28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law crop-insurance contract claims that are neither disguised federal claims nor dependent on interpreting federal regulations.

Agre v. Rain & Hail LLC · filed 2002-04-15

Here, the Court finds that plaintiffs’ state law contract claims are not federal questions artfully pleaded, nor do they require an interpretation of federal regulations.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a complaint raises a federal issue.

Perpetual Securities, Inc. v. Julie Tang and Hua Yu Chen · filed 2002-05-09

Simply raising a federal issue in a complaint will not automatically confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because federal law supplies an ingredient of the claim.

Precision Pay Phones v. Qwest Communications Corp. · filed 2002-05-31

As these cases illustrate, the fact that a case may turn in part upon the resolution of some issue of federal law or that federal law constitutes an ingredient of the state law claim for relief does not automatically convert a state claim into one “arising under” federal law for purposes of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal claim; an obviously meritless or wholly frivolous claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Tru-Line Metal Products, Inc. v. U.S. Fabrication & Erection · filed 2002-06-07

If the federal claim that is the basis for jurisdiction is obviously without merit or is wholly frivolous, the federal court must dismiss for a lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not give federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the Vaccine Act may apply when that federal issue is insufficiently substantial.

King Ex Rel. King v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc. · filed 2002-06-07

The Magistrate Judge adopted the district court’s reasoning in Haggerty v. Wyeth Ayerst Pharm., 79 F.Supp.2d 182, 189 (E.D.N.Y.2000) and concluded the issue of whether the Vaccine Act applies to Plaintiffs’ claims is “insufficiently substantial” to confer federal question jurisdiction. This Court finds no error in that approach.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims challenging the lawfulness of USF charges when those claims require resolution of substantial disputed questions under the Federal Communications Act.

In Re Universal Service Fund Telephone Billing Practices Litigation · filed 2002-12-19

After considering the parties' arguments, the court concludes that the complaints which include a facially state law claim which is premised exclusively on the notion that AT & T's and Sprint's alleged practice of charging their customers more than they are required to remit to the USF program (plus their reasonable expenses) is wrongful in fact raise substantial disputed questions of federal law under the FCA.

Section 1331 requires a substantial question of federal law; a claimed federal violation does not establish jurisdiction when the remaining claims also rest on alternative state law theories.

Scott v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Inc. · filed 2003-01-14

Therefore, having granted summary judgment against Plaintiffs’ on several of Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court finds that the remaining claims asserted in Plaintiffs’ complaint do not raise a substantial question of federal law and are supported by alternative state law theories of recovery.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims unless resolving them necessarily requires deciding a substantial federal question.

Greaves v. McAuley · filed 2003-02-07

As currently pled in the complaint, however, Greaves’ claims are based on state law, and as such, the court cannot say that his claims necessarily hinge on the resolution of a substantial federal question.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a constitutional claim that is not wholly insubstantial, even if the claim ultimately fails on the merits.

Field v. Michigan · filed 2003-03-28

The federal constitutional claim is not so entirely insubstantial so as not to invest jurisdiction in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 is not satisfied merely because a claim may require deciding federal legal questions under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Burdett v. Harrah's Kansas Casino Corp. · filed 2003-05-05

The fact that plaintiffs claims may require the Court to decide federal legal questions under the IGRA is not sufficient, standing alone, to demonstrate the existence of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the plaintiff’s right to relief does not depend on resolving a substantial, disputed federal question.

Lippitt v. Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. · filed 2003-08-25

Furthermore, Lippitt’s right to relief does not depend on the resolution of a substantial, disputed federal question. Courts have fashioned a number of proxies to determine whether a state claim depends on the resolution of a federal question to such an extent as to trigger subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a claim for relief necessarily requires resolution of a substantial federal question, including whether land is Indian Country.

Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Village of Union Springs · filed 2003-11-28

Moreover, federal question jurisdiction exists where “a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” ... Therefore, the issue of whether the Property is Indian Country, which is a substantial question of federal law, must be resolved in order to give either party the relief requested.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a contract claim merely because resolving it may require interpreting federal regulations; the federal issue must be substantial.

Templeton Board of Sewer Commissioners v. American Tissue Mills of Massachusetts, Inc. · filed 2003-12-09

We do not believe that merely because a court will have to interpret the federal regulations, it necessarily follows that federal jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when no federal regulation requires the challenged conduct and resolving the claim requires no interpretation of federal law.

Virden v. Altria Group, Inc. · filed 2004-01-30

In the instant case, neither Congress nor the FTC requires disclosure of tar and nicotine levels; nor do they require that the levels, if disclosed, be disclosed in a particular manner. Virden, thus, cannot challenge the validity of a federal regulation or require an interpretation of a federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the plaintiff can prevail on an alternative theory without resolving a substantial federal question.

Coker v. Purdue Pharma Co. · filed 2004-04-23

Therefore, because Plaintiff may attempt to use collateral estoppel to prove that Defendants made material misrepresentations to the PTO, Plaintiff has a theory for his state law claims that does not involve the resolution of substantial questions of federal patent law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over enforcement of an arbitration award when the claim sounds in contract law and does not require resolution of a substantial federal question.

Peabody Coal Company Peabody Western Coal Company Peabody Holding Group, Inc. v. Navajo Nation · filed 2004-06-15

We hold that Peabody’s claim does not meet the requirements of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the case. ... As in these cases, Peabody’s claim for enforcement of an arbitration award sounds in general contract law and does not require the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state tort claims merely because federal regulations may be considered when state law governs the alleged breach of duty.

In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products Liability Litigation · filed 2004-09-03

In this case, consideration of the federal scheme of gasoline content regulation does not fundamentally alter the state tort nature of plaintiffs' actions. [83] The CAA did not eliminate or alter the defendants' duties of care; it merely supplied potential defenses, such as conflict preemption. The question remaining to be litigated, however, is whether defendants breached their duties or engaged in other tortious conduct — which is a question of state law. Therefore, the Court lacks substantial federal question jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that do not depend on resolving a substantial federal question.

In Re Wireless Telephone Federal Cost Recovery Fees Litigation · filed 2004-09-23

Thus, because the Court has determined that plaintiffs’ claims do not depend on the determination of a substantial federal question, this doctrine does not provide a basis for removal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to raise a substantial question of federal law; merely alleging a federal statutory violation is insufficient.

Ashby v. Isle of Wight County School Board · filed 2004-12-15

To establish federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that a substantial question of federal law is raised by her complaint. A mere allegation that a federal statute has been violated is not sufficient.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because resolving it requires interpretation of federal tax law, where the claim raises no substantial federal question.

McMaster v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of California · filed 2005-02-04

Therefore, while this court holds that plaintiffs fifth cause of action for indemnification will require interpretation of “commuting” under the IRC, IRS regulations, and one of the agency’s revenue rulings, the claim is not an artfully pleaded state claim which raises a substantial federal question.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim under the substantial federal question doctrine only when a disputed federal issue is an essential element of the claim.

Pinney v. Nokia, Inc. · filed 2005-03-16

In short, Ormet did not slacken in any way the principle that the substantial federal question doctrine applies only when a disputed issue of federal law is an essential element of at least one of the plaintiffs' state claims.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal issues they raise are insufficiently substantial.

Georgetown Condominiums Homeowners' Ass'n v. Community Apartments Corp. · filed 2005-06-24

The federal claims advanced by Defendants are not “sufficiently substantial” to make the exercise of federal jurisdiction “appropriate and pragmatic.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the alleged wrongdoing occurred in an earlier federal proceeding; the claim must require resolution of a substantial federal question.

Polkow v. CSX Trans · filed 2005-11-18

The only “federal” aspect of Plaintiff’s civil perjury claim is the fact that the alleged perjury occurred in a federal court action. There is no “federal question” that needs to be resolved in order to resolve Plaintiff’s state-law claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when resolving a dispute over whether an interconnection agreement incorporates federal rules requires only state contract law, without deciding a substantial federal question.

Nuvox Communications, Inc. v. North Carolina Utilities Commission · filed 2006-01-20

Thus, in the instant case, the court concludes that the relief sought by plaintiffs does not necessarily depend on resolution of a substantial question of federal law, nor is some disputed question of federal law a necessary element of plaintiffs’ complaint. The parties do not dispute the provisions of the SOC; they dispute whether the terms of their interconnection agreements — which are to be interpreted under Georgia state contract law — incorporate SOC provisions not explicitly set forth otherwise.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims premised on federal statutes unless the alleged federal question is frivolous or plainly insubstantial.

Bishop v. TOYS" R" US-NY LLC · filed 2006-02-08

Where a plaintiff brings claims premised on federal statutes, a district court has jurisdiction, and a motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction is properly denied unless the allegations are “frivolous on their face,” and the alleged federal question is “so plainly insubstantial as to be devoid of any merits and thus [does] not presentí ] any issue worthy of adjudication.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state RICO claim when state-law predicate acts can support it without deciding federal law.

Austin v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co. · filed 2007-02-27

In addition, the Court does not find that this case raises a substantial federal question because plaintiffs RICO allegations do not rest solely on federal law. Rather, plaintiffs allegations of violations of Georgia’s theft by deception and theft by taking statutes could serve as plaintiffs predicate acts under Georgia’s RICO statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that raise no substantial federal issue suitable for a federal forum under the federal-state balance.

In Re Air Crash at Lexington, Kentucky, August 27, 2006 · filed 2007-04-13

Under the facts of this case, the Court concludes that these Plaintiffs have not raised any substantial federal question which may be entertained in a federal forum without disturbing the balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question removal jurisdiction merely because an ordinary federal preemption issue arises in a state-law case.

Harris v. Pacificare Life & Health Ins. Co. · filed 2007-09-28

A removing defendant cannot transform ordinary preemption issues into substantial questions of federal law so as to create a foundation for removal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a Housing Act claim turns on interpreting a grant agreement and presents no substantial question of federal law.

Chenkin v. 808 Columbus LLC · filed 2008-08-05

Thus, plaintiffs’ claims under the Housing Act present no substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction when the asserted federal claim has no arguable legal basis and the dispute is governed by state property law.

Metro Hydroelectric Co., LLC v. Metro Parks · filed 2008-09-04

However, contrary to appellee’s repeated protestations to the contrary, we find that both Grable and Mikulski are inapposite because the instant case involves no federal issue at all. Instead, the only issue raised by the instant case is governed by state property law. As a result, for the reasons set forth below, we conclude that no federal subject matter jurisdiction exists in this case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because it relies on alleged violations of FINRA rules.

Kenosha Unified School District v. Stifel Nicolaus & Co. · filed 2009-04-10

FINRA is a private organization. Therefore, it is inaccurate to assume that the interpretation of these rules presents a substantial federal issue in the first instance. Reliance upon a violation of those rules to establish liability under state law does not provide a right to removal.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over territorial-law claims merely related to a federal cleanup when they raise no actually disputed and substantial federal issue.

Mathes v. Vulcan Materials Co. · filed 2009-08-21

Thus, while the Commissioner’s territorial-law claims bear some relation to federal issues in the sense that those claims arise out of a federally-supervised contaminated site, they do not raise an actually-disputed and substantial issue concerning CERCLA.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal question; a wholly frivolous federal claim is too insubstantial to support jurisdiction.

Austin v. City of Montgomery · filed 2009-11-16

For all of these reasons, we conclude that Austin’s § 1983 claims are wholly without merit and too insubstantial to raise a federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law fraud and fiduciary-duty claims that turn on state-law duties and require no interpretation or application of federal law.

Flynn ex rel. Moody's Corp. v. McDaniel · filed 2010-02-23

Here, by contrast, it is well established the claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duties turn exclusively on New York law and do not require interpretation or application of federal securities law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because breach of a duty created by federal law is an element of the claim.

Baker v. Johnson & Johnson · filed 2010-05-26

As the Court discussed in its April 21 order, a case in which a breach of a duty created by federal law is merely an element of a claim arising under state law is not removable to federal court as an action “arising under” federal law within the meaning of Section 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state wrongful discharge claim when relief does not necessarily depend on resolving a substantial federal question.

Greeney v. Center for Human Development, Inc. · filed 2010-07-27

Here, as in Drake, Plaintiffs right to relief in Count I does not necessarily depend on resolution of a substantial question of First Amendment or other federal law.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that require resolution of a substantial question about whether an agreement was properly filed with FERC.

Michigan Electric Transmission Co. v. Midland Cogeneration Venture, Ltd. Partnership · filed 2010-08-25

In this case, the filed rate doctrine is not only a federal defense, but raises the substantial question of whether the Facilities Agreement was properly filed. Answering this question requires the interpretation of FERC orders and rules, and does not appear to have a simple answer.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when pleaded constitutional claims raise substantial questions of federal law, even if the plaintiff may ultimately lose.

Hunter v. Hamilton County Board of Elections · filed 2011-01-27

The facts pleaded in support of these claims confer federal subject-matter jurisdiction because they raise substantial questions of federal law over which the district court had original jurisdiction and this court has jurisdiction on appeal.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because it identifies the defendant as subject to federal law, when no substantial federal issue must be resolved to grant relief.

San Antonio-Trinidad v. Marriott P.R. Management Corp. · filed 2011-03-24

Thus, identifying Marriott as an employer subject to the FLSA is not an attempt to seek relief pursuant to the FLSA, but rather an assertion made as part of a claim under law 180. More importantly, the assertion does not raise a substantial federal issue that needs to be resolved for San Antonio-Trinidad to obtain relief.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims to an Indian allotment lease when the claims do not require resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

K2 America Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC · filed 2011-08-05

Mindful of that warning, we conclude that K2’s claims do not require the resolution of a substantial federal question of law sufficient for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law complaint when no substantial federal issue is shown and no federal question appears on the face of the complaint.

Morris v. Humana Health Plan, Inc. · filed 2011-11-02

However, sufficient evidence has not been presented which would demonstrate a substantial federal issue, and on the face of the complaint a federal question has not been presented.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims concerning patent ownership when resolving those claims requires no substantial issue of patent law.

Doukas v. Ballard · filed 2011-11-21

For the foregoing reasons, the Court holds that the complaint neither relies upon, nor raises any significant issue of patent law. As this court lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction, the motion to remand must be granted.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction for a public employee’s contract-based salary and benefits claims merely because the employee invokes Section 1983 when the claims present no substantial federal question.

Russo v. School Board · filed 2011-12-15

The Court FINDS that Dr. Russo’s asserted claims to his salary and benefits, stemming from the Salary Deferral Agreement and Transition Agreement, do not give rise to an action under Section 1983, as they properly can be addressed by an ordinary breach of contract action in state court. The case law from the U.S. Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit is clear that, under the facts of this case, Dr. Russo has failed to present a substantial federal question and his invocation of Section 1983 does not cure this infirmity.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a patently insubstantial complaint that presents no federal question suitable for decision.

Clark-Bey v. State of Maryland · filed 2013-02-05

In addition, the complaint is "patently insubstantial, presenting no federal question suitable for decision.'" Caldwell v. Kagan, 777 F. Supp. 2d 177, 178 (D.D.C. 2011) (quoting Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009)).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory action when the defendant’s potential coercive claims do not necessarily raise a substantial federal issue.

Merced Irrigation District v. County of Mariposa · filed 2013-04-23

The Court finds that none of Mariposa’s hypothetical coercive actions necessarily implicate a substantial issue of federal law that could confer “arising under” jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over state-law negligence claims merely because resolving them requires examining federal banking regulations and bank policies adopted under those regulations.

Hutchins v. Modern Woodmen Fraternal Financial · filed 2013-08-16

In effect, it contends only that plaintiffs claim cannot be resolved without examining “multiple federal regulations” that are part of a “complex regulatory scheme overseen by the FDIC and the Department of Treasury”, as well as Wells Fargo’s own internal policy promulgated pursuant to those regulations. This is not a sufficient basis upon which to predicate jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an appeal of an Osage surface-damage arbitration award merely because it requires interpreting a federal regulation without implicating a substantial federal interest.

Nadel v. Reed Family Ranch, LLC · filed 2014-02-24

Second, although the Complaint cites to and requests interpretation of a federal regulation, the Complaint does not implicate any “serious federal interests” that are best adjudicated in a federal forum. As explained above, a case filed under Section 2 may always be prosecuted in Osage County District Court and may only be filed in or removed to federal court if federal jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1332. Therefore, under this statutory scheme, the mere fact that a federal regulation is involved does not mandate a finding of a substantial federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a mortgage-related specific performance claim whose federal issue is an insubstantial factual dispute over compliance with FHA regulations.

Allen v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2014-03-19

But that does not tip the scales in favor of finding federal question jurisdiction where, here, any federal issue presented by the specific performance claim is not substantial. ... the parties’ dispute does not appear to turn on the correct interpretation of federal law but rather on a factual dispute on whether BOA violated the FHA regulations.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a dispute between private federal mineral lessees when federal law neither creates the claim nor makes resolution of a substantial federal question necessary to relief.

BTU Western Resources, Inc. v. Berenergy Corp. · filed 2014-07-15

This Court lacks federal question jurisdiction because federal law does not create Plaintiffs’ claim for relief and Plaintiffs right to relief does not necessarily depend on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over state-law claims challenging the safety and effectiveness of a Class III, premarket-approved medical device when they necessarily raise disputed and substantial federal issues without upsetting the federal-state jurisdictional balance.

Dooley v. Medtronic, Inc. · filed 2014-07-17

The court will confer federal question jurisdiction under the substantial-federal-question doctrine when: (1) the state law has necessarily raised a disputed federal issue; (2) the federal interest in the issue is substantial; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction does not threaten the state-federal law jurisdictional balance. ... The regulations and requirements of the safety and effectiveness of a Class III, PMA device belong under the scope of federal question jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court believes that the state-federal jurisdictional balance remains untouched by the conferral of federal jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims.

Section 1331 requires a removing defendant relying on a federal issue embedded in state-law tort claims to show that the issue is substantial; a connection to federal law alone is insufficient.

Brown v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · filed 2014-08-05

Again, not just any nexus to federal law (or even the presence of a federal element in a state-law claim) triggers “substantial federal question” jurisdiction. The character of that federal question is of critical importance. ... By foregoing any response to this query, Endo has not satisfied its burden of showing that this action lies within the “slim category of cases” in which federal question jurisdiction may be gleaned from purely state-law tort claims based on the existence of a substantial federal question. Accordingly, Endo cannot defeat Brown’s Motion to Remand via reliance on the federal question provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over state tort claims involving alleged violations of the Medical Device Amendments when the federal issues matter only to the litigants and lack significance to the federal system as a whole.

Hardy v. Medtronic, Inc. · filed 2014-08-22

This court similarly concludes that the federal issues in dispute in the instant action fail to meet the “substantiality” requirement in that they are important to the individual litigants, but they are hot significant to the federal system as a whole.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over state law claims alleging off-label promotion of a medical device when the disputed federal issues are important only to the litigants and not significant to the federal system as a whole.

Padgett v. Medtronic, Inc. · filed 2014-08-22

This court similarly concludes that the federal issues in dispute in the instant action fail to meet the “substantiality” requirement in that they are important to the individual litigants, but they are not significant to the federal system as a whole.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over state-law claims alleging off-label promotion of a medical device when the disputed federal issues are important only to the litigants and not to the federal system as a whole.

Roden v. Medtronic, Inc. · filed 2014-08-22

This court similarly concludes that the federal issues in dispute in the instant action fail to meet the “substantiality” requirement in that they are important to the individual litigants, but they are not significant to the federal system as a whole.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over state tort claims involving federal medical-device requirements when the disputed federal issues matter only to the litigants and are not significant to the federal system as a whole.

Goffner v. Medtronic, Inc. · filed 2014-08-22

This court similarly concludes that the federal issues in dispute in the instant action fail to meet the “substantiality” requirement in that they are important to the individual litigants, but they are not significant to the federal system as a whole.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over state law claims involving medical-device regulations when the disputed federal issues matter only to the litigants and lack significance to the federal system as a whole.

Hubbard v. Medtronic, Inc. · filed 2014-08-22

This court similarly concludes that the federal issues in dispute in the instant action fail to meet the “substantiality” requirement in that they are important to the individual litigants, but they are not significant to the federal system as a whole.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims concerning off-label medical-device promotion when the embedded federal issues are important only to the litigants and not to the federal system as a whole.

Shelton v. Medtronic, Inc. · filed 2014-08-22

This court similarly concludes that the federal issues in dispute in the instant action fail to meet the “substantiality” requirement in that they are important to the individual litigants, but they are not significant to the federal system as a whole.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over state-law medical-device claims requiring proof of federal violations when the federal issues matter only to the litigants and lack significance to the federal system as a whole.

Beavers v. Medtronic, Inc. · filed 2014-08-22

This court similarly concludes that the federal issues in dispute in the instant action fail to meet the “substantiality” requirement in that they are important to the individual litigants, but they are not significant to the federal system as a whole.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over state medical-device tort claims when the disputed federal issues matter to the individual litigants but are not significant to the federal system as a whole.

Miller v. Medtronic, Inc. · filed 2014-08-22

This court similarly concludes that the federal issues in dispute in the instant action fail to meet the “substantiality” requirement in that they are important to the individual litigants, but they are not significant to the federal system as a whole.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over state-law claims alleging off-label promotion of a medical device when the disputed federal issues matter only to the litigants and lack significance to the federal system as a whole.

Mauk v. Medtronic, Inc. · filed 2014-08-22

This court similarly concludes that the federal issues in dispute in the instant action fail to meet the “substantiality” requirement in that they are important to the individual litigants, but they are not significant to the federal system as a whole.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over state tort claims concerning off-label medical-device promotion when the disputed federal issues are important to the litigants but not significant to the federal system as a whole.

Shumate v. Medtronic, Inc. · filed 2014-08-22

This court similarly concludes that the federal issues in dispute in the instant action fail to meet the “substantiality” requirement in that they are important to the individual litigants, but they are not significant to the federal system as a whole.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims concerning off-label promotion of a medical device when the disputed federal issues matter only to the litigants and are not significant to the federal system as a whole.

Schilmiller v. Medtronic, Inc. · filed 2014-08-25

This court similarly concludes that the federal issues in dispute in the instant action fail to meet the “substantiality” requirement in that they are important to the individual litigants, but they are not significant to the federal system as a whole.

Section 1331 permits federal jurisdiction over state-law claims challenging the safety and effectiveness of a Class III, premarket-approved medical device when they necessarily raise disputed, substantial federal issues without disturbing the state-federal jurisdictional balance.

Arrington v. Medtronic, Inc. · filed 2014-09-02

The court will confer federal question jurisdiction under the substantial-federal-question doctrine when: (1) the state law has necessarily raised a disputed federal issue; (2) the federal interest in the issue is substantial; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction does not threaten the state-federal law jurisdictional balance. ... This Court, believes Plaintiffs’ claims necessarily raise disputed federal issues. ... The regulations and requirements of the safety and effectiveness of a Class III, PMA device belong under the scope of federal question jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court believes that the state-federal jurisdictional balance ■ remains untouched by the conferral of federal jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims.

Conclusory assertions of a federal question do not establish jurisdiction under § 1331 over state tort and contract claims concerning tuition, grades, and academic credits.

Kalick v. United States · filed 2015-03-11

Because Kalick voluntarily dismissed all of the federal defendants against which his federal claims were asserted, his conclusory allegations of a federal question concerning his unpaid tuition bill, grades, and academic credits are legally insufficient to support jurisdiction in the federal courts under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a contract dispute involving incorporated federal regulations when the dispute is primarily factual and has little impact on federal law or a federal agency's activities.

Administracion de Seguros de Salud v. Triple-S Salud, Inc. · filed 2015-03-31

Accordingly, as the proceeding before ASES “present[s] primarily factual disputes and would have little impact on the development of federal law or the activities of a federal agency, we conclude that the federal issue in this case is not substantial in the relevant sense to warrant federal jurisdiction.”

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim raising a federal issue only if all four Grable requirements are met, including a substantial federal issue.

Wolfson v. Ernst · filed 2015-07-07

All four of the Grable requirements must be met for jurisdiction to be proper under § 1331 or § 1338(a). ... The third requirement is not met here. Accordingly, the complaint does riot raise a substantial issue of federal law.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim that necessarily raises an actually disputed, substantial federal issue capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the congressionally approved federal-state balance.

Pressl v. Appalachian Power Co. · filed 2015-10-06

In addition to jurisdiction under 16 U.S.C. § 825p, this case would also satisfy the Grable and Gunn requirements for a “substantial federal question.”

Section 1331 permits original jurisdiction when a claim requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law, including the effect of rights under the Bankruptcy Code.

ACR Energy Partners, LLC v. Polo North Country Club, Inc. · filed 2015-11-05

For all of these reasons, the Court finds the exercise of original jurisdiction over these actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 appropriate.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state tort claims merely because federal drinking-water requirements may supply the alleged duty of care.

Mays v. City of Flint · filed 2016-10-06

Even if Plaintiffs sought to demonstrate that Defendants were negligent because they failed to comply with the SDWA or its regulations, this does not raise a substantial federal issue.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state tort claims involving off-label medical-device use when their federal regulatory issues are not significant to the federal system as a whole.

Middendorf v. West Chester Hospital, LLC · filed 2017-02-08

This Court joins with the prevailing consensus in holding that there is no substantial federal issue raised in this civil action. While the interpretation of FDCA regulations will be of supreme importance to the parties in this case, that interpretation will not be “significant to the federal system as a whole” as required by Gunn.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims unless resolving them necessarily requires deciding a federal issue.

Overhead Door Corp. v. Assa Abloy Entrance Systems Greenville, Inc. · filed 2017-02-13

For these reasons, the Court holds Defendants have failed to demonstrate Plaintiffs claims for relief necessarily depend on a question of federal law. As Defendants have failed to establish Plaintiff necessarily raised a federal issue in its state law claims, Plaintiffs claims fail to arise under federal law pursuant to the substantial federal question doctrine, and removal is therefore unjustified.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract dispute when a federal statute is merely background and no substantial federal question is needed to resolve the claim.

Gallup Med Flight, LLC v. Builders Trust of New Mexico · filed 2017-02-28

The Court, accordingly, is not satisfied that a substantial federal question of law is at issue in the resolution of this contract dispute.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state law claim with an embedded federal issue only when the claim necessarily raises a disputed federal issue, the federal interest is substantial, and jurisdiction preserves the congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Funderwhite v. Local 55, United Ass'n · filed 2017-07-24

This Court has established a three-part test for determining whether a state law claim involves a substantial federal question: “(1) the state law claim must necessarily raise a disputed federal issue; (2) the federal interest in the issue must be substantial; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must not disturb any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.” Mikulski, 501 F.3d at 568 (citing Grable, 545 U.S. at 314). Upon reviewing these factors, we are convinced that the exercise of federal jurisdiction is inappropriate in the instant case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when asserted federal claims fail to present a substantial question of federal law.

Bernath v. The American Legion · filed 2017-11-28

Bernath’s claims against the defendants fail to present a substantial question of federal law that conferred jurisdiction on the district court.

Section 1331 requires a federal issue to be necessarily raised on the face of a state-law complaint for federal ingredient jurisdiction.

Enforcement Section of the Mass. Sec. Div. of the Office of the Sec'y of the Commonwealth v. Scottrade, Inc. · filed 2018-08-16

No federal issue is necessarily raised from the face of plaintiff's administrative complaint.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state tort claims concerning floodplain development when resolving them requires no necessary and substantial federal issue.

Alexander v. Woodlands Land Dev. Co. L.P. · filed 2018-09-06

Nor do Plaintiffs' claims raise a federal issue sufficient to create federal jurisdiction in this case because they are neither "necessary" nor "substantial" within the meaning of § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a fact-specific state administrative appeal when its federal issue is not substantial and federal review would disrupt the balance of state and federal judicial responsibilities.

Rio Rancho Pub. Sch. Bd. of Educ. v. N.M. Pub. Educ. Dep't · filed 2018-11-27

Therefore, the Court concludes that any federal question is not substantial and is unlikely to resolve this case. ... The Court also concludes that resolving this appeal of a state administrative agency decision would substantially disrupt the federal-state balance of responsibilities.

State-law tort claims for damages arising from contaminated property do not present a substantial federal question merely because they criticize a CERCLA cleanup, when they do not seek to change or interfere with the cleanup.

Waukegan Port Dist. v. N. Shore Gas Co. · filed 2019-03-04

Assuming that the Seventh Circuit would adopt other circuits' approach to "challenges" to CERCLA cleanups in the context of "substantial federal question" jurisdiction, the Port District's suit does not constitute a "challenge" to the EPA's interim remedy such that its tort claims will require resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law insurance coverage dispute that requires interpretation of a private contract rather than resolution of a substantial federal issue.

Wise v. United Healthcare of Fla., Inc. · filed 2019-05-01

In any event, this action seeks declaratory relief to interpret terms of, and identify obligations under, a contract between two private parties. ... The dispute ultimately concerns Defendant's interpretation of its own contract and coverage decisions that it made. ... In the absence of both federal officer removal jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction, remand is appropriate.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law tort claims when the federal issues involve only fact-specific application of federal regulations and lack substantial importance to the federal system.

Gaylord v. Spartan College of Aeronautics & Technology, LLC · filed 2019-07-26

Accordingly, the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a well-pleaded federal claim unless it is so insubstantial that it warrants no meaningful consideration.

Tijerino v. Stetson Desert Project, LLC · filed 2019-08-16

The claims in the Dancers’ complaints are not “wholly insubstantial and frivolous,” and are not so patently without merit as to warrant dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 513 n.10. Therefore, there is federal question subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the Dancers’ § 216(b) claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and there is supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1331 requires the plaintiff to set forth a substantial question of federal law; a petition to expunge state criminal charges without a federal-law basis does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Mahmoud v. State of Wisconsin · filed 2020-01-29

Likewise, there is no federal law that exists for Mahmoud to plead a federal question based on his petition. Federal question jurisdiction requires that the plaintiff set forth a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a possible federal labeling issue requires only the technical application of a straightforward standard and is not substantial to the federal system.

Ball v. Design Master Color Tool, Inc. · filed 2020-05-04

Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, this matter does not present a substantial question of federal law, and therefore federal subject matter is lacking.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the asserted federal issue is neither necessarily raised nor sufficiently substantial to justify a federal forum.

Moore v. PNC Bank, National Association · filed 2020-07-09

Because PNC Bank fails to present any federal questions that necessarily arise from Plaintiffs claims or that prove sufficiently substantial to justify resort to a federal forum, the Court finds that it lacks federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction merely because a state-law civil claim may require deciding whether defendants violated federal criminal statutes; the federal issue must be substantial.

Williams-Salmon v. Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · filed 2020-07-31

In any event, even if a criminal conviction is a condition precedent to liability under Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.60 such that the court would need to determine whether Defendants violated federal criminal statutes, this fact would not constitute a substantial federal question giving rise to jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law deed-of-trust claim based on incorporated HUD face-to-face meeting regulations when the claim raises no substantial federal question.

Lavin v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation · filed 2020-08-12

For the reasons articulated by the four Lack of Face-to-Face Meeting Cases in this District, the Court concludes that Count One does not raise a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because the underlying agreement includes conditions imposed by federal law.

Community Partnership Collaborative 2.0 v. Minnesota Department of Health, The · filed 2020-08-25

Whitson’s assertion that the grant agreement included conditions imposed by federal law does not raise a substantial federal question that might trigger § 1331 jurisdiction over her state-law claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law election dispute merely because the claim invokes Article II when the dispute turns on the meaning of state law.

West v. Wisconsin Elections Commission · filed 2020-09-03

As a result, the case arises under state, not federal, law and this court lacks jurisdiction to decide it.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff identifies no substantial federal question in her claims.

Verma v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency · filed 2021-02-10

Plaintiff also invokes federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, arguing that her case involves the “validity and enforceability” of loans that must be “interpreted in accordance with the Higher Education Act of 1965[,] other applicable federal statutes and regulations.” ECF No. 47-7 at 4. From there, Plaintiff asks the Court to exercise “federal ‘arising under’ jurisdiction” because her claims “turn on substantial questions of federal law.” Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Ine. v. Darue Eng’g & Mf, 545 U.S. 308, 312 (2005) (emphasis added). But nowhere does she identify what substantial federal questions exist, and the Court finds none.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over wholly insubstantial or frivolous federal claims, including a § 1983 claim lacking alleged facts showing action under color of state law.

Lopez v. Dang · filed 2021-03-03

“[W]holly insubstantial and frivolous” claims may “fail[] to raise a substantial federal question for jurisdictional purposes.” ... Plaintiffs allege that federal jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (defining “federal question” jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (giving district courts original jurisdiction over certain civil rights claims). ... The only federal questions presented by the Complaint are the claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Thus, Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts demonstrating that they can pursue a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Defendants.

Section 1331 requires a state-law claim to present an essential federal issue before a substantial federal question supports jurisdiction.

Del City Joint Venture LLC v. Del City City of · filed 2021-03-18

A substantial federal question arises only when the claim presents an essential federal issue, see Devon Energy, 693 F.3d at 1208, and Plaintiffs claims only require interpreting Del City’s municipal code.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim under the substantial-federal-question doctrine when adjudicating the claim requires neither interpreting a federal statute nor deciding its constitutionality.

Nava v. Parkwest Rehabilitation Center, LLC · filed 2021-04-05

Adjudicating her state law claims does not require an interpretation, or challenge the constitutional validity, of any federal statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the asserted federal issue is fact-bound and situation-specific rather than substantial.

The State of New Mexico v. Sterigenics U.S., LLC · filed 2021-04-13

This “fact-bound and situation-specific” question does not constitute a “substantial” federal question.

Section 1331’s substantial-federal-question route to arising-under jurisdiction is unavailable when the complaint raises no state-law claim presenting a substantial federal question.

Robinson v. Aetna Life Insurance Company · filed 2021-05-26

Robinson does not bring any state-law claim that could be said to raise a substantial federal question. Thus, one alternative to arising-under jurisdiction, “that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law,” is not available here.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal issue is insubstantial.

DRESSER v. NORM · filed 2021-06-24

A court’s expeditious sua sponte review is based on the longstanding doctrine that federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking when the federal issues are not substantial.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when resolving them requires no interpretation of federal statutes.

Cox v. Black · filed 2021-06-25

Likewise, interpretation of federal statutes is not necessary to a resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims, notwithstanding contrary suggestions offered in support of removal.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law insurance dispute when the only asserted federal issue is preempted by the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. · filed 2021-08-02

At best, Church Mutual has argued for the potential presence of a federal issue in this matter, but even that matter is preempted by the MFA. Thus, it has not shown that Brotherhood Mutual’s claims necessarily raise disputed and substantial issues of federal law. For these reasons, Church Mutual has not met its burden to establish that federal jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal claim for federal-question jurisdiction.

ORTEGA v. DOWNEY · filed 2021-08-25

A court’s expeditious sua sponte review is based on the longstanding doctrine that federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking when the federal issues are not substantial.

Section 1331 does not give federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because federal law may inform the analysis; the claim must depend on resolving a federal question.

CITY OF HOBOKEN v. EXXON MOBIL CORP. · filed 2021-09-08

This general concern that federal law might be implicated or may guide the Court’s analysis is materially different than a claim, like that in Grable, that is dependent on the interpretation of federal law.

Section 1331 permits federal jurisdiction over state-law claims that necessarily raise an actually disputed, substantial federal issue capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance.

State of New York v. International Joint Commission · filed 2021-09-13

For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies the motion to remand because it finds that this is one of those rare cases where the state law claims asserted in the complaint necessarily raise a federal issue which is actually disputed, substantial, and capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that do not necessarily raise a federal issue; claims outside the PREP Act do not raise such an issue merely because that Act may supply a defense.

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

The first question under Gunn is whether a federal issue is “necessarily raised.” Because Plaintiff’s claims do not fall within the scope of the PREP Act, they do not raise a federal issue.

Section 1331 requires the face of the complaint to present a substantial federal question for federal-question jurisdiction.

Chavez v. County Counsel · filed 2021-09-22

Further, to the extent that plaintiffs are attempting to assert federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as set forth below, the face of the Complaint fails to present a substantial federal question over which the Court has jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim whose federal issue is fact-bound and situation-specific.

Oliver v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections · filed 2021-09-28

A substantial question of federal law is not present where, as here, the claim is “fact-bound and situation-specific.”

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim concerning COVID-19 safety precautions at a nursing facility when the claim implicates no significant federal issue.

Ossowski v. St. Joseph Transitional Rehabilitation Center, LLC · filed 2021-10-06

The Grable exception also does not apply since there are no significant federal issues implicated by a state law tort claim over negligence in safety precautions of a Nevada nursing facility to limit the spread of a viral disease.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over federal constitutional claims even when the Supreme Court summarily dismissed a similar challenge for want of a substantial federal question.

Kowall v. Benson · filed 2021-11-17

We did not question whether the dismissal “for want of a substantial federal question” deprived us of jurisdiction. Id. And we see no reason to reach a different conclusion here. Because the legislators raise claims under the Federal Constitution, we have jurisdiction to hear their case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state tort claim incorporating federal-law violations when the federal law provides no private cause of action and no substantial federal question is identified.

Jernigan v. Riverside Diner · filed 2021-12-28

Likewise, here, Plaintiff raises a state tort claim and incorporates federal violations, there is no private cause of action within the federal law upon which Plaintiffs rely, and Defendants have failed to identify any substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that do not necessarily require resolving a federal issue, even when the defendant invokes a federal statutory immunity defense.

Jalili-Farshchi v. Aldersly · filed 2021-12-29

Plaintiffs’ complaint raises only state law claims. Interpretation of federal statutes, including the PREP Act, is not an essential part of any of plaintiffs’ state law claims. And Aldersly’s invocation of immunity under the PREP Act is a defense to, rather than a necessary component of, plaintiffs’ claims, which Aldersly will not be precluded from raising in state court.

Section 1331 does not provide substantial federal question jurisdiction over state law claims that raise no substantial federal question under the PREP Act or another federal statute.

James Gavert,et al v. CF Modesto, LLC · filed 2022-03-09

Here, because Plaintiffs’ state law claims do not raise a substantial federal question under the PREP Act or any other federal statute, there is no substantial federal question jurisdiction under Manning, Gunn, or Grable.

Section 1331 establishes federal-question jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint identifies a substantial federal question.

Erickson v. Sawyer · filed 2022-03-29

Subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1331 is established when a well-pleaded complaint identifies a substantial federal question.

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded complaint identifying a substantial federal question; state-law claims concerning an FCC license do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Hicks v. Smith · filed 2022-05-24

Subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1331 exists when a well-pleaded complaint identifies a substantial federal question. ... Thus, even construed liberally, the Amended Complaint does not identify any claim arising under federal law, so there is no basis for federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because a federal agency regulates the activity involved; the claim must necessarily raise a substantial federal issue.

Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy v. STS Hydropower, LLC · filed 2022-07-01

Here, too, no claim hinges on federal law, and no essential element necessarily incorporates a federal issue. Though FERC is involved with the Dam’s operation and repair, FERC’s involvement is not enough to confer federal question subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction under Grable when federal law is not an essential element of a state-law claim.

Morra v. 700 Marvel Road Operations, LLC · filed 2022-07-25

As Plaintiffs’ Complaint pleaded their state-law negligence claim without mentioning the PREP Act, the PREP Act is not “an essential element of the plaintiff[s’] state law claim” and, therefore, this Court lacks federal-question jurisdiction under Grable.

Section 1331 covers claims that necessarily raise a substantial, disputed federal issue.

County of Santa Clara v. Astra USA, Inc. · filed 2008-08-27

... and so was properly heard by the district court in the exercise of its 28 U.S.C. § 1331 federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state products-liability claims merely because they involve compliance with federal regulations when no substantial federal issue is disputed.

Banks v. 3M Company · filed 2022-09-27

Finally, applying the substantial federal question doctrine in this case would inevitably invite into federal court many traditional state law products liability actions that implicate or measure against federal regulations, disturbing Congress’s intended federal-state balance. ... There is no federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 in these cases.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because it alleges noncompliance with federal regulations; the federal issue must be substantial.

Combs v. 3M Company · filed 2022-09-27

The record simply does not feature a contested, substantial issue of federal law adequate to trigger the “slim category Grable exemplifies.” Empire, 126 S. Ct. at 2137. ... There is no federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 in these cases.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because it involves compliance with federal regulations; the federal issue must be substantial, and jurisdiction must preserve the intended division of responsibility between state and federal courts.

Hamilton v. 3M Company · filed 2022-09-27

Finally, applying the substantial federal question doctrine in this case would inevitably invite into federal court many traditional state law products liability actions that implicate or measure against federal regulations, disturbing Congress’s intended federal-state balance. ... There is no federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 in these cases.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a state-law products liability claim merely because it involves compliance with federal regulations; the federal issue must be substantial.

Mounts v. 3M Company · filed 2022-09-27

The record simply does not feature a contested, substantial issue of federal law adequate to trigger the “slim category Grable exemplifies.” Empire, 126 S. Ct. at 2137. ... There is no federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 in these cases.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction when a complaint merely mentions federal laws or the Fourteenth Amendment that plainly do not apply to the alleged facts.

Williams v. Jones · filed 2022-10-07

But Williams’ “bare mention” of federal laws and the Fourteenth Amendment – which are plainly inapplicable to the alleged facts of the case – do not confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim that fails all four requirements for a substantial federal question.

Dagostine v. Pendleton · filed 2022-11-15

In all, Plaintiffs’ claim fails to fulfill any of Gunn’s four elements, and this Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over their claim.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a federal tariff is not central to the claim and its construction is not in dispute.

Koncilia v. Southwest Power Pool, Inc. · filed 2022-12-09

As in Unruh, SPP has failed to meet its burden to show that a substantial federal question is at issue. Based on the petition, there is no indication that the tariff will be a central issue in this case. Moreover, Plaintiff does not dispute the validity of the tariff nor is there any indication that the construction of the tariff will be in dispute.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because it uses a federal labeling standard; the federal issue must be substantial.

CHASE v. AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL EVENTS INC · filed 2022-12-14

In summary, for the foregoing reasons, this action does not...present a substantial question of federal law. The Court thus...lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and this action must be...remanded.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal question; unexplained references to federal laws do not establish jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Emrit v. Jules · filed 2023-04-11

A district court may also exercise “federal question” jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but Emrit’s claims do not present a substantial federal question.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a sufficiently substantial claim that false statements led to an arrest.

Fisher v. Rossi · filed 2023-04-27

The Court finds that, at the time of removal, there was a sufficiently substantial federal claim for deprivation of the right to be free from arrest where false statements convinced the judicial officer that there was probable cause to believe that the accused committed the alleged offenses. See Betker v. Gomez, 692 F.3d 854, 864 (7th Cir. 2012). This Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claim based on this federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim merely because a federal regulation may help establish the standard of care.

Gregg v. Rodriguez · filed 2023-06-16

Therefore, the fact that there might be evidence of a federal regulation to establish the standard of care is not sufficient to present a substantial federal question in this case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim merely because a federal regulation may provide evidence of the standard of care.

Peterson v. Rodriguez · filed 2023-06-16

Therefore, the fact that there might be evidence of a federal regulation to establish the standard of care is not sufficient to present a substantial federal question in this case.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim for unpaid household-goods tariffs when the right to relief necessarily depends on a substantial federal question.

United Van Lines, LLC v. Clark · filed 2023-08-08

Thus, Plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of a substantial federal question and arises under this Court’s federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not give a federal court jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim merely because federal regulations supply the standard of care, when their meaning is not disputed and federal jurisdiction would disrupt the congressionally approved balance between state and federal courts.

Moody v. Munich · filed 2023-09-14

In sum, defendants have failed to show that the Grable test has been met. Although the federal aviation regulations have been necessarily raised in this case, the interpretation of those regulations is not in dispute and resolution of plaintiffs’ negligence claim in this court would “disrupt[] the federal-state balance approved by Congress.’” Newtok, 21 F.4th at 618. Thus, the court lacks federal question jurisdiction, and this matter must be remanded to state court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when relief does not require resolving a substantial federal question.

A.C. v. Friedlander · filed 2023-10-02

In short, because resolution of a substantial federal question is not a prerequisite for the relief being sought under the plaintiffs’ chosen state cause of action, the well-pleaded complaint rule does not support conferring federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the embedded federal issue lacks substantial significance to the federal system.

Adams v. Max Credit Union · filed 2023-10-03

The federal question at issue, as it concerns Regulation E here, is not a matter of considerable magnitude nor a substantial federal interest.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because they involve federal funds governed by federal regulations.

Duran v. New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions · filed 2023-10-11

Although it is true that this case involves federal funds, the disbursement of which are governed by federal regulations, such facts are insufficient to qualify for substantial-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide original jurisdiction over a state-law zoning appeal that raises no substantial federal question, even when the complaint mentions the United States Constitution.

TERAMORE DEVELOPMENT LLC v. LOWNDES COUNTY GEORGIA · filed 2023-10-20

Accordingly, the Court finds that Count I of Plaintiffs’ first Complaint does not raise a substantial federal question, and therefore, the Court does not have original jurisdiction over the claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the federal issue it raises is not substantial.

Carey v. Whitehall Surgery Center, Ltd. · filed 2023-11-21

Applying this test, there is no federal-question jurisdiction here.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over state-law claims unless they necessarily involve a substantial question of federal law.

MSP Recovery Claims, Series 44, LLC v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2023-11-27

Adopting the reasoning set forth in those two orders, the Court finds that USAA has “not shown that Plaintiffs’ claims ‘really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy respecting the validity, construction or effect of federal law.’”

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal question to support jurisdiction over a state-law dispute.

Aerospace Operating Associates, Limited Partnership v. City of Houston, Texas Case remanded to the 189th District Court · filed 2023-12-05

It takes a substantial federal question to transform what the parties admit is a state-law rent dispute into a federal case.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal question; a trespass dispute that presents no Takings Clause question does not confer federal-question jurisdiction.

RICCA v. BOROUGH OF MEDIA, PENNSYLVANIA · filed 2023-12-28

The federal question must be “substantial” to confer jurisdiction under § 1331. ... Thus, there is no federal question in this trespass action, and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that asserts no federal cause of action and raises no substantial federal issue.

Board of Commissioners, Lucas County, Ohio v. RKKP 2 LLC · filed 2024-01-08

Having found neither a federal cause of action nor a substantial federal issue, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Complaint “does not state a claim ‘arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.’” Merrell Dow, 478 U.S. at 817 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1331). As such, remand is required.

A state-law claim does not support jurisdiction under § 1331’s substantial federal question doctrine unless it necessarily raises a federal issue.

Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. · filed 2024-01-19

Because the court finds that Plaintiff’s state law claims do not “necessarily raise” federal questions as required under the first prong of the substantial federal question test, the doctrine does not support federal question jurisdiction regardless of how the parties’ fare on the remaining elements.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence per se claim merely because federal statutes supply its standard of care when the claim raises no significant federal question.

Doe v. SSM Healthcare Corporation · filed 2024-05-13

Defendants have failed to demonstrate that Plaintiffs’ state-law claims implicate any significant federal question, and so this case does not belong to the “special and small category” of cases where federal “arising under” jurisdiction exists despite there being no federal cause of action.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the asserted federal issue does not necessarily raise a substantial federal question.

Biondi v. RAH Equity Holdings, LLC · filed 2024-05-16

The fact that this regulation is not yet in effect and, in any event, appears inapplicable to this case is alone sufficient for this Court to find that “arising under” jurisdiction is inappropriate here, as the rule does not appear to necessarily raise a “substantial” federal question with respect to this case.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a claim requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Southern Highlands Community Association · filed 2024-09-30

The Court also has federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Deutsche sought a declaration that the Nevada statute was facially unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. This required resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a negligence-per-se claim based on FMCSR violations when the claim raises no substantial question of federal law.

Brown v. Powers · filed 2024-10-02

At issue here is whether this claim invokes a federal issue such that this Court may exercise federal question jurisdiction over this matter. The Court finds that it does not.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state constitutional claims merely because courts interpret them consistently with parallel federal constitutional provisions.

Grant Township v. Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County, Kansas · filed 2024-10-28

In sum, the mere fact that Plaintiffs’ claims under the Kansas Constitution are construed under the law consistently with analog claims under the United States Constitution is insufficient to trigger a substantial federal question for purposes of federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a petition to vacate an arbitration award when the asserted federal issue concerns a regulation’s effect on a private agreement and is not substantial to the federal system as a whole.

Williams v. Promedica Health Systems Inc · filed 2024-12-02

Even putting aside Arbaugh, we would still conclude that Williams’s petition does not arise under federal law because whether the CMS Regulation affects the validity or enforceability of his private arbitration agreement is not a substantial federal issue under Grable.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal-law claim to establish federal-question jurisdiction; a frivolous claim does not suffice.

Harvey v. Joseph · filed 2024-12-16

Plaintiffs have failed to raise a substantial claim under federal law. Accordingly, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case based on a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law legal malpractice claim when its federal issue is not substantial.

Cantu v. Beck Redden · filed 2024-12-23

In sum, we hold that Cantu’s state-law legal malpractice claim does not arise under federal law because it fails to raise a substantial federal question, and accordingly, Beck Redden fails to establish federal jurisdiction.

Federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim requires a substantial federal issue; a federal issue that only touches the dispute is insufficient.

Classic Jet Center LLC v. Strmac · filed 2024-12-30

Even if resolution of the parties’ dispute touches on the Pilot Records Improvement Act, any such issue in this case is insignificant and does not present a substantial federal question.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal question to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Ly v. Airbnb, Inc. · filed 2025-02-03

Based on the foregoing, the Court cannot find that the Complaint raises a substantial federal question for jurisdictional purposes.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal question to support jurisdiction.

Bryant v. CD Baby.com · filed 2025-02-24

Upon review of the Complaint, the Court cannot discern a substantial federal question for jurisdictional purposes.

A state-law claim does not arise under § 1331 merely because resolving it may touch on a federal statute; the federal issue must be substantial.

Troicky v. Lundeen · filed 2025-02-26

Even if resolution of the parties’ dispute touches on Section 1738, any such issue is not of significance and does not present a substantial federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint identifies neither a federal cause of action nor a substantial question of federal law.

Arnold v. Moore and Smith Tree Care LLC · filed 2025-03-07

The Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed because Plaintiff fails to establish federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections do not provide a basis to reject or modify the Report and Recommendation and that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims are appropriate.