credit Services of America, ACA · filed 2025-04-01

The doctrine of complete preemption does not provide this Court jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when ERISA does not completely preempt it.

Roberts v. IFS Topco, LLC · filed 2025-04-03

Federal question jurisdiction, defined under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, applies to cases “arising under” federal law. ... Because neither prong of the Davila test is satisfied, ERISA does not completely preempt the breach of contract claim, and removal based on federal question jurisdiction improper.

Federal-question jurisdiction over a PAGA claim based on complete LMRA preemption depends on whether the plaintiff’s underlying Labor Code claim is preempted.

Delgado v. Lakin Tire West, LLC · filed 2025-04-09

PAGA does not create any substantive rights—therefore, subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s PAGA claim depends on the underlying predicate Labor Code violations. Because Plaintiff is not covered by a CBA, her rights exist in state law independent of any CBA—therefore, her claim is not preempted at step one of the Burnside analysis. Resolving Plaintiff’s claim would not involve interpretation of a CBA—therefore, her claim is not preempted at step two of the Burnside analysis.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a removed state-law claim when ERISA and the LMRA completely preempt that claim.

Finkel v. Structure Tone, LLC · filed 2025-04-29

Plaintiff’s motion to remand is therefore DENIED—there is federal jurisdiction because ERISA and the LMRA preempt Plaintiff’s state labor law claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state negligence claim when the removing party fails to show that federal law creates the claim, that it raises a substantial federal question, or that federal law completely preempts it.

Filer v. Ruff · filed 2025-05-07

However, Ruff directs the Court to no provision of the FAA or other federal law that “creates” a negligence (or gross negligence) cause of action as Filer asserts nor a corresponding substantial question of federal law. (ECF No. 9). As to the claims in this case, the Court has found no such support for complete preemption under the FAA.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law overtime claim when LMRA § 301 completely preempts it because the claimed right exists solely under a collective bargaining agreement.

Tapia v. Paragon Systems, Inc. · filed 2025-06-05

Because it is statutorily barred, Plaintiff’s overtime claim rests on a right created entirely by the CBA. ... It is therefore preempted by the LMRA. ... Accordingly, the Court has federal subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s overtime claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that ERISA does not completely preempt.

Valley Children's Hospital v. Cigna Healthcare of California, Inc. · filed 2025-06-12

Because the Hospital could not have brought its claims under section 502(a) of ERISA and because those claims are based on an independent legal duty, the doctrine of complete preemption does not apply, and this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

Federal-question jurisdiction based on complete preemption requires the removing party to identify federal provisions that displace the asserted state-law claims.

Morris v. Synchrony Bank · filed 2025-07-23

Because Defendant has failed to properly identify any specific subsections of FCRA that apply here (as is Defendant’s burden), the Court cannot determine that FCRA has completely preempted Plaintiff's claims here.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when ERISA § 502(a) completely preempts a state-law claim.

Quinn v. Southern California Edison Company · filed 2025-08-22

One avenue to federal original jurisdiction is an action that arises under the Constitution, laws, or treatises of the United States. Id. § 1331. ... Based on the above, removal is proper as Quinn’s third to fifth causes of action for breaches of the retirements benefit plan are completely preempted by ERISA.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that is completely preempted by federal law; a federal defense alone does not supply jurisdiction.

POYNER v. CARINGHOUSE PROJECTS, INC. · filed 2025-08-29

Thus, when a plaintiff pleads a state-law claim that is completely preempted, it “is considered, from its inception, a federal claim,” consequently supplying the basis for federal-question jurisdiction and, by extension, removal.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when complete preemption makes a state-law claim arise under federal law.

Simms Showers LLP v. Jones · filed 2025-09-24

Because this Court finds it has federal question jurisdiction under the complete preemption doctrine, it need not decide whether it also has jurisdiction on Grable-Gunn grounds.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a removed state-law claim when complete preemption makes the claim federal in character.

Thomas Michael Tolbert, Jr. v. Dominion Energy · filed 2025-10-28

By contrast, complete preemption can, in rare circumstances, operate as a jurisdictional hook supporting removal of an action from state to federal court.

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

Smith v. MV Transportation · filed 2025-11-25

Therefore, under the Ninth Circuit test outlined in Curtis, Smith’s claim is completely preempted by § 301 of the LMRA and the Court has federal question jurisdiction over the overtime claim.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when ERISA completely preempts a plaintiff’s state-law claims.

Dukes · filed 2025-12-10

Because ERISA completely preempts any viable claims Plaintiff may have in this case, federal question subject matter jurisdiction has also been adequately established under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which is another basis to deny Plaintiff’s motion seeking remand to state court and sanctions related to removal.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction when federal railroad laws entirely preempt claims in the complaint.

Lawson · filed 2026-03-26

Defendant properly removed the matter based on the FRSA and the LIA. However, since these claims have been dismissed because they are entirely preempted by federal law, there remain no federal question claims, and Plaintiff’s remaining claims are state claims of which the Court originally had supplemental jurisdiction.