28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to identify the federal statute or constitutional provision supporting the claim to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Crisp v. United States Department of Education · filed 2021-10-08

Ms. Crisp indicated that she was pleading federal question jurisdiction by checking that box on her complaint form, but she never provided the federal statute or constitutional provision on which her case rests. Thus, she has not met the burden of establishing federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires factual allegations sufficient to establish federal-question jurisdiction; merely naming federal statutes does not meet that burden.

Fenelon v. Housing & Urban Development · filed 2021-10-22

The Complaint asserts that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 because their claims arise under the Fair Housing Act violations ("FHA"), 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et. seq; Conspiracy to violate Civil Rights, and Antitrust Law violations. However, Plaintiffs do not allege any facts regarding how these statutes were violated. ... Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not met their burden of proving that this Court has jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 requires a claim that actually arises under federal law; merely invoking the ADA without alleging a violation does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Toolasprashad v. Toolasprashad · filed 2021-10-25

Plaintiff’s bare allegation that his claim arises under the ADA does not create federal- question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff invoking federal-question jurisdiction to identify the federal statute or constitutional provision supporting the claim; checking the federal-question box alone does not establish jurisdiction.

Tritschler v. ICE · filed 2021-11-02

Plaintiffs indicated that they were pleading federal question jurisdiction by checking that box on their complaint form, but they never provided the federal statute or constitutional provision on which their case rests. Thus, they have not met their burden of establishing federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to identify a federal cause of action sufficient to invoke federal-question jurisdiction; merely calling a claim discrimination does not suffice.

Bernard v. Publix Store · filed 2021-11-02

Indeed, while Plaintiff has designated this action as one for “discrimination,” he has failed to set forth a single cause of action in the Complaint sufficient to invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is not established by cursory references to constitutional amendments without allegations showing how the plaintiff’s rights were violated.

De-Amor v. Simon · filed 2021-11-03

Plaintiff’s cursory reference to constitutional amendments do not satisfy her burden of establishing federal question jurisdiction, and it is unclear how she was harmed.

Section 1331 permits federal district courts to hear cases arising under federal law, and a complaint must give the court enough facts to determine whether it has jurisdiction.

Stewart, Timothy v. Moore · filed 2021-11-10

Generally, this court may consider only cases: (1) that arise under federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1331; or (2) in which the parties in suit are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ... I cannot tell whether this court has jurisdiction over Stewart’s claims, because Stewart’s complaint, even with the attachments, includes no factual allegations about who the numerous defendants are or what adverse actions they took against Stewart.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to sufficiently plead a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Jones v. Scarborough · filed 2021-11-10

More specifically, as the Magistrate Judge discussed, the amended complaint fails to ... sufficiently plead that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires facts supporting federal-question jurisdiction; a court need not guess at possible claims or theories that might supply it.

Marrisette v. Baber's Appliances · filed 2021-11-16

However, it is not for the Court to hypothesize, speculate, or guess under which possible theory, claim, or facts a plaintiff might be seeking to recover or which might provide subject matter jurisdiction in the form of federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges no basis for federal-question jurisdiction.

WILDER v. BOLINGER · filed 2021-11-18

Mr. Wilder's complaint contains no jurisdictional allegations regarding either federal-question or diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C § 1331 or 1332.

Section 1331 requires facts supporting a federal question; conclusory due process allegations and vague complaints about a state court’s written communications do not establish jurisdiction.

Mitchell v. Missouri Circuit Court 22nd Judicial Circuit · filed 2022-01-31

Plaintiff has not provided the basis for this Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff mentions due process in a conclusory fashion, but neglects to allege any facts demonstrating the violation of his constitutional rights. While he appears to accuse the state court of not sending him any “written documents” and not responding to his “written requests,” this vague statement does not establish the existence of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a pleaded federal claim connected to the complaint’s allegations; merely listing unrelated federal statutes does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

FUNG v. WELLS FARGO BANK · filed 2022-02-16

Simply reciting federal statutes unrelated to the claims or allegations in the Amended Complaint is insufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction.

A passing reference to a constitutional right is insufficient to establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Johnson v. Chumsky · filed 2022-02-17

However, this mere passing reference to a Constitutional right is insufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies original jurisdiction when the complaint at the time of removal raises a federal question.

Day v. Chronister · filed 2022-03-10

The Court had clear subject matter jurisdiction over Day’s initial Complaint because, as Day himself admits, it “raise[d] a federal question, and a State of Florida question.” (Doc. 19 at 8 (emphasis added)); see In re Carter, 618 F.2d 1093, 1101 (Sth Cir. 1980) (“[W]hether subject matter jurisdiction exists is a question answered by looking to the complaint as it existed at the time the petition for removal was filed.” (citing Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 305 U.S. 534, 537-38 (1939))).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a complaint cites federal statutes without facts supporting a federal claim.

Robinson v. Pardee UNC Healthcare · filed 2022-03-18

Although the Amended Complaint cites to the “ADA,” the “Rehabilitation Act 1973,” and the “Section 1557 Communication Affordable care act,” Plaintiff alleges no facts whatsoever to support claims under any of these federal statutes. Merely citing a federal law does not itself confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege facts stating a federal claim to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Ford v. Kern High School District · filed 2022-03-29

As to federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged facts against the Defendants that would state a federal claim.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is not established by merely invoking constitutional rights without allegations showing a basis for federal jurisdiction.

Shelton v. Griffith · filed 2022-03-30

Her talismanic invocation of various constitutional rights is not sufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff invoking federal-question jurisdiction to identify a law supporting the claim.

Bell v. KMG Management Prestige · filed 2022-04-04

Bell fails to properly allege subject matter jurisdiction. She says the Court has federal question and diversity jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1331 and § 1332, but she fails to cite a federal or state law.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; merely citing a federal statute does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Lowe v. Day & Zimmerman · filed 2022-04-20

Federal question jurisdiction exists when a litigant brings a claim that arises under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... But a plaintiff does not establish federal question jurisdiction “merely by citing the federal statute [the defendants have] allegedly violated.”

Section 1331 requires a complaint to adequately allege a basis for federal-question jurisdiction.

Roman v. Fire Life Safety America Inc. · filed 2022-04-21

The former is known as federal-question jurisdiction; the latter is known as diversity jurisdiction. Here, Roman fails to adequately allege a sufficient basis to establish either.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to plead facts showing a claim arising under federal law; merely invoking federal jurisdiction is insufficient.

Morgan v. Hartman · filed 2022-05-16

Invoking federal jurisdiction, without pleading any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is not established by listing federal statutes that have no connection to the complaint’s underlying allegations.

FUNG v. WELLS FARGO BANK · filed 2022-05-23

As explained in the February 2022 Opinion, Fung’s RESPA and TILA claims are barred by the entire controversy doctrine and Fung’s listing of federal statutes that have no connection with the underlying allegations fails to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, and therefore is insufficient to provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a pleaded basis for federal-question jurisdiction.

Bolden v. Marymount Hospital Cleveland Clinic · filed 2022-05-25

The Court also concludes that no basis for federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, has been pled.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege a discernible basis for federal-question jurisdiction.

Bulger v. Davis, Maas & Beach, LLC · filed 2022-06-13

Plaintiffs do not, however, identify any federal statute or constitutional right that was purportedly violated (see Doc. 1), nor can the Court readily discern a basis for federal question jurisdiction from the allegations.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to plead a federal question with enough specificity to establish jurisdiction.

Frysinger v. Mitchell · filed 2022-06-24

In short, plaintiffs’ allegations are too vague to meet their burden of pleading the existence of a federal question.

Section 1331 requires facts supporting a federal law claim; merely invoking federal rights does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Belmar v. G&M Realty I LLC · filed 2022-06-27

Mere invocation of federal question jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires more than citations to federal statutes; the complaint must allege facts connecting the claim to federal law.

Earley v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development · filed 2022-07-07

Simply overlaying a complaint with citations to federal laws as a means of securing jurisdiction before the Court falls woefully short of the general pleading requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and abuses the jurisdictional entitlement afforded to litigants under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, particularly when such allegations are married with state law claims.

Section 1331 jurisdiction is not established by citing a federal statute when the complaint alleges no connection to the conduct it regulates.

McArthur v. Protective Services · filed 2022-07-18

Put differently, there are no allegations in the complaint that suggest even a tenuous connection with the type of conduct proscribed by section 3617, and McArthur’s citation to that statute is therefore insufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires facts showing that a claim arises under federal law; merely invoking federal jurisdiction is insufficient.

Todie-Reyes v. Orellana · filed 2022-07-18

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... Plaintiff does not plead facts showing that his claims against Defendant arise under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to identify a federal basis for jurisdiction; vague references to constitutional rights amid state-law claims do not establish one.

Debbs v. Valley Convalscent Hospital · filed 2022-07-21

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... The FAC does not describe the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction in this action. ... The FAC also does not identify any federal constitutional rights or statutes that Plaintiff believes were violated.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to identify a federal basis for jurisdiction; conclusory references to discrimination and a religious exemption are insufficient.

Harper v. Harbor Health · filed 2022-07-27

Harper’s conclusory references to “discrimination” and a religious exemption to vaccine requirements are not sufficient invocations of federal law to confer subject matter jurisdiction on this Court.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff clarifies in opposition to a motion to dismiss that the claim arises under a federal statute, despite omitting the statute from the complaint.

Burns v. WSSC Water · filed 2022-08-02

The Court, therefore, excuses Plaintiff’s “belated invocation of a federal statute.”

Section 1331 requires more than a reference to the Constitution to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Thomas v. CoreCivic Facility Support Center · filed 2022-08-05

In this order, the court shall mainly consider whether subject matter jurisdiction is supported under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) or § 1332 (diversity). A mere reference to the Constitution is insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law; a complaint that fails to allege such a claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Stephens v. Cohick · filed 2022-09-21

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ... Additionally, it is unclear what Stephens seeks and he provides no indication regarding the Constitutional provision from which his claims arise. (Doc. 1, at 4-7). Therefore, Stephens has failed to allege a claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction. (Doc. 1).

Section 1331 requires the complaint to show that the claim involves a violation of federal law or the Constitution.

Evans v. Anthrax · filed 2022-09-23

The court can hear only claims between citizens of different states if the amount in controversy is more than $75,000, 28 U.S.C. §1332, and claims involving a violation of federal law or the Constitution, 28 U.S.C. §1331. The plaintiff’s complaint does not provide sufficient facts to demonstrate that this case involves either type of claim, which means the court does not have a basis for exercising its jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires allegations showing that a claim arises under federal law; merely asserting federal question jurisdiction is insufficient.

Gaines v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceutical · filed 2022-09-26

Plaintiff does not reference any federal statutes or allege that his claims arise under federal law. Plaintiff thus fails to show that the Court has federal question jurisdiction of this action.

Section 1331 requires facts showing that a claim arises under federal law; conclusory references to federal laws do not establish jurisdiction.

Haywood v. State of Kansas · filed 2022-10-03

Plaintiff’s broad assertions and conclusory references to federal laws are not sufficient to create subject-matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a federal law claim; merely invoking federal jurisdiction is insufficient.

Stubbs v. Hill · filed 2022-12-05

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to establish a basis for federal-question jurisdiction; a complaint that alleges none is subject to dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Estop v. HSBC Bank USA · filed 2022-12-13

A plaintiff can meet that burden by showing that the court may exercise either (1) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), or (2) federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... But he provides no ground for us to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over his case.

Section 1331 requires factual allegations showing that an action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Copeland v. Hogeland · filed 2022-12-13

The Complaint does not allege facts that support: (i) federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because there are no factual allegations showing that this action “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States;” or (ii) diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because there are no factual allegations showing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

When the basis for federal-question jurisdiction is unclear, the court may require an amended complaint to identify the federal law or constitutional provision allegedly violated.

Macua v. NH, State of · filed 2022-12-14

To aid the court in determining whether it has federal question jurisdiction, Macua shall clarify in any amended complaint what, if any, federal laws or United States constitutional provisions she claims were violated by the three remaining defendants, Linbar, Piconics, and Empire Beauty School.

Section 1331 requires allegations suggesting a federal-law claim; merely invoking federal-question jurisdiction does not establish it.

McKay v. Skarsguard · filed 2023-01-13

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... Plaintiff invokes the court’s federal question jurisdiction, but her allegations, construed liberally, do not plausibly suggest any viable claim under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a non-frivolous claim to a right or remedy under federal law; a bare assertion of civil rights violations does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Mays v. Magnotti · filed 2023-01-25

Subject-matter jurisdiction may be proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 where a plaintiff asserts “[a] non-frivolous claim of a right or remedy under a federal statute,” commonly referred to as “federal question” jurisdiction. ... Consequently, there is no discernible “federal question” alleged in the Complaint as Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Complaint simply does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting Defendants violated a federal statute.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a case arises under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties; the complaint must allege a basis for that jurisdiction.

Yang v. Tan · filed 2023-01-31

Federal jurisdiction can be found where the case arises under “the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), or where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 and is between citizens of different states, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(1)(a) (diversity of citizenship). Bovee v. Broom, 732 F.3d 743, 744 (7th Cir. 2013). Yang’s complaint fails to allege a basis of jurisdiction under these or any other federal statute.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to establish that federal law creates the cause of action or that relief necessarily depends on a substantial question of federal law.

Heizelman v. Chase Bank · filed 2023-02-09

Federal subject matter jurisdiction may be based on (1) federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331 or (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The complaint must establish either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of substantial questions of federal law. ... Here, because Plaintiff does not state the law under which he brings his claim, Plaintiff does not assert a basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. No federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction has been alleged or appears to exist. Thus, the Court also DISMISSES the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege a federal claim or another basis for federal-question jurisdiction; invoking federal jurisdiction alone is insufficient.

Woodson v. McCoy · filed 2023-02-16

Plaintiff invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, but the complaint does not set forth any federal claims or otherwise assert a basis for federal question jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law; a complaint must identify a basis for that jurisdiction.

Dixon, Gabriel v. Hertz Rental Car · filed 2023-02-22

First, the complaint does not establish that the court has jurisdiction over this case. Generally, this court may hear only cases: (1) that arise under federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1331; or (2) in which the parties in suit are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Dixon does not identify a basis for jurisdiction in his complaint.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question; an allegation of discrimination without its basis does not establish one.

Rushing v. McDonald's · filed 2023-02-24

Plaintiff concludes that he has been shown “disrespect” and “discrimination,” but he has not alleged the basis of discrimination. The allegations, such as they are, do not present a federal question, and Plaintiff has not invoked, much less established, diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a complaint says a federal question exists; the complaint must plead a basis for a federal claim.

Boden v. Caceres · filed 2023-03-01

The SAC also fails to assert a federal claim despite stating a federal question exists, as the SAC does not allege a claim under any federal statue that creates a private right of action.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction when claims arise under federal law, assessed at the time of removal.

Tolliver v. Preferred Family Healthcare, Inc. · filed 2023-03-02

Thus, Plaintiff’s admissions—that Claims I–III arise under federal law in whole or in part—were conclusively established at the time of removal. And since a “[C]ourt’s jurisdiction is measured at the time of removal,” the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a federal question; merely invoking federal question jurisdiction is insufficient.

Schwenk v. Roxe Inc. · filed 2023-03-06

Mere invocation of federal question jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires facts sufficient to assert a federal claim; filing on a civil rights form alone does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Caldwell v. Lubbock County Coroner's Office · filed 2023-03-06

Although Plaintiff filed his complaint on a civil rights form, he has not alleged facts sufficient to assert a claim under the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint makes only vague, conclusory claims without invoking a federal statute or constitutional violation.

Blair v. MC Residential Communities, LLC · filed 2023-03-24

As plaintiff’s complaint makes only the vague and conclusory claims outlined above, without invoking any federal statute or constitutional violation, the Court finds no basis to exercise federal question jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to establish a federal question; identifying federal question as the basis for jurisdiction without alleging a federal claim is insufficient.

Cozart v. Jeffrey · filed 2023-03-28

Here, the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint do not establish the requisite “federal question” for the Court to exercise jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; merely invoking federal jurisdiction is insufficient.

Davis v. Walker · filed 2023-04-03

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, as the complaint does not suggest that Defendant violated any of Plaintiff’s federal rights, the Court cannot exercise federal jurisdiction of her claims.

Section 1331 requires a clearly apparent federal question; a passing allegation of discrimination without a colorable federal claim does not establish jurisdiction.

Rushing v. 425 2nd Street Shelter · filed 2023-04-05

Second, plaintiff has failed to state a federal question. ... Although plaintiff passingly refers to “discrimination,” he does not specify the legal authority under which he rights were purportedly violated nor does not provide any context to make out a colorable claim.

A plaintiff invoking § 1331 on the ground that federal law creates the cause of action must identify that law in the pleadings.

Bashale v. Mac Transportation LLC. · filed 2023-04-07

Therefore, a plaintiff seeking to invoke the court’s jurisdiction on the ground that his cause of action was created by federal law, must inform the court what that law is. ... Therefore, Bashale has not met his burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction, and the Court dismisses his complaint.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege a federal question sufficient to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Goodwin v. State Farm General Insurance Company · filed 2023-04-10

As to federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged facts against the Defendants that would state a federal claim.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to establish a federal basis for the claims; alleging retaliation and race discrimination without identifying that basis does not invoke federal-question jurisdiction.

Padilla v. Midwest Health, Inc. · filed 2023-04-13

First, Plaintiff fails to invoke jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. On the face of the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges two counts: retaliation and race discrimination.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal question; a bare reference to discrimination without identifying the asserted legal right or providing supporting context does not establish jurisdiction.

Rushing v. George Washington University Hospital · filed 2023-04-14

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ... First, plaintiff’s claims fail to raise any federal question. Although he passingly refers to “discrimination,” he does not specify the legal authority under which his rights were purportedly violated nor does he provide any context to make out a colorable claim.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to identify the federal provision supporting a claim; vague references to federal law do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Serna v. BBVA USA · filed 2023-04-18

Vague references to federal law without identifying the specific provisions that give rise to Plaintiff’s claims are insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear clearly and distinctly for a district court to have federal-question jurisdiction.

McKeown v. DOJ · filed 2023-04-19

Plaintiff has also failed entirely to state a federal question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331 which “must affirmatively appear clearly and distinctly[,]” Johnson v. Robinson, 576 F.3d 522, 522 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (citing Bilal v. Kaplan, 904 F.2d 14, 15 (8th Cir. 1990)).

Section 1331 requires factual allegations showing that a claim arises under federal law; merely invoking the statute is insufficient.

Johnson v. Apple Inc. · filed 2023-04-19

Plaintiff's statement that “Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 — involves federal law,” without factual allegations showing her claim arises under federal law, is insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint merely mentions constitutional protections without alleging a cognizable federal claim.

Isaacs v. Isaacs · filed 2023-04-24

The Second Amended Complaint does not plead a federal question. (See Doc. 51). Despite passing reference to the Due Process Clause of either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments, Plaintiff does not explain in even a rudimentary fashion why his allegations qualify as cognizable constitutional claims.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff invoking federal-question jurisdiction to plead a violation of the Constitution or federal law.

ROCKEMORE v. CITY OF CAMDEN · filed 2023-05-17

On the form complaint provided by the Court for pro se plaintiffs, Plaintiff has checked the box for federal question jurisdiction, but in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff must plead a violation of the United States Constitution or the laws of the United States.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to plead facts showing a claim arising under federal law; merely invoking federal jurisdiction is insufficient.

Washington v. Chong · filed 2023-05-22

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without pleading any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no discernible claim under federal law.

Ensley v. Ballol · filed 2023-05-24

The court cannot determine that any of the claims in the complaint state causes of action under federal law sufficient to invoke jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 81331.

Section 1331 requires allegations showing a federal basis for jurisdiction over a flood-insurance contract claim.

Wayland v. The Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast · filed 2023-05-26

Without a statement that the policy is governed by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 4001, et seq., and without a copy of the policy or allegation that the policy is underwritten by the U.S. Treasury as part of the National Flood Insurance Program, the Court cannot find that a federal question is stated.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a federal law claim; merely invoking federal jurisdiction does not establish it.

Brown v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. · filed 2023-06-20

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... Plaintiff therefore fails to show that the Court has federal question jurisdiction of his claims.

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded complaint to identify a federal basis for the claim; an unsupported assertion of federal-question jurisdiction is insufficient.

Jackson v. Manning · filed 2023-06-21

Plaintiff, therefore, has not adequately pleaded federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal claim on the face of the complaint to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Moore v. Pacific View Apartments Carlsbad LLC · filed 2023-06-27

Plaintiffs must plead a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States to invoke federal-question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... As such, Plaintiff’s allegations do not plainly state a claim arising under a federal law.

Section 1331 requires facts showing that a claim arises under federal law; checking a federal-question box alone does not establish jurisdiction.

Moncion v. The Hannum Feretic Prendergast & Merlino, LLC · filed 2023-07-10

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... Here, Plaintiff checks the box on the complaint form to invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, but she does not allege facts showing that the court can consider her claims under its federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires plausible allegations that the claim arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Zloza v. Something · filed 2023-07-19

The court concludes that Mr. Zloza still has not plausibly alleged facts that would allow the court to conclude that his claim “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” as required to support federal question subject matter jurisdiction over his claim.

Section 1331 requires allegations showing that a claim arises under federal law; using a § 1983 complaint form alone does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Gonzalez v. Kasperski · filed 2023-07-24

Although Plaintiff used the form "Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983," there are no factual allegations showing that this action “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331; see Martinez v. U.S. Olympic Committee, 802 F.2d 1275, 1280 (10th Cir. 1986) (“The complaint must identify the statutory or constitutional provision under which the claim arises, and allege sufficient facts to show that the case is one arising under federal law”).

Section 1331 requires a complaint to plead facts supporting a claim arising under federal law to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Washington v. Tocco · filed 2023-07-27

To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s claims must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Because Plaintiff does not plead facts showing that the Court has federal question or diversity jurisdiction, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of this action.

Section 1331 requires factual allegations establishing a federal question; merely naming federal acts without supporting facts is insufficient.

Solomon v. Allstate Insurance Idemnity Policy 000000886169059 · filed 2023-08-04

Here, Plaintiff alleges that her claims arise under the “civil rights, fair housing, and equal opportunity acts,” Filing No. 1 at 3 (which for the purposes of review the Court presumes to reference federal acts) but provides no factual allegations in support. As such, as currently pleaded, Plaintiff fails to adequately establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege facts showing that the case arises under federal law.

Rice v. Progressive · filed 2023-08-07

The Complaint does not allege facts showing that the Court has federal question or diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to adequately allege a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Washington v. Paca · filed 2023-08-17

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint, in its current form, does not adequately allege a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to plead a claim arising under federal law; invoking federal jurisdiction alone does not establish subject matter jurisdiction.

McKenzie v. Goldberg · filed 2023-08-28

However, she does not identify any federal statute under which her claims arise, and the facts alleged do not suggest any claim of which the Court is aware that arises under federal law. Plaintiff thus fails to satisfy her burden of demonstrating that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this action under the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires facts showing that a claim arises under federal law; invoking federal-question jurisdiction alone is insufficient.

Hussey v. Mcduffie · filed 2023-08-28

Here, Plaintiff invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, but he does not allege facts showing that the court can consider his claims under its federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over an FDCPA claim, and a defect in removal procedure does not eliminate that jurisdiction.

Hejamadi v. Midland Funding LLC · filed 2023-08-31

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the only claim in the case at the time of removal: Hejamadi’s FDCPA claim against Midland. Even if Midland’s removal of this matter ran afoul of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) because of Midland’s previous denomination as a plaintiff (a question we need not and do not decide here), such a “defect in removal procedure” had no effect on the District Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Korea Exch. Bank, 66 F.3d at 50.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to show a federal-law basis for jurisdiction; allegations without that basis do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Jones v. Rolling Loud · filed 2023-09-11

Similarly, in addition to lacking a federal question basis for jurisdictions, Mr. Jones’s suits against Rolling Loud and Sharecare provide no specific facts from which the Court could possibly determine whether complete diversity exists.

Section 1331 requires factual allegations supporting a federal question; a conclusory assertion does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Richardson v. Dalasta · filed 2023-09-14

Liberally construing these allegations as indicating there is a question in this case arising under the United States Constitution or a federal treaty, and that the laws under which the claims arise provide for a five-year statute of limitations, the Court finds Plaintiff does not support the conclusory allegation of a federal question with any supporting factual allegations.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a liberally construed complaint advances a colorable federal claim.

Whitfield v. New York City Housing Authority · filed 2023-09-29

To establish subject matter jurisdiction, a plaintiff may either (1) “plead[] a colorable claim ‘arising under’ the Federal Constitution or laws,” or (2) “present[] a claim between parties of diverse citizenship that exceeds the required jurisdictional amount” of $75,000. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332). ... However, to construe the complaint liberally, the Court concludes that Plaintiff Whitfield has advanced an ADA discrimination claim and an ADA retaliation claim.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a colorable federal issue; a conclusory assertion and vague references to federal law do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Honore v. Gulf Coast Bank & Trust Company · filed 2023-10-06

Here, Plaintiffs have not established that this Court has federal jurisdiction over their claims because the Complaint contains no more than the conclusory statement that this matter “involves federal laws of Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations” and several vague references to alleged violations of federal laws.

Section 1331 requires facts suggesting a claim under federal law; checking a federal-question box alone does not establish jurisdiction.

Natalia v. Group Shelter Bowery · filed 2023-10-10

Plaintiff checks the box on the complaint form to invoke the court’s federal question jurisdiction, but her factual allegations do not suggest a viable cause of action under federal law.

Section 1331 requires enough allegations to determine whether the plaintiff has a non-frivolous claim under federal law; listing federal statutes alone is insufficient.

Buck v. Tenstreet · filed 2023-10-12

Here, plaintiff does not assert anywhere in his complaint how defendant is liable under any of the four federal statutes. Thus, the Court is unable to determine whether this action is a non-frivolous claim of a right under a federal statute.

Section 1331 requires facts demonstrating a federal law claim; merely invoking federal jurisdiction does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Temesgen v. D'Agusto · filed 2023-10-16

To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s claims must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a federal question; merely invoking federal-question jurisdiction for ordinary breach-of-contract and negligence claims is insufficient.

Scales v. LA Web Experts · filed 2023-10-17

Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that this Court can consider his claims under its federal question jurisdiction. Rather, he asserts claims of breach of contract and negligence, which are usually brought under state law, not federal law.

Section 1331 requires facts establishing a federal question; a bare assertion that civil rights were violated is insufficient.

Isom v. Texas State · filed 2023-10-19

Notwithstanding plaintiff’s bald assertion that her “civil rights [were] violated,” Compl. at 7, the complaint alleges no facts establishing federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint cites federal statutes but provides no factual basis showing how they apply.

Beaubrun v. Brennan, Esq. · filed 2023-10-24

However, he does not provide a factual basis explaining how these statutes apply, or why this Court has jurisdiction to hear his claims. Even a liberal reading of the complaint does not permit a finding that it presents an issue of federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint fails to adequately plead a federal claim.

Jones-Bey v. Powell · filed 2023-10-31

Because Plaintiff has not adequately pleaded federal question or diversity jurisdiction, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this action pursuant to either 28 U.S.C. § 1332 or 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and must dismiss it.

Section 1331 requires facts showing that a claim arises under federal law; merely invoking federal jurisdiction is insufficient.

Washington v. Paterson · filed 2023-11-06

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without pleading any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff invoking federal-question jurisdiction to allege facts establishing that basis for jurisdiction.

DeKorrie K. Bell v. Birmingham Board of Education · filed 2023-11-07

Bell’s pro se complaint failed to allege facts establishing either ... federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires facts that implicate a federal question; citing inapplicable federal statutes does not establish jurisdiction.

Stephenson v. Childrens Hospital of Wisconsin Inc · filed 2023-11-13

The facts that Plaintiff alleges again fail to implicate federal question jurisdiction,5 and the federal statutory chapters to which Plaintiff cites are inapplicable to this case.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a federal-law claim; merely invoking federal jurisdiction does not establish it.

Jones v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company · filed 2023-11-27

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires facts demonstrating a federal law claim; merely invoking federal question jurisdiction does not establish it.

Washington v. Ortiz · filed 2023-11-27

Merely invoking federal question jurisdiction, without pleading any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires facts showing that a claim has a basis in federal law; merely invoking federal jurisdiction is insufficient.

Hill v. Citibank.com · filed 2023-11-28

Merely invoking federal jurisdiction, without pleading any facts demonstrating that the claim has a basis in federal law, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to clearly present a federal question; merely suggesting one is insufficient.

Allen v. N.C. Dept. of Employment Security Commission · filed 2023-11-30

Put differently, federal question jurisdiction “must affirmatively appear clearly and distinctly. The mere suggestion of a federal question is not sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of federal courts.” Johnson v. Robinson, 576 F.3d 522, 522 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (cleaned up). Here, Plaintiff’s allegations do not raise any federal question.

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

Thompson v. Ampler Chicken LLC · filed 2023-12-28

The Amended Complaint does not assert, and does not allege facts supporting, federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a federal claim; alleging breach of contract and negligence without a viable federal cause of action does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Scales v. Design Nortex · filed 2024-01-02

Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that this Court can consider his claims under its federal question jurisdiction. He states that he is asserting claims of breach of contract and negligence, which are usually brought under state law, not federal law, and his allegations do not suggest any viable federal cause of action.

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

STEPHENS v. ELDRIDGE · filed 2024-02-05

Further no violation of federal law has been alleged. See Williams v. Aztar Ind. Gaming Corp., 351 F.3d 294, 298 (7th Cir. 2003) (explaining federal courts may exercise federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff's right to relief is created by or depends on a federal statute or constitutional provision). ... Mr. Stephens' second amended complaint is dismissed for failure to assert sufficient facts to support federal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which this federal court may grant relief.

Section 1331 requires factual allegations showing that the cause of action involves an issue of federal law.

Wright v. Teodeosio · filed 2024-02-12

To invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a plaintiff must allege facts showing the cause of action involves an issue of federal law.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, but a complaint must include enough facts to establish that basis for jurisdiction.

Kay Xiong Yang Estate and Trust v. Hallion, Scott · filed 2024-02-13

Generally, this court may consider only cases: (1) that arise under federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1331; or (2) in which the parties in suit are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ... The court cannot determine whether this court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims because the complaint, even with the attachments, includes no factual allegations about who the numerous plaintiffs and defendants are, or what adverse actions the defendants took against plaintiffs.

Passing references to constitutional provisions do not establish jurisdiction under § 1331 when the complaint asserts no constitutional claim or seeks no constitutional relief.

Eugene v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC · filed 2024-02-20

Since Eugene does not “assert a constitutional claim or seek any relief based on the Constitution,” the Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff relying on federal-question jurisdiction to allege a violation of the federal Constitution or federal law.

Ross v. Desroches · filed 2024-03-08

Therefore, Plaintiff must proceed against Villacrez on federal question jurisdiction. In other words, he must allege that Villacrez violated his rights under the federal Constitution or a federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff invoking federal-question jurisdiction to allege facts establishing a claim under the Constitution or federal law.

Boyce v. St. Vincent DePaul (Lane Co) · filed 2024-04-11

Original jurisdiction must be based on either diversity of citizenship for cases involving more than $75,000 in damages between citizens of different states or on a claim based on the United States Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. As noted, Plaintiff asserts this Court has federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff, however, fails to allege what constitutional right Defendants violated or to allege sufficient facts from which this Court can infer what, if any, provision of the United States Constitution that Plaintiff asserts Defendants violated. Plaintiff also alleges Defendants violated the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), but does not allege the manner in which Defendants violated that Act or allege sufficient facts from which the Court can infer a violation. Plaintiff, therefore, has not alleged facts that establish this Court has federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a discernible federal question; a complaint alleging no claims does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Kuehner v. Marion · filed 2024-04-24

Subject-matter jurisdiction may be proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 where a plaintiff asserts “[a] non-frivolous claim of a right or remedy under a federal statute,” commonly referred to as “federal question” jurisdiction. ... There is no discernible “federal question” alleged in the Complaint as Plaintiff has failed to allege any claims.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a federal-law claim; merely invoking federal-question jurisdiction is insufficient.

Vega v. Kirschenbaum · filed 2024-04-24

Merely invoking federal question jurisdiction, without pleading any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in a properly pleaded complaint; merely citing a federal statute does not establish jurisdiction.

Larry Wayne Lundy Jr Trust v. State of Hawaii · filed 2024-04-30

Federal question jurisdiction is not conferred by “the mere reference of a federal statute in a pleading.” Easton v. Crossland Mortg. Corp., 114 F.3d 979, 982 (9th Cir. 1997).

Section 1331 requires a complaint to establish a federal-question basis for jurisdiction; merely referencing federal regulations without making clear whether they supply a federal claim is insufficient.

Brown v. Powers · filed 2024-05-01

Plaintiff’s complaint is defective because it does not establish the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Under “Basis for Jurisdiction,” plaintiff merely summarizes his factual allegations and references several provisions of the FMCSR. It is unclear whether plaintiff intends to assert a claim under the FMCSR or if plaintiff merely intends to rely on the FMCSR to support his negligence claim. Consequently, the Court will order plaintiff to file an amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order.

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

Revill v. Pratz · filed 2024-05-01

A plaintiff properly invokes § 1331 jurisdiction when he or she pleads a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... The plaintiff did not complete the sections of the form complaint that ask for the jurisdictional basis for the plaintiff’s claims, the location of the alleged violations, or the requested relief—nor does the plaintiff’s appended narrative provide these details. This alone is a sufficient basis for dismissal.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege facts supporting federal-question jurisdiction; a complaint that fails to do so is subject to dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Medina v. First Convenience National Bank, Texas · filed 2024-05-13

The Court dismisses this case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because: (i) the Complaint does not allege facts supporting jurisdiction; (ii) Plaintiff did not show cause why the Court should not dismiss her claims; and (iii) Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to Judge Khalsa’s Order to Show Cause.

Section 1331 requires allegations that invoke federal-question jurisdiction; an unsupported assertion of jurisdiction does not suffice.

Burton v. Southern Hills Pavilion · filed 2024-05-22

In the R&R, Judge Koppe now recommends dismissal because, although the amended complaint is hard to discern, it contains no allegations that invoke either diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction. ... The Court thus agrees with Judge Koppe that dismissal without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate.

Section 1331 requires facts establishing a federal question; a passing reference to the ADA without facts connecting the defendant’s conduct to disability discrimination is insufficient.

Rollins v. Greene-Campbell · filed 2024-05-24

First, plaintiff has failed to state a federal question. Although she cites, in passing, to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), see Compl. at 3, 5, 7, she fails to explain how defendant’s actions constitute disability discrimination, or to specifically identify the disability at issue.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a complaint invokes it; the complaint must plead facts establishing a federal claim.

Kampfer v. Fadale · filed 2024-05-31

He thus invokes “federal question” jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and civil rights jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343. ... “Merely invoking federal question jurisdiction, without pleading any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction.” ... Here, as set forth above, the Court has found no federal law claim.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege facts showing a basis for federal-question jurisdiction; merely invoking federal jurisdiction is insufficient.

Washington v. Coixie Green State Prison · filed 2024-06-10

Merely invoking federal jurisdiction, without pleading any facts demonstrating that the claim has a basis in federal law, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... Here, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts demonstrating a viable federal claim. Thus, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s claim.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to plead a plausible federal constitutional or statutory violation to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Grayson v. Le Caillec · filed 2024-07-16

To establish federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff must plead that defendants have violated a federal constitutional or statutory provision. ... As discussed above, however, as currently pleaded, Grayson’s allegations do not contain enough facts to satisfy Rule 8. Consequently, the court does not have federal question jurisdiction under any federal law.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to plead a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory provision to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Sat v. Clay · filed 2024-07-17

To establish federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff must plead that defendants have violated a federal constitutional or statutory provision.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when conclusory discrimination allegations fail to present a plausible federal claim.

Fifer v. Hollins Estate LLC · filed 2024-07-19

Accordingly, the Fifers have failed to state a claim for discrimination, and the Third Amended Complaint does not present a federal question.

A complaint does not establish federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 merely by invoking it without identifying a federal basis for the claims.

Brown v. Tortorella · filed 2024-07-24

Here, plaintiff invokes federal question jurisdiction without identifying a federal statute under which he brings his claims.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to show that a claim arises under federal law; vague references to discrimination and civil rights do not establish federal-question jurisdiction without a federal basis.

Drum v. Milan Police Department · filed 2024-07-30

Although the Complaint contains vague references to “discrimination” and violations of “civil rights,” Complaint at 3, 6, 8, Drum does not allege that she is asserting discrimination and civil rights claims pursuant to federal law as opposed to State law, see Dutcher v. Matheson, 733 F.3d 980, 985 (10th Cir. 2013)(“Since federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, we presume no jurisdiction exists absent an adequate showing by the party invoking federal jurisdiction.”).

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to plead a claim under a federal constitutional or statutory provision to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Morrow v. Barlogio · filed 2024-07-31

To establish federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff must plead that defendants have violated a federal constitutional or statutory provision. ... Neither the complaint nor the civil cover sheet, however, identify a federal statute or federal constitutional provision that provides this court with federal question jurisdiction. Likewise, the court is unable to discern a federal question based on its review of the complaint. Consequently, as currently pleaded, the court does not have federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to plead a claim under a federal constitutional or statutory provision to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Morrow v. Navex · filed 2024-07-31

To establish federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff must plead that defendants have violated a federal constitutional or statutory provision.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff invoking federal-question jurisdiction to identify a specific constitutional or statutory right allegedly violated.

Schroeder v. The United States Government Its Agencies, Officers and Employees · filed 2024-08-08

if federal question jurisdiction, the Plaintiff must demonstrate a specific constitutional or statutory right the Plaintiff believes was violated.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege facts showing a federal question as a basis for jurisdiction.

Kileleman v. Unpingco · filed 2024-08-15

The Plaintiff does not cite to federal law or provide sufficient facts to enable the court to discern what federal law the Plaintiff bases the Complaint on. ... Based on the above, the court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to allege federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a claim under federal law; merely naming a federal statute does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

FLORES v. CITIBANK, N.A. · filed 2024-08-22

Mere invocation of federal question jurisdiction, however, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal question jurisdiction. ... Thus, the Court understands that Plaintiff is not asserting claims under federal law (including claims under the FCRA), under the court’s federal question jurisdiction, see Nowak, 81 F.3d at 1188-89, but instead, is asserting claims under state law, under the court’s diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction when a complaint lists a federal cause of action or makes a claim under federal law.

Porretto v. City of Galveston · filed 2024-08-21

In other words, federal question jurisdiction exists where the plaintiff specifically lists a federal cause of action or makes a claim under federal law.

Section 1331 requires facts suggesting a viable claim under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties; mentioning federal statutes alone does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Kelley II v. Anne Arundel County Public Schools · filed 2024-08-26

Federal question jurisdiction exists where at least one of a plaintiff’s claims is brought pursuant to the “Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Absent alleged facts suggesting a viable claim presenting a federal question, Plaintiff has not met his burden of proving the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in this federal Court.

Section 1331 requires facts supporting a claim arising under federal law; merely invoking federal jurisdiction is insufficient.

Scott v. DoorDash · filed 2024-08-26

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... The Court therefore does not have federal question jurisdiction of this action.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; a complaint that does not identify the federal law allegedly violated fails to invoke federal-question jurisdiction.

Britner v. Mount Auburn Hospital · filed 2024-09-03

A federal question exists if a case “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the federal question must be “stated on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint,” Lopez-Muñoz v. Triple-S Salud, Inc., 754 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). Because Britner has does not state what federal law the defendants allegedly violated, she has failed to properly invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a pleaded federal claim or a right to relief that necessarily depends on a substantial federal question; invoking federal law alone does not establish jurisdiction.

Tanjutco v. NYLife Securities LLC · filed 2024-09-10

A case arises under federal law within the meaning of § 1331 if the pleading "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." ... The Amended Petition repeatedly "invokes" federal law, but it does not demonstrate the existence of any federal claim running against the NYLife Parties (or against FINRA in its capacity as a respondent with respect to petitioner's claim for confirmation of paragraph 8 of the Award).

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to plead a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory provision to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Morrow v. Trellix · filed 2024-09-19

To establish federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff must plead that defendants have violated a federal constitutional or statutory provision.

An assertion of federal-question jurisdiction does not establish jurisdiction under § 1331 when the complaint alleges no discernible claim arising under federal law.

Smith v. Ayodele · filed 2024-10-01

Plaintiff alleges the Court has federal question jurisdiction, but she does not allege any discernible causes of action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 requires a basis for federal-question jurisdiction; merely referencing a civil rights violation on a form complaint does not establish one.

STEPHENS v. NEIL R. STEPHENS PRINCIPLE · filed 2024-10-15

As stated, neither of Plaintiff’s Complaints sets forth a basis for federal question jurisdiction and the mere filing of a form complaint with a reference to “violation of civil rights” does not provide a basis to confer federal question jurisdiction.

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

Berg v. Equifax Data Breach Settlement · filed 2024-10-23

The Complaint does not plead allegations that would invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331’s federal-question jurisdiction is not established merely by asserting that a defendant violated a federal statute or the Constitution.

Verardi v. Mercedes- Benz Financial Services USA, LLC · filed 2024-10-23

Nor is it sufficient to simply state that Defendant has violated a federal statute or the constitution.

Section 1331 requires sufficient allegations of an underlying federal claim to establish federal-question jurisdiction; merely referencing a federal statute is insufficient.

Melse v. Capital Bank, N.A. · filed 2024-10-24

Plaintiff’s mere references to federal statutes do not provide the necessary factual detail to establish jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a federal law claim; merely invoking federal question jurisdiction is insufficient.

Bizounouya v. CNA Insurance Company · filed 2024-10-26

Mere invocation of federal question jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal question jurisdiction. See Nowak v. Ironworkers Loc. 6 Pension Fund, 81 F.3d 1182, 1188-89 (2d Cir. 1996).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the facts alleged have no explained connection to the federal statutes cited.

ISON v. NEW BEGINNINGS REALTY & PROPERTY MANG. · filed 2024-10-29

But Plaintiff does not explain how the facts alleged in the complaint—personal injuries stemming from the purchase of a condominium—relate to these statutes. Therefore, the Court does not appear to have federal-question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims. ... Therefore, the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claim.

Section 1331 requires factual allegations supporting a claim arising under federal law; an unsupported assertion of a federal statutory violation does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

CAPPUCCIO v. UNITY BANK · filed 2024-11-06

An action is based on federal question jurisdiction where the cause(s) of action “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... To the extent Cappuccio is attempting to allege violations of federal law and thereby invoke federal question jurisdiction, the Complaint alleges “willful violation(s) of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, 1341” without any factual support.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to assert a basis for federal-question jurisdiction; jurisdiction over an analogous case is insufficient.

Belssner v. Experian · filed 2024-11-06

There is no assertion of federal question or diversity jurisdiction, only a reference to an analogous case that was heard in the Court. This is insufficient to satisfy federal pleading standards and, therefore, Belssner has not met his burden to show that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 gives a district court original jurisdiction when the operative complaint at removal includes a claim arising under federal law.

Chapman v. Goodwill of Lane and South Coast Counties · filed 2024-12-05

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s FAC was the operative complaint at the time of removal. Plaintiff’s ADA claim arises under a law of the United States and the Court has original jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires the complaint’s allegations and representations to establish a federal question for the district court to have jurisdiction.

Baalim v. Busey Bank · filed 2024-12-11

The district court correctly concluded, based on the allegations and representations in the complaint, that it lacked federal question jurisdiction or federal diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question on its face; alleging no applicable federal law fails to establish jurisdiction.

Ghalayini v. Bennet · filed 2024-12-16

Plaintiff also failed to establish federal question jurisdiction by alleging the application of any federal law to any of his claims.

Allegations of intellectual property infringement and violations of federal statutes sufficiently plead federal-question jurisdiction at this stage.

Shaheryar Khan v. Kraemer · filed 2024-12-24

The violation of any intellectual property rights is likely to raise issues of federal law, thus placing the current dispute squarely within this Court’s jurisdictional wheelhouse. Moreover, Khan alleges Defendants have violated multiple federal statutes. ... The Court therefore finds Khan has sufficiently pleaded subject matter jurisdiction at this stage in the proceedings.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to identify a basis for federal-question jurisdiction; merely labeling the case a federal question is insufficient.

Snead v. Dade · filed 2025-01-08

Stated differently, Plaintiff identifies no specific basis for this court’s exercise of federal question jurisdiction, nor does she allege that this case “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331; see Nidy, 2022 WL 2128837, at *1 (explaining that “[t]he complaint in Nidy does not comply with Rule 8. It does not identify any specific basis for federal jurisdiction, and there is nothing in it to suggest this case ‘aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1331)).

Section 1331 requires facts supporting a claim arising under federal law; merely invoking federal law does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Siomkos v. Nouinou · filed 2025-01-13

To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s claims must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Merely invoking federal jurisdiction, without pleading any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires facts supporting a claim arising under federal law; merely invoking federal jurisdiction does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Parkes v. Colbert · filed 2025-02-18

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... The Court therefore lacks federal question jurisdiction over this action.