28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint to support federal jurisdiction, subject to the complete preemption exception.

Bullinger v. Trebas · filed 2003-01-30

Whether federal question jurisdiction exists is determined by the “well-pleaded complaint rule” which provides that a federal question must be presented on the face of the complaint to invoke federal court jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that present no federal claim on the face of the complaint and are not subject to complete preemption.

Hurt v. Del Papa Distributing Co., LP · filed 2004-01-15

Because Plaintiffs’ Original Petition stated claims exclusively under state law, and because Plaintiffs’ claims do not implicate the complete preemption doctrine, Plaintiffs’ Original Petition did not state a federal claim and therefore provided no basis for removal.

Section 1331 ordinarily requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; complete preemption can supply federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim.

Reeds v. Walker · filed 2006-06-20

Because NAICO's petition states a claim solely under Oklahoma law, no federal question appears on the petition's face. The only source of federal question jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim lies with the complete preemption doctrine.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a removed state-law claim when the well-pleaded complaint presents a federal claim or complete preemption makes the state claim federal.

London v. SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORP. · filed 2007-01-30

Section 1331 federal question jurisdiction depends on whether a federal claim is contained in the plaintiffs “well-pleaded complaint;” this rule “is the basic principle marking the boundaries of the federal question jurisdiction of the federal district courts.” ... Thus, while federal preemption and removal jurisdiction are conceptually separate issues, the defendant must be able to properly recharacterize plaintiffs state law action as an action under LMRA § 301 for federal court subject matter jurisdiction under the complete preemption doctrine. ... Thus, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) the case must be remanded.

Section 1331 does not permit federal-question jurisdiction based on a federal preemption defense to state-law claims; complete preemption can make such claims arise under federal law.

St. Joe Co. v. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. · filed 2011-03-18

Despite Transocean’s refusal to explicitly say so, its argument for federal question jurisdiction is premised on a preemption defense: that OPA preempts St. Joe’s claims (either by directly preempting state tort claims or because admiralty law preempts state common law claims, and OPA, in turn, preempts admiralty claims). The well-pleaded complaint rule prohibits finding removal jurisdiction on this basis. Only if OPA “completely preempts” state tort claims based on oil spill damage can Transocean’s arguments be availing. The Court, however, finds the complete preemption doctrine inapplicable since OPA’s saving clauses, which are examined in greater detail below, clearly contemplate a concurrent state legal regime, thereby depriving OPA of the “extraordinary preemptive force” necessary for the application of the complete preemption doctrine.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on a federal preemption defense unless complete preemption converts the state-law claim into a federal claim.

Gamson v. British Airways, PLC · filed 2014-06-05

Whether or not this is correct, the Court wishes to make clear that the ADA defense provides no basis for removal jurisdiction here. The rule in Mottley directs the Court to examine a plaintiff’s complaint for a federal cause of action to ground subject-matter jurisdiction. Unlike complete preemption, which the ADA does not provide, see Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1184 (9th Cir. 2002), a federal defense of preemption, either anticipated in the complaint or argued by the defendant, cannot provide the basis for jurisdiction. See Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393.

Federal-question jurisdiction generally requires a well-pleaded complaint relying on federal law, but ERISA complete preemption permits jurisdiction over state-law claims seeking benefits under an ERISA plan.

Buckley v. Slocum Dickson Medical Group, PLLC · filed 2014-09-22

As a general rule, federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 turns on whether a well-pleaded complaint relies on federal law. ... As the Slocum Dickson severance plan in substance provides, and the parties agree, that the plan is governed by ERISA, this action was removed properly from the state court, and the district court had subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction over a removed case only when a federal question appears on the face of the properly pleaded complaint, subject to complete preemption.

Vargas v. Airport Terminal Services, Inc. · filed 2020-02-07

Removal based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint” rule. ... Plaintiff has only raised state law claims in the Complaint.

Section 1331 generally requires a federal question on the face of the complaint, but complete preemption is an exception to that rule.

Healthcare Justice Coalition CA Corp. v. Aetna, Inc. · filed 2024-10-10

“The general rule, referred to as the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ is that a civil action arises under federal law for purposes of § 1331 when a federal question appears on the face of the complaint.” ... However, complete preemption is “an exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when neither LMRA preemption nor the Garmon doctrine supplies a basis for removal.

Reynoso v. Recology Inc. · filed 2025-10-03

In sum, the Court concludes that Reynoso’s state law claims are not preempted by the LMRA, his claims are not subject to removal under the Garmon doctrine, and that the Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 does not support removal when the well-pleaded complaint asserts only a state-law contract claim and no federal question.

Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Meat Cutters Union Local No. 421 · filed 1973-06-14

It should be here noted that there is absolutely no claim for damages, nor is there any statement of any kind of a Federal question, diversity or other possible grounds for Federal jurisdiction set forth in the Complaint. It is purely and simply a State action for injunctive relief to stop alleged breach of contract brought by an employer against Unions, coupled with claims and prayers for equitable injunctive relief because of the inadequacy of damages at law. ... By reason of the authorities and upon the allegations in the Complaint it is clear that there is no Federal basis for jurisdiction in this case, whether under the basic Federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or under diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or under the grant of jurisdiction of an action arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce or protecting trade and commerce against restraints and injunctions, 28 U.S.C. § 1337, or under the Labor Management Relations Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 185 and 187, ... or under any other Federal statute.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a state-law contract claim does not arise under federal law merely because the contract was entered into under a federal statute.

Berry v. Pennsylvania Pressed Metals, Inc. · filed 1994-01-14

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, a defendant may not remove a case where there is no diversity of citizenship between the parties, unless the plaintiffs complaint establishes that the case arises under federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Here, plaintiffs complaint plainly does not establish that the case arises under federal law. The only connection to federal law is the assertion that the contract between North Central and PA Pressed Metals was entered into under the JTPA.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims under a FEHBA insurance contract merely because federal law governs the contract or supplies a preemption defense.

Lambert v. Mail Handlers Benefit Plan · filed 1995-05-11

In this ease, the plaintiff has specifically availed himself of the protection of state law. The defendants have asserted the defense that the causes of action are controlled by, and in some instances barred by federal law. However, preemption in this ease is simply a defense and accordingly, it does not appear in the complaint. As such the plaintiff’s causes of action do not arise under the laws of the United States.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction over a state contract claim that requires no substantial, disputed federal issue for its resolution and is not actually federal in nature.

Corporate Housing Systems, Inc. v. Cable & Wireless, Inc. · filed 1998-07-13

Further, nothing indicates that plaintiff has purposefully attempted to avoid this court’s jurisdiction by asserting only state law claims: a fair reading of the complaint reveals no substantial, disputed question of federal law necessary to the resolution of plaintiffs breach of contract claim, nor is that claim actually federal in nature.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s own claim; an anticipated federal defense does not supply jurisdiction over a routine tribal contract action.

Iowa Management v. Sac & Fox Tribe · filed 2000-03-23

Here, IMCI alleges a routine contract action involving the Tribe, a matter over which federal courts do not have jurisdiction, see TTEA v. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, 181 F.3d 676, 681 (5th Cir. 1999), and IMCI's anticipatory contention that the Tribe may invoke the provisions of IGRA as a defense is insufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction on this court, see id.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a complaint alleging only a state-law contract claim does not qualify.

Vick v. Nash Hospitals, Inc. · filed 2010-10-26

As for federal-question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires that the civil action arise under “the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In analyzing whether federal-question jurisdiction exists, a court examines the face of the plaintiffs well-pleaded complaint. ... NHI’s well-pleaded complaint involves one claim under North Carolina law for an alleged breach of an employment contract. Therefore, no federal-question jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when no exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule applies.

People of the State of New York v. National General Holdings Corp. · filed 2025-10-28

Accordingly, there is no federal question jurisdiction here because none of three exceptions to the well-pleaded complaint rule applies.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction to confirm a tribal labor arbitration award merely because the labor ordinance was enacted under a gaming compact.

Unite Here International Union v. Pala Band of Mission Indians · filed 2008-05-22

For the above reasons, the Court finds that it does not have federal subject matter jurisdiction over a labor union’s petition to confirm an arbitration award entered pursuant to a labor ordinance enacted by an Indian tribe, where the labor ordinance was enacted under a gaming compact between the State of California and the tribe.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a contract claim merely because federal statutes, regulations, or HUD contracts provide its backdrop.

Village West Associates v. Rhode Island Housing and Mortgage Finance Corp. · filed 2009-05-20

But invocation of federal statutes, regulations or housing contracts that are printed and regulated by HUD — in and of themselves — fall short of conferring § 1331 jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law settlement dispute merely because the settlement arose from an earlier federal suit.

Gill v. McCollum · filed 2010-01-14

And because the District Court could not reach the merits of the supposed federal question at issue between the two parties, there is no federal question jurisdiction for this case under Plaintiff's first two theories.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a civil claim merely because the alleged misconduct violates federal law.

Ritrovato v. United States Postal Service Federal Credit Union · filed 2023-10-05

A civil claim does not arise under federal law, for purposes of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, simply because the alleged misconduct is violative of federal law.

Section 1331 requires the federal law creating the cause of action to be an essential element of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a federal connection or anticipated federal defense is insufficient.

McGehee v. Nix · filed 1984-03-07

The fact that the dispute is in some way connected with a federal matter is not sufficient for this court to have federal jurisdiction. It is essential in a § 1331 suit that the suit arise under the federal law that creates the cause of action.

A case arises under federal law for Section 1331(a) when a genuine, present controversy appears on the complaint's face and a federally created right or immunity is an essential element that stands or falls on construction or effect of federal law.

Texaco Inc., a Corporation v. Phillips Petroleum Company, a Corporation · filed 1973-07-13(a)

The Court recognized these tests, Ibid, at 112-113, 57 S. Ct. 96: (1) a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an essential element of plaintiff’s cause of action; (2) the right or immunity must be such as will stand or fall on the construction or effect of the federal Constitution or laws; (3) the controversy must be genuine and present; and (4) the controversy must be disclosed on the face of the complaint, unaided by the answer or the petition for removal. ... We have here a genuine and present controversy disclosed on the face of the complaint and not asserted in anticipation of any defense. Plaintiff presents a substantial claim resting on a reasonable foundation. The right asserted under federal laws is an essential element of plaintiff’s case which must stand or fall on the construction or effect of the federal laws. The tests announced in Gully have all been met.

Section 1331(a) requires federal law to be an essential ingredient of the cause of action; a private contractual right does not arise under federal law merely because a federal statute prompted the contract.

Hines v. Cenla Community Action Committee, Inc. · filed 1973-04-10(a)

A suit to enforce a right which takes its origin in the laws of the United States is not necessarily, or for that reason alone, one arising under those laws, for a suit does not so arise unless it really and substantially involves a dispute or controversy respecting the validity, construction, or effect of such a law, upon the determination of which the result depends. ... The Economic Opportunity Act was not an ingredient of the plaintiff’s claim; for the Act provided simply the impetus for the contract upon which the suit was brought. ... Quite clearly, this case involves only private contractual rights. When a controversy between the parties may be decided under local law without the necessity of interpreting a federal statute, there is no federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal right or immunity to be an essential element of the cause of action; a state-law dispute does not qualify merely because a remote constitutional deprivation is alleged.

Harrell v. Trustees of Beaufort County Technical Institute · filed 1973-01-29

“To bring a case within the statute, a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause of action.” ... Plaintiff’s dispute turns on whether or not the State Board acted wrongly under state law. Applying the above tests, it appears that whether Plaintiff has been deprived of his property as prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment is remote and does not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal right to be an essential element of the pleaded claim and does not cover a state nuisance action that can be resolved without deciding the asserted federal taking theory.

Mosher v. City of Boulder, Colorado · filed 1964-01-10

This is, consequently, not a case in which the immunity against taking without just compensation which is created by the United States Constitution is an essential element of the plaintiffs’ stated cause of action. All the relief which the plaintiffs seek could be granted without inquiring whether or not there has been a taking. ... Consequently, no federal question is posed by the complaint which would require this Court to assume jurisdiction under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331(a) requires federal law to be an essential element of the plaintiff’s cause of action; merely alleging federal registration of a trademark does not confer jurisdiction when the right enforced arises under state law.

Cue Publishing Company v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. · filed 1964-09-15(a)

In determining whether the cause relies on a federal statute within the contemplation of 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), “the statute * * * must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause of action”. ... The mere allegation of federal registration does not confer jurisdiction. The right sought to be enforced determines jurisdiction.

A nonfrivolous claim arises under Section 1331 when a right allegedly created by federal law is an essential element and its validity depends on construing that law, regardless of whether the claim ultimately succeeds.

Fine v. Philip Morris, Inc. · filed 1964-12-22

The right allegedly created by federal statute is an essential element of plaintiff’s claim. The right will be supported if the statute is given one construction or effect, and defeated if it receives another. Consequently, the claim “arises under the * * * laws * * * of the United States” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Since this cause of action asserts a federal claim which is not plainly unsubstantial, this court has jurisdiction, regardless of whether it ultimately turns out that the claim is .good or bad.

Section 1331 requires federal law to be an essential element of the well-pleaded complaint, without relying on an anticipated federal defense.

Brooks v. Nez Perce County · filed 1975-04-25

The rules of play are well-known. Before an action may be considered as one “arising under” some federal law, the well-pleaded complaint must show that federal law is an essential element of the plaintiffs’ claim, unaided by anticipatory, defensive allegations.

For § 1331 removal, the federal issue must be an essential element disclosed on the complaint's face rather than an ancillary matter or defense.

Rettig v. Arlington Heights Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n · filed 1975-06-10

The defendants in each of these cases have removed to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and (b), basing federal jurisdiction upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337. ... Whether a lawsuit is removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 depends upon whether the cause of action arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States. As the plaintiffs correctly point out, the alleged federal statutory violation must be an essential element of the cause of action, and may not be set forth in an ancillary fashion or by way of defense. ... The controversy generally must be disclosed on the face of the complaint, unaided by defendants’ answer or petition for removal.

Section 1331 removal jurisdiction requires a federal right or immunity to be an essential element of the plaintiff’s cause of action; a state-law libel claim does not qualify merely because a defense may require construing federal law.

Hetherington v. Griffin Television, Inc. · filed 1977-03-30

For removal to be proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), there must be present in the case a federal question within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Therefore, to be removable, the case must be one arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. To so arise a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiffs cause of action. ... Upon close examination, the plaintiff’s petition does not set forth a cause of action arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. What the petition does set forth is a common law cause of action for defamation or libel. ... It is this Oklahoma law which gives rise to a cause of action for libel. The plaintiff’s action is therefore one arising under Oklahoma law.

Section 1331 supports removal only when a federal question is an essential element of the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint; a state unfair-competition complaint not relying on a federal trademark must be remanded.

Societa Anonima Lucchese Olii E. Vini v. Catania Spagna Corp. · filed 1977-10-07

Since the diversity of the parties does not in this case serve as a basis for removal jurisdiction, whether removal was warranted depends upon the existence of a federal question as an essential element of plaintiff’s case. ... This case should not have been removed from the state court and this Court therefore adopts the Magistrate’s recommendation and grants plaintiff’s motion for remand.

Section 1331 requires a federal right to be an essential element appearing in the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; anticipated federal defenses and federal preemption do not create federal-question jurisdiction.

Telecredit Service Center v. First National Bank of the Florida Keys · filed 1988-02-22

Original jurisdiction can be based on diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (same requirements as 28 U.S.C. § 1332), or, as the defendant’s allege in the instant case, “a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (same requirements as 28 U.S.C. § 1331). ... The well-pleaded complaint rule requires a federal court to read the plaintiff’s complaint as the plaintiff presents her claim to the court, without anticipating either potential federal defenses or federal law preempting the plaintiff’s state claim. ... In order for this court to have original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) the federal “right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause of action.”

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction when a federal right is an essential element of a well-pleaded complaint and the federal claim is not wholly insubstantial.

In Re Corestates Trust Fee Litigation · filed 1993-10-22

Because § 1331 provides “[t]he district court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”, the plaintiff seeking jurisdiction under § 1331 should allege, as part of his well-pleaded complaint, that a federal right or immunity is an essential element of his cause of action. ... I find, however, that the alleged violations of 12 U.S.C. § 92a and two regulations interpreting it are essential elements of plaintiffs cause of action and not wholly insubstantial.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when alleged violations of federal law support only punitive damages and are not necessary elements of state-law claims.

Baldwin v. Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. · filed 1996-03-29

The Court, therefore, finds that the claims for punitive damages, based in part on the alleged violations of federal law, are neither “necessary” to, nor an “element” of, such state law claims. Accordingly, under the Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction based on the punitive damage claims for Retaliatory Discharge (Count One), Interference with Contract (Count Two), or Civil Conspiracy (Count Four) claims.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when federal law is a necessary element of the claim or completely preempts it.

Toledo Fair Housing Center v. Farmers Insurance Group of Companies · filed 1999-06-21

A federal question appears on the face of a well pleaded complaint if an issue of federal law is a necessary element of plaintiffs claim or if federal law completely preempts plaintiffs state law cause of action.

Section 1331 requires federal law to supply an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim; a federal defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

County of Delaware v. Government Systems, Inc. · filed 2002-09-27

For a federal court to assert jurisdiction over a case based on federal question, the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States must supply an essential element of the plaintiffs cause of action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when no substantial federal question is a necessary element of those claims and no exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule applies.

Littel v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. · filed 2003-01-08

The Court therefore concludes that plaintiffs’ well-pleaded complaint pleads state law causes of action separate and independent from the federal claims advanced by defendants. Therefore, the “substantial federal question” exception does not apply. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, federal question jurisdiction does not exist, and accordingly, this case is not removable.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because a federal defense may arise; a substantial question of federal law must be a necessary element of a well-pleaded claim.

Jamison v. Purdue Pharma Co. · filed 2003-02-05

The defendants’ assertion that the plaintiffs’ claims “directly and repeatedly challenge the FDA-approved formulation, warnings, and labeling of Oxycontin” demonstrates, at most, that the defendants view FDA approval as a possible defense in this action. This in itself is insufficient to support federal jurisdiction. Moreover, the defendants have failed to show that a substantial question of federal law is a necessary element of one of the plaintiffs’ well-pleaded state claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint seeks relief only under state law and merely mentions a federal statute that is not a necessary element of the state-law claims.

Martin v. Lagualt · filed 2004-04-26

Plaintiffs mere mention of FDCPA in a complaint which seeks damages exclusively under state defamation and insulting words law is insufficient to vest this court with jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal issue to appear as an essential element of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense does not confer federal-question jurisdiction.

Scotiabank De Puerto Rico v. Residential Partners S.E. · filed 2004-12-20

The Court can find no federal statute or right in the Complaint at hand — much less an essential one — and therefore, Defendants’ arguments regarding this issue are inapposite.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the federal issue arises only as a defense to a state-law claim rather than as an essential element of that claim.

Parlin v. DynCorp International, Inc. · filed 2008-09-30

After reviewing the parties’ contentions, the Court concludes it lacks federal “arising under” jurisdiction because the federal interest implicated in this matter arises out of a defense, and is not an essential element of Plaintiffs claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when federal law neither creates the claim nor supplies a necessary element.

Firstenberg v. City of Santa Fe · filed 2012-10-09

Our review of the complaint—a petition seeking mandamus under New Mexico law—convinces us that it does not state a claim arising under federal law within the meaning of § 1331. ... Federal law neither created this cause of action nor is federal law a necessary element of it. It is purely a state-law claim.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal issue arises only in anticipation of a defense rather than as an essential element of the claims.

Venable v. Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corp. · filed 2013-12-30

Even assuming arguendo the district court was correct that the issue of waiver under § 933 raises a substantial federal issue for purposes of Grable, the well-pleaded-complaint rule forecloses federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal issue merely anticipates a defense and is not an essential element of the claims.

Venable v. Hilcorp Energy Company · filed 2013-12-30

The federal issue the district court relied upon—whether a party can waive the written-consent requirement under § 933—anticipates LWCC’s pro- spective defense. ... Even assuming arguendo the district court was correct that the issue of waiver under § 933 raises a substantial federal issue for purposes of Grable, the well-pleaded-complaint rule forecloses federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal issue arises only in anticipation of a defense and is not an essential element of the claims.

Venable v. Hilcorp Energy Company · filed 2014-01-20

The federal issue the district court relied upon—whether a party can waive the written-consent requirement under § 933—anticipates LWCC’s pro- spective defense. ... Even assuming arguendo the district court was correct that the issue of waiver under § 933 raises a substantial federal issue for purposes of Grable, the well-pleaded-complaint rule forecloses federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state tax-law enforcement action when the federal constitutional issue arises only as a defense and is not a necessary element of the state’s claim.

South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. · filed 2017-01-17

The constitutionality of S.B. 106 under Quill, however is not a necessary element of the State’s complaint, is not needed for the “vindication of [its] right under state law,” and the State’s complaint does not then “necessarily” raise a federal issue.

Federal-question jurisdiction does not attach when an independent state-law theory can support the claim, even if the plaintiff also pursues a federal-law theory.

Abelardo Martinez, Jr. v. Greatcollections.com, LLC · filed 2019-09-27

Therefore, where a plaintiff pursues a non-ADA theory of liability—even he pursues a concurrent theory premised on an ADA violation—no federal question is a necessary element of his Unruh Act claim, and federal jurisdiction does not attach.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim supported by an independent state-law theory, even when an alternative theory rests on federal law.

Rusty Rendon v. Bracketron, Inc. · filed 2020-01-07

Thus, the federal law theory is not a necessary element of the Unruh claim and federal question jurisdiction does not attach.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the complaint mentions a bankruptcy matter that is not an essential element of the claim.

Doehla v. Clinton · filed 2020-05-31

While the Amended Complaint mentions Clinton’s bankruptcy matter, it is not an essential element of Plaintiff’s cause of action such that federal question jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only common-law negligence and no federal-law claim.

BENTON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA · filed 2021-01-07

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff wishes to bring a common law negligence claim. ... Plaintiff does not allege diversity jurisdiction, nor does it appear to exist; and the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the Complaint does not contain a federal law claim.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a right created by federal law or the Constitution is an essential element of the claim.

Mitchell v. Econo Lodge Motel · filed 2023-02-06

Typically, a plaintiff establishes a federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction by demonstrating that a right created by the Constitution or laws of the United States is an essential element of the claim, so that federal-question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or by demonstrating that the plaintiff and the defendant are citizens of different states and that the amount in controversy meets a requisite level, so that diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ... The complaint, therefore, fails to carry the Plaintiff’s burden of establishing federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Jones v. Verse-Barry · filed 2023-04-03

Moreover, Plaintiff fails to indicate in her complaint that federal question jurisdiction exists because she does not show that any of her possible claims—defamation, slander, libel, harassment, hostile work environment, or unfair treatment—arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the federal laws cited have no relation to the factual allegations supporting the claim.

L'Evation Birthing Circle Ministries v. Coleman · filed 2023-12-21

The Complaint states that federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the case arises under two federal laws. ... Neither law has any conceivable relation to the factual allegations on which Plaintiff bases its claim that Defendants – an individual and two limited liability companies – have breached a contract for Plaintiff’s investment in a cannabis operation licensed by the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts a claim based on federal law, including an FDCPA claim.

Speer v. US National Bank · filed 2024-05-13

The first, federal question jurisdiction, exists when a complaint contains a claim that is based on federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The defendants properly removed the case on the basis of both federal question jurisdiction, because Speer had pled a claim for violation of the FDCPA, a federal statute, and diversity jurisdiction, because the plaintiff and all defendants were citizens of different states.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to be an essential element of a cause of action; claims lacking that element do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

McGinnis v. Newrez Mortgage · filed 2024-09-19

Because federal law does not form an essential element of either cause of action, federal-question jurisdiction is absent.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over state-law claims that use a federal safety standard only as evidence of negligence.

Joseph v. Fluor Corp. · filed 2007-06-20

Thus, the Court finds that to the extent the Plaintiffs in the instant cases can be considered to have “artfully plead” violations of the NMHCSSA, such violations merely “serve[ ] as part of the relevant evidence of negligent conduct.” Id. at 657. Accordingly, the Court finds that federal question jurisdiction does not exist in these cases.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state negligence claim merely because it uses a federal regulation to establish a duty.

Reynolds v. Singh · filed 2022-08-05

But the Supreme Court has rejected that argument, finding that when a complaint alleges a violation of a federal statute or regulation as an element of a state cause of action, that itself does not provide for a private cause of action, the claim does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ... Accordingly, Defendant has not met his burden of demonstrating federal question jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 requires a pleaded federal cause of action; merely referring to federal law or using federal statutes to measure damages does not create federal-question jurisdiction.

Avitts v. Amoco Production · filed 1995-05-23

Appellees never asserted a cause of action under either statute, and subject matter jurisdiction cannot be created by simple reference to federal law. Subject matter jurisdiction can be created only by pleading a cause of action within the district court's original jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a pleaded federal cause of action; an unspecified reference to federal law or use of federal statutes only to measure damages does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Avitts v. Amoco Production Co. · filed 1995-05-04

Appellees never asserted a cause of action under either statute, and subject matter jurisdiction cannot be created by simple reference to federal law. Subject matter jurisdiction can be created only by pleading a cause of action within the district court's original jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear clearly and distinctly; merely suggesting one does not establish jurisdiction.

Welch v. Morgan & Morgan · filed 2023-09-08

The mere suggestion of a federal question is not sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of federal courts; rather, the federal court’s jurisdiction must affirmatively appear clearly and distinctly.

Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 is determined from the complaint, and defendants’ denial of its alleged facts does not defeat jurisdiction.

Arch Personal Care Products, L.P. v. Malmstrom · filed 2003-12-24

The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based on the allegation of violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051. Jurisdiction is determined on the basis of the complaint, and the defendants’ denial of the facts did not deprive the District Court of its jurisdiction.

A constitutional label alone does not establish § 1331 jurisdiction unless the well-pleaded facts support a genuine and present federal controversy essential to the claim.

Beistline v. City of San Diego and General Dynamics Corporation · filed 1958-06-03

A general allegation of a constitutional issue is sufficient, but the claim or fact upon which the constitutional issue is raised must be pleaded, and “well-pleaded.” ... The controversy must be genuine and present as distinguished from a possible or conjectural one.

Section 1331 does not support jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no facts sufficient to state a federal cause of action.

Harms v. Federal Housing Administration · filed 1966-06-14

(a) The complaint states no facts sufficient to state' a cause of action “arising under the Constitution, Laws or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded federal claim supported by factual allegations, not merely a conclusory assertion that constitutional rights were violated.

Lombardi v. Peace · filed 1966-09-26

It is clear that federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 cannot be sustained on the bare allegation that the claim arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties' of the United States.” The claim on which the Constitutional issue is raised must be well-pleaded. ... And a mere assertion of the deprivation of a Constitutional right is not sufficient to sustain jurisdiction; conclusory statements unsupported by adequate factual allegations will not suffice.

Section 1331 is not satisfied by conclusory assertions of constitutional rights unsupported by factual allegations.

Oestereich v. SELECTIVE SERV. SYS. LOC. BD. NO. 11, CHEYENNE, WYO. · filed 1968-02-06

Plaintiff’s action does not arise under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. His complaint contains no allegations of facts that defendants subjected him to unreasonable, arbitrary or invidious discrimination, or that he was deprived of his constitutional rights under the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. Federal jurisdiction is not conferred by the mere assertion of constitutional rights unsupported by factual allegations.

Absent federal preemption, a plaintiff's characterization of the complaint as asserting only state-law claims defeats federal-question jurisdiction even if the facts could support a federal claim.

Fischer v. Holiday Inn of Rhinelander, Inc. · filed 1973-10-03

I conclude that plaintiffs’ characterization of their complaint as a state law action, in the absence of federal preemption, is determinative for the purpose of removal on the basis of original federal question jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction is not present and the action is not removable.

Section 1331 jurisdiction may rest on sufficient operative facts pleaded in the complaint even when the complaint does not cite the correct jurisdictional provision.

Fields v. Romano · filed 1974-02-01(a)

This Court recognizes that where a plaintiff in his complaint has pleaded sufficient operative facts vesting or establishing jurisdiction in the Court even absent the recitation of the correct jurisdictional provision, the Court still may retain jurisdiction over the cause of action.

Section 1331 requires facts in the complaint establishing a claim arising under federal law; merely asserting federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim is insufficient.

Tamiami Partners, Ltd. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians · filed 1993-08-16

TPL’s mere assertion that the district court had federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, without alleging facts necessary to support a federal question, fails to give the district court subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; facts that could support a federal claim do not create jurisdiction when the plaintiff seeks state administrative review.

Matherly v. Las Vegas Valley Water District · filed 1996-06-03

While the same facts could have been the basis for a federal claim, that alone does not make Matherly's Petition for review under the Nevada APA into a federal cause of action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that alleges facts potentially supporting an FCRA claim but presents no federal claim on its face, absent complete preemption.

Watkins v. Trans Union, L.L.C. · filed 2000-11-01

While this silence suggests a degree of calculation, under the rule it compels a finding of that no federal question exists from the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege facts supporting federal-question jurisdiction.

Jonathan Cobb, Sr. v. Brede · filed 2013-04-23

The district court properly dismissed the action because the complaint does not allege facts to support federal question or diversity jurisdiction.

A plaintiff seeking federal-question jurisdiction must allege facts in the complaint sufficient to establish that jurisdiction.

Reedom v. Crappell · filed 2015-02-04

Mr. Reedom must allege facts in his complaint sufficient to show that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction, such as federal question or diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to plead a claim arising under federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Theus v. Selene Finance LLC · filed 2015-04-14

Second, plaintiff has failed to plead any claim that arises under federal law in the complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and to the extent she invokes federal provisions in her opposition affidavits, she fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that sets forth no constitutional or federal statutory basis for its claims.

Johnson v. Johnson · filed 2015-04-28

Because plaintiff s complaint does not set forth a constitutional or statutory basis for her claims, it is not apparent that this action arises under the United States Constitution or federal law.

Section 1331 jurisdiction requires a complaint to allege a factual or legal basis for a claim under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Driskell v. Homosexuals · filed 2015-05-06

Here, the plaintiff does not set forth any factual or legal basis for a federal claim under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Even construing the complaint liberally, it does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting federal question jurisdiction exists in this matter.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction may remain unclear when a complaint cites federal statutes and constitutional amendments without identifying the federal claims or their factual bases.

Williams v. Vista · filed 2022-04-01

As to federal question jurisdiction, although the complaint cites to various federal statutes and constitutional amendments, it is not clear, for the reasons given above, which, if any, of these references are intended to allege a claim against the named Defendants and what the factual bases of those claims may be.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege facts supporting a federal claim; merely invoking federal jurisdiction is insufficient.

Richardson v. Adams · filed 2022-10-17

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that, at this stage, it lacks federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s complaint pleads a federal claim.

Boles v. Union Pacific Railroad Company · filed 2023-08-29

Third and finally, the Court has jurisdiction to hear this case because Plaintiff clearly pled a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded complaint to establish a federally created claim or a right to relief that necessarily depends on a substantial federal question.

Rodgers v. NVR Inc.-Ryan Homes · filed 2023-12-06

This means that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear “only 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.” ... In sum, Plaintiff fails to show that this Court may assert subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims as arising under federal law under Section 1331.

Section 1331 requires allegations of facts supporting federal-question jurisdiction.

Russell v. Austin Community College · filed 2024-03-08

Russell failed to allege facts that would support either diversity of citizenship jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law action merely because the removing defendant asserts federal claims.

Raymond C. Green Trust v. Fiorillo · filed 2022-11-10

Although the complaint is missing from the notice of removal, the docket is attached, and the action is a summary process foreclosure action apparently based entirely on state law. ... Accordingly, because there is no original jurisdiction over the underlying action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, removal fails under 28 U.S.C. 1441(a).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a removed action based on the defendant’s federal-law counterclaims.

Lvnv Funding LLC v. Cooper · filed 2023-07-28

Further, counterclaims based on federal law brought by a removing defendant cannot serve to establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on constitutional claims raised as counterclaims or defenses to a state-law complaint.

The Bank of New York Mellon v. Chidester · filed 2023-04-14

These claims, whether acting as counterclaims or as affirmative defenses, cannot establish federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction depends on the plaintiff’s claims for relief; a defendant’s counterclaim or cross-claim raising federal law cannot support removal.

(PS) Bank of America v. Cavanagh · filed 2019-10-18

However, “the existence of federal jurisdiction depends solely on the plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to those claims.” ... “Removal, therefore, cannot be based on a counterclaim or cross-claim raising a federal question.”

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the original complaint; federal claims raised only in counterclaims or cross-claims do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

McCormack v. Myart · filed 2019-10-09

The Bexar County Defendants—as third-party Defendants—erroneously relied on the federal issues raised in Myart’s cross-claims to establish removal jurisdiction. These claims cannot form the basis of this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

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

In Re A.G. Edwards, Jr. · filed 1994-12-09

The district court did not have federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 because plaintiff Stadium's complaint did not state a federal claim. It is settled law that the existence of federal question jurisdiction is determined solely on the basis of the plaintiff's complaint. A federal question that is raised as a defense or counterclaim by a defendant, such as Edwards, does not confer federal question jurisdiction or establish a basis for removal.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense or counterclaim does not create jurisdiction over a removed state-law action.

State Oil Co. v. Khan · filed 1993-12-03

Federal district courts possess original jurisdiction over actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... But the court cannot acquire jurisdiction where the PMPA is used solely as a defense or asserted as a counterclaim to an otherwise state-law dominated case.

Federal-question jurisdiction for removal requires a federal claim on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a defendant’s federal defense or counterclaim does not suffice.

Wallace v. Wiedenbeck · filed 1998-01-07

With limited exception, removal based on federal question jurisdiction is improper unless a federal claim appears on the face of a well-pleaded complaint. ... Thus, the federal nature of Respondents’ defense and counterclaim is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court for purposes of removal.

Section 1331 determines federal-question jurisdiction from the allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint; counterclaims cannot supply the federal question.

Duckson, Carlson, Bassinger, LLC v. Lake Bank, N.A. · filed 2001-04-24

Federal question jurisdiction, however, is determined solely by the allegations contained in the plaintiffs complaint.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction cannot rest on a federal counterclaim when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises no federal issue.

Property Clerk, New York City Police Dept. v. Fyfe · filed 2002-04-29

In this case, the sole basis that the defendant proffers for federal subject-matter jurisdiction is his counterclaim. However, like a defense, a counterclaim is insufficient to create removal jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Section 1331 applies the well-pleaded-complaint rule: a federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint, and a federal counterclaim cannot establish arising-under jurisdiction.

Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc. · filed 2002-06-03

The well-pleaded-complaint rule has long governed whether a case “arises under” federal law for purposes of § 1331. ... It follows that a counterclaim — which appears as part of the defendant’s answer, not as part of the plaintiff’s complaint — cannot serve as the basis for “arising under” jurisdiction.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a federal counterclaim with its own jurisdictional basis does not cure a lack of jurisdiction over the original claims.

McLaughlin v. Mississippi Power Co. · filed 2004-06-28

If an independent jurisdictional ground exists for a counterclaim, the district court can retain jurisdiction over the counterclaim even if the original claims are dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. ... But that does not mean that dismissal of the original claims is not warranted in the first place.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a breach-of-contract counterclaim that raises no federal question.

Sanborn v. American Lending Network · filed 2007-03-28

Furthermore, the breach of contract claim does not create federal-question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, but does not give them appellate jurisdiction over state court judgments.

Nicholson v. Shafe · filed 2009-02-18

First, section 1331 provides that federal district courts “shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising” under federal law, not appellate jurisdiction.

Section 1331 grants federal district courts original jurisdiction, not appellate jurisdiction to review final state court judgments.

Vazquez v. Reo Properties Corp. (In Re Vazquez) · filed 2012-04-13

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts can only exercise “original jurisdiction”, not appellate jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides original jurisdiction over claims raising a federal question, but does not itself authorize removal of a complaint asserting only a state-law claim.

Kinetic Systems, Inc. v. Federal Financing Bank · filed 2012-09-14

Section 1331 pertains to original jurisdiction, not removal jurisdiction. Nor does § 1331 provide a basis for removal under the general removal statute, § 1441, since Plaintiff's complaint sets forth only a state-law claim and does not raise a federal question.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over federal claims, supporting denial of a motion to remand when those claims are present.

Arthur West, I v. Maxwell · filed 2012-09-25

The district court properly denied West’s motion to remand because the court had original jurisdiction over West’s federal claims and supplemental jurisdiction over his state claims that arose from the same case or controversy.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over federal-question civil actions, but does not authorize them to review final state-court judgments on appeal.

PG Publishing Co. v. Aichele · filed 2012-10-09

Congress has provided United States “district courts” with “original jurisdiction” over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Since this jurisdiction is “original” in nature, federal district courts are “precluded from exercising appellate jurisdiction over final state-court judgments.”

Section 1331 supplies original federal-question jurisdiction for actions first filed in federal court and provides the original-jurisdiction basis for removal under § 1441.

Hohu v. Hatch · filed 2013-04-16

The presence of "original jurisdiction," therefore, establishes a federal court’s ability to hear actions both originally filed with the court under § 1331, as well as those removed to federal court via § 1441.

Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 cannot rest on a federal defense or counterclaim.

Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Davis · filed 2013-08-09

A federal defense cannot serve as the basis for federal jurisdiction. ... Similarly, federal jurisdiction cannot be predicated on a counterclaim.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction cannot be based on a defense or counterclaim.

Deutsche Bank National Trust C v. James Harding, Jr. · filed 2016-07-22

But, as is well established, a federal question cannot be predicated on a defense or a counterclaim.

Section 1331 does not permit a federal counterclaim to establish federal-question jurisdiction, even after the original plaintiff nonsuits its claims.

Renegade Swish, L.L.C. v. Wright · filed 2017-05-22

In short, Holmes Group and Vaden extinguished any possibility that a counterclaim can establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction cannot rest on a defendant’s federal counterclaim.

Vill. Builders on the Bay, Inc. v. Cowling · filed 2018-06-22

However, this argument fails as "federal jurisdiction [cannot] rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim."

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over federal-question cases, not appellate jurisdiction to review decisions of other federal courts.

Liviz v. Howard · filed 2019-03-04

It is an elementary rule of federal jurisdiction that district courts have strictly original jurisdiction in federal question cases and thus cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923).

Section 1331 gives a district court original jurisdiction when a complaint sufficiently asserts a claim under a federal statute, even if the claim later fails on the merits.

Poursaied v. Reserve at Research Park LLC · filed 2019-05-13

However, under a facial attack the Court must consider the allegations of the complaint as true, and here the plaintiff has sufficiently asserted a claim that the defendant violated her rights under the Fair Housing Act, a federal statute.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s own cause of action; a defendant’s federal counterclaim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Enger v. Garagan · filed 2019-09-10

A counterclaim does not confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on a defendant’s federal counterclaims to state-law claims.

JB 430 Holdings v. Swafford Family Trust · filed 2019-10-09

Because Swafford’s two counterclaims cannot serve as the basis for federal question jurisdiction, the Court does not have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for either Civil Case 19-12129 (Graystar v. Swafford) or Civil Case 19-12370 (JB 430 Holdings v. Swafford).

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

Graystar Mortgage, L.L.C. v. Swafford · filed 2019-10-09

Because Swafford’s two counterclaims cannot serve as the basis for federal question jurisdiction, the Court does not have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for either Civil Case 19-12129 (Graystar v. Swafford) or Civil Case 19-12370 (JB 430 Holdings v. Swafford).

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction cannot be based on federal defenses or counterclaims to a state-law foreclosure complaint.

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. STRADER · filed 2019-10-16

Hence, the alleged federal defenses and counterclaims cannot serve as the basis for a removal and the assertion of federal question jurisdiction must be denied.

Federal question jurisdiction cannot rest on a defendant’s federal defenses or counterclaims to a state foreclosure action.

US Bank v. Parson · filed 2020-01-08

As explained, though, Parson’s allegations regarding federal defenses and counterclaims asserted in response to US Bank’s attempted foreclosure proceedings are inadequate and cannot provide the basis for federal question jurisdiction, regardless of whether they were made in the state court action or the removed action.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over § 1983 claims, which cannot be remanded merely because the plaintiff considers related state law claims more important.

May v. Pierce County · filed 2020-01-10

As Pierce County points out, there is no authority for the proposition that this Court can or should remand § 1983 claims over which it has original jurisdiction, based on the plaintiff’s assertion that his state law claims are more important. A plaintiff who asserts federal claims is going to have his case removed under § 1331, and under §1367, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over permissive counterclaims that assert no federal claims.

PRO CUSTOM SOLAR, LLC v. CASTILLO · filed 2020-07-06

Because Defendant’s counterclaims are permissive, there must be an independent basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. Defendants do not assert any federal claims to invoke jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction cannot be based on a federal counterclaim.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. v. SCHILDKNECHT · filed 2020-07-30

Heine’s counterclaim does not give rise to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law counterclaim that raises no substantial federal question.

Tillman v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC · filed 2020-08-05

The counterclaim is based on state law and raises no substantial federal question; therefore, there is no federal question jurisdiction over that claim.

A defendant’s federal counterclaim cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Kondaur Capital Corp. v. Finley · filed 2020-10-22

The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s finding (ECF No. 8, 6), that Defendant appears to be asserting a counterclaim with this allegation, which cannot serve as the basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides no independent jurisdiction over a permissive counterclaim that presents no federal question.

Stafford v. The Bath Planet of Arkansas, LLC · filed 2020-11-23

A permissive counterclaim must present either a federal question or complete diversity of the parties. Here we have neither and the permissive Counterclaims shuold be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; a federal counterclaim or anticipated defense to state-law claims does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Carebourn Capital, L.P. v. Darkpulse, Inc. · filed 2021-02-17

When a complaint asserts only state-law claims, the case cannot be removed to federal court based on either a counterclaim or an anticipated defense that arises under federal law.

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

Cross v. Whelan · filed 2021-06-24

The state-court complaint does not include any claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... However, federal defenses or federal counterclaims do not provide a basis to remove an action that does not otherwise establish federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law complaint based solely on a federal defense or counterclaim, including tribal immunity.

Robeson County v. North Carolina Indian Cultural Center Inc. · filed 2021-06-29

NCICC’s argument fails to account, however, for the longstanding rule that defenses and counterclaims may not form the basis of federal question jurisdiction for purposes of removal.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction, not authority to review decisions of a federal court of appeals.

Newman v. United States · filed 2021-09-08

But this Court has no authority to sit in review of the Sixth Circuit’s decisions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (stating that federal district courts are courts of “original jurisdiction”).

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

Huntington Oaks Village Partnership, L.P. v. Birosak · filed 2021-09-22

The state-court complaint does not include any claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... However, federal defenses or federal counterclaims do not provide a basis to remove an action which does not otherwise establish federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a removed state-law eviction action based on federal claims raised by the defendants as defenses or counterclaims.

Powers v. Reaves · filed 2021-11-03

Although Defendants contend that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction due to a federal question asserted in the document titled “Complaint and Jury Demand” attached to its Notice of Removal (which the Court takes no position regarding its legal effect or application), a review of Plaintiffs’ State court pleadings reveals that the Plaintiffs’ Eviction application only asserts a State law claim against the Defendants. ... Moreover, the Magistrate has comprehensively and in detail addressed this Court’s lack of federal question subject matter jurisdiction, even if the Court were to consider Defendants documents as affirmative defenses and/or a counterclaim to Plaintiffs’ Eviction application.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on a defendant’s federal counterclaim.

Mir v. Naz · filed 2021-12-06

However, because a party cannot remove an action from state court to federal court based on a counterclaim, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 139 S. Ct. at 1748, it does not provide the Court with subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on a defendant’s federal defenses or counterclaims to a state-law claim.

Culver v. Nair · filed 2021-12-13

To the extent Defendant Nair raises defenses or counterclaims arising under federal law, it is well-established that such defenses or counterclaims cannot create federal question jurisdiction such that removal is proper.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction depends on the claims in the complaint; a federal counterclaim does not establish it.

Oakridge Properties v. Walker · filed 2022-05-17

When evaluating whether federal question jurisdiction exists, federal courts utilize the “well-pleaded complaint rule” and look only at the face of the complaint. ... Accordingly, Defendants’ assertion that their counterclaims provide this Court with appropriate jurisdiction are meritless.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; federal counterclaims cannot confer jurisdiction.

Calvary Industries, Inc. v. Winters · filed 2023-01-30

But, as Defendants very well know, federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 is proper “only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). And, “it is well settled that federal counterclaims and defenses are inadequate to confer federal jurisdiction.” Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp. v. Smith, 507 F.3d 910, 914-15 (6th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations omitted). So, the counterclaims cannot convey jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, regardless of whether diversity jurisdiction is established.

Martin v. Siciliano · filed 2023-05-09

Plaintiffs are correct that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court has “original jurisdiction” over the two federal claims, which “aris[e] under the … laws … of the United States.”

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over ADA claims because they arise under federal law.

Redkey v. Phoenix Union High School District · filed 2023-05-31

Second, this Court has original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the laws of the United States, which includes claims under the ADA.

Section 1331, together with the FTCA, supplies original jurisdiction over tort claims against the United States without a need for supplemental jurisdiction.

Fiorito v. United States · filed 2023-07-07

The government moves to dismiss these claims on the ground that the Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over them. But the Court would not need supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. The FTCA and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 supply original jurisdiction over all of Fiorito’s tort claims against the United States.

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

Mullen v. City of Racine · filed 2023-07-31

The Mullens cannot confer federal jurisdiction by bringing counterclaims that allege federal questions.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s claim; a defendant’s federal counterclaim cannot establish jurisdiction upon removal.

THE KISLAK CO. INC v. B&M ESTATES LLC · filed 2023-08-15

Whether the B&M Defendants’ counterclaims assert federal clatms is immaterial, because no matter their nature, counterclaims cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction upon removal.

Section 1331 does not permit counterclaims to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC v. Reyes · filed 2023-09-01

Counterclaims cannot form the basis of § 1331 jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a counterclaim when no factual or legal basis for federal-question jurisdiction is shown.

Trussell Succession v. Do · filed 2023-10-03

Additionally, the answer fails to provide any factual or legal basis for this Court to exert federal question subject matter jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 1331 does not permit removal based on counterclaims raising federal questions.

Carolina Landmark Realty, LLC v. Lineberger · filed 2023-10-31

However, a party cannot remove state proceedings pursuant § 1331 by alleging counterclaims involving questions of federal law.

Section 1331 jurisdiction depends on the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a defendant’s federal counterclaims do not establish it.

Bank of New York v. Consiglio · filed 2023-11-21

But these constitutional claims amount at most to federal counterclaims, and “counterclaims, even if they rely exclusively on federal substantive law, do not qualify a case for federal-court cognizance.” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 62 (2009).

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction over a removed action cannot rest on federal claims or counterclaims newly asserted by the removing party.

Miller v. Dunn · filed 2024-03-27

To the extent that Miller seeks to assert new claims or counterclaims that arise under federal law, such claims cannot be considered in determining whether federal question jurisdiction exists over this removed case.

Section 1331 gives district courts original federal-question jurisdiction over claims brought under federal law.

Morris v. Board of Trustees of the California State University · filed 2024-04-02

Moreover, the fact that Plaintiff brings two causes of actions against the CSU Defendants under federal law means that the Court has original federal question jurisdiction over those two claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction depends on the well-pleaded complaint and cannot be based on a federal counterclaim.

Hale v. Woodward · filed 2024-04-09

The Court finds, however, that it does not have an independent basis for jurisdiction over Defendants’ counterclaims. Although Defendants raise a federal claim under the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, the Supreme Court has “held that federal-question jurisdiction depends on the contents of a well-pleaded complaint, and may not be predicated on counterclaims.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based solely on a federal counterclaim.

Cavalry SPV I LLC v. Hatch · filed 2024-06-18

The presence of a federal counterclaim, however, does not make a suit removable.

Section 1331’s arising-under jurisdiction cannot be based on a federal counterclaim.

Massimo v. Onyx Brands, Inc. · filed 2024-06-18

Moreover, Defendants cannot defeat remand by filing a counterclaim that sounds in federal copyright law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on a defendant’s federal counterclaim when the plaintiff’s complaint raises no federal question.

American Express National Bank v. Goldsmith · filed 2024-08-22

Defendant’s counterclaim alleging a violation of a federal claim—TILA—cannot be used as a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction cannot rest on a defendant’s counterclaim.

Washington Trust Bank v. R and O Development LLP · filed 2024-11-20

And despite Defendants’ allegations that Washington Trust Bank has violated federal law, Defendants counterclaim cannot serve as the basis for federal question jurisdiction itself.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction cannot be based on a federal counterclaim, even when the counterclaim arises under federal law.

First Bank of Alabama v. Time Saver Land Management LLC (CONSENT) · filed 2025-04-24

However, counterclaims—even if they arise under federal law—cannot provide the basis for federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides original jurisdiction over a permissive counterclaim arising under a federal statute.

Williams v. Insomnia Cookies, LLC · filed 2025-07-23

Counterclaim I arises under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), a federal statute and, therefore, this Court has original, federal question jurisdiction over this counterclaim pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 grants district courts original jurisdiction over federal questions, but does not authorize them to review orders of other federal district courts or courts of appeals.

Mya Green v. U.S. DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility · filed 2025-08-20

District courts similarly lack jurisdiction to review the orders of other district courts or any orders of Courts of Appeals.