28 U.S.C. § 1331

1,242 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 85 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Mitchell v. Osceola Farms Co.
  447 F. Supp. 2d 1307· S.D. Fla.· 2006-08-14
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs' state law contract claim did not present a substantial and disputed federal question necessary for federal court adjudication under the Grable test.
• McMahon v. Presidential Airways, Inc.
  410 F. Supp. 2d 1189· M.D. Fla.· 2006-01-24
  The court held that the case was properly removed to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442, because the defendant acted under federal direction and had colorable federal defenses.
• Martyak v. Martyak
  378 F. Supp. 2d 1365· S.D. Fla.· 2005-06-03
  The federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the state court's final judgment on alimony enforcement, and thus remanded the case to state court.
• Guetling v. Household Fin. Servs., Inc.
  312 B.R. 699· M.D. Fla.· 2004-07-20
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for relief and lacked standing for certain claims, but granted leave to amend the complaint.
• Faye L. Roth Revocable Tr. v. UBS Painewebber Inc.
  323 F. Supp. 2d 1279· S.D. Fla.· 2004-03-30
  The court held that Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act applies only to registered public offerings, not private placements, and therefore plaintiffs could not bring a Section 12(a)(2) claim for the unregistered offering at issue.
• Fla. Dep't of Ins. v. Chase Bank of Tex. Nat'l Ass'n
  243 F. Supp. 2d 1293· N.D. Fla.· 2002-12-10
  A claim filed within a state court delinquency proceeding, even if it would be removable if filed as a separate action, is not removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) unless the entire proceeding is removable or the claim arises under federal law as per the amended 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c
• Impuls I.D. Internacional v. Psion-Teklogix Inc.
  234 F. Supp. 2d 1267· S.D. Fla.· 2002-11-22
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the parties lacked complete diversity and there was no federal question jurisdiction under the CISG.
• Bouie v. Am. Gen. Life & Accident Ins.
  199 F. Supp. 2d 1259· N.D. Fla.· 2002-04-19
  The court held that the action was not removable because it did not present a federal question and diversity jurisdiction was defeated by the non-diverse joinder of individual defendants who were not fraudulently joined.
• Allstar Care Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of S.C.
  184 F. Supp. 2d 1295· S.D. Fla.· 2002-01-30
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising under the Medicare Act, even when brought under diversity jurisdiction, because they were inextricably intertwined with Medicare benefits determinations.
• Alino v. Aerovias De Mexico, S.A.
  129 F. Supp. 2d 1341· S.D. Fla.· 2000-11-17
  The court held that the Air Carrier's Access Act does not apply to foreign air carriers operating flights entirely within a foreign country, and thus dismissed the federal claim.
• Seguros Commercial Am. v. Hall
  115 F. Supp. 2d 1371· M.D. Fla.· 2000-09-15
  The court held that while the Convention is self-executing and grants federal jurisdiction, it does not create a private right of action for the Mexican insurers to pursue claims in federal court.
• Wichman v. Cnty. of Volusia
  110 F. Supp. 2d 1354· M.D. Fla.· 2000-01-24
  A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily waived her ADA claims, precluding summary judgment.
• Norman v. Wilks
  154 F.R.D. 117· M.D. Fla.· 1998-07-02
  The court granted the motions to transfer the case to the Middle District of Tennessee, deferring ruling on the motions to dismiss.
• Parham v. Lámar
  1 F. Supp. 2d 1457· M.D. Fla.· 1998-04-16
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were properly dismissed because of lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient service of process, failure to state a constitutional tort, and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Lipcon v. Sprint Corp.
  962 F. Supp. 1490· S.D. Fla.· 1997-04-14
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims of unjust enrichment and imposition regarding an expired phone card were not preempted by the Communications Act of 1934, and thus removal to federal court was improper.
• Harris v. McDonald's Corp.
  901 F. Supp. 1552· M.D. Fla.· 1995-04-03
  The court held that while claims based on the FDCA, FDA Rules, Fourteenth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 were properly dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction, a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for racial discrimination in handling the insurance claim was sufficiently pleaded to
• Cawthard v. Flagship Airlines, Inc.
  863 F. Supp. 1567· S.D. Fla.· 1994-07-18
  The court held that a claim alleging breach of a collective bargaining agreement under the Railway Labor Act constitutes a 'minor dispute' over which federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction, and that remaining state law claims were not preempted by the RLA as they did not
• Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. United States
  999 F.2d 581· D.C. Cir.· 1993-08-10
  The court held that the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act does not grant the government priority over an injured individual's claim to insurance proceeds, and that the limited fund should be divided ratably based on equitable principles.
• Marie Banks v. Sec'y OF The Ind. Fam. & Soc. Servs. Admin.
  997 F.2d 231· 7th Cir.· 1993-06-15
  The court held that plaintiffs have standing to sue the federal Secretary of Health and Human Services regarding alleged violations of Medicaid regulations, but affirmed the district court's dismissal because the plaintiffs failed to state a viable claim against either the federa
• Chestnut v. Stone Forest Indus., Inc.
  817 F. Supp. 932· N.D. Fla.· 1993-03-31
  The court held that the defendant lumber mill qualified for the unforeseeable business circumstances exception to the WARN Act's 60-day notice requirement because the dramatic drop in lumber prices was not reasonably foreseeable by a similarly situated employer.
• Fostvedt v. United States
  978 F.2d 1201· 10th Cir.· 1992-11-03
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the petitioner failed to demonstrate an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity.
• Argandona v. Lloyd's Registry of Shipping
  804 F. Supp. 326· S.D. Fla.· 1992-09-14
  Claims arising under the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) invoke admiralty jurisdiction, not federal question jurisdiction, and are therefore not removable to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).
• Matao C. Yokeno v. Mafnas
  973 F.2d 803· 9th Cir.· 1992-08-28
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction based on federal question, and remanded for a determination of whether diversity jurisdiction exists, considering the federal anti-collusion statute.
• McAULIFFE v. Rice
  966 F.2d 979· 5th Cir.· 1992-07-21
  The Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) provides the exclusive remedial scheme for federal personnel actions, precluding review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) even for employees excluded from the CSRA's direct procedures.
• Guerrero v. Michael P.W. Stone
  970 F.2d 626· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-16
  The court held that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying Guerrero's application to correct his military records, and that the district court erred in affirming the Board's decision.
• Su-Ra Enters., Inc. v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., N.A.
  142 B.R. 502· S.D. Fla.· 1992-07-08
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to remand the case to state court, finding that federal jurisdiction was not proper and that abstention was warranted. Costs for the removal were denied.
• Barker v. Chesapeake & Ohio R.R.
  959 F.2d 1361· 6th Cir.· 1992-03-27
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to state a claim against the Union for breach of the duty of fair representation, but that they did state a claim against CSX under Section 797c of the Regional Rail Reorganization Act. The court reversed the dismissal of claims against CSX a
• Metro. Wash. Airports Auth. Prof'l Fire Fighters Ass'n Local 3217 v. United States
  959 F.2d 297· D.C. Cir.· 1992-03-24
  The court held that the lease provisions and the Authority's subsequent actions did not violate the Metropolitan Washington Airports Act of 1986, affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment.
• Ayuda, Inc. v. Thornburgh
  958 F.2d 1089· D.C. Cir.· 1992-03-03
• Me. State Bd. OF Educ. v. Lauro F. Cavazos
  956 F.2d 376· 1st Cir.· 1992-02-13
  The court held that the Department of Education (DOE) did not act arbitrarily or unlawfully in refusing to reimburse the Maine State Board of Education for administrative expenses incurred by a private contractor, as the Board itself did not incur those specific expenses.
• Smith v. United States Dist. Court FOR the S. Dist. OF Ill.
  956 F.2d 647· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-07
  The court held that the district court erred by not considering the common law right of access claim and vacated the judgment, remanding for further proceedings.
• Westchester Mgmt. Corp. v. United States Dep't OF Health & Human Servs.
  948 F.2d 279· 6th Cir.· 1991-11-05
  The court held that a plaintiff cannot establish subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1346 for claims arising under the Medicare Act when the Act itself provides a specific, albeit limited, avenue for judicial review.
• Clark v. Velsicol Chem. Corp.
  944 F.2d 196· 4th Cir.· 1991-09-10
  Federal courts lack jurisdiction over state law negligence claims that incorporate federal regulations as an element, when Congress has not created a private federal cause of action for violations of those regulations.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Cal. Horse Racing Bd.
  940 F.2d 536· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-06
  The court held that the district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of the National Labor Relations Board's decision to assert jurisdiction over United Tote, as such review is limited to courts of appeals.
• Dyer v. Merrill Lynch
  928 F.2d 238· 7th Cir.· 1991-03-27
  The court held that the plaintiff's federal claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that the churning and suitability claims failed on their merits.
• Cherokee Express v. Cherokee Express
  924 F.2d 603· 6th Cir.· 1991-01-24
  An appeal from a contempt order does not permit a collateral attack on the underlying injunction if the injunction was not timely appealed. The 'person injured' requirement of 49 U.S.C. § 11708 is an element of the cause of action, not a jurisdictional prerequisite.
• Solargistic Corp. & Geodesco, Inc. v. United States
  921 F.2d 729· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-11
  The court held that the IRS's disclosure to investors that a tax shelter promoter was under audit was authorized by statute, as the fact of the audit constituted return information of the investors themselves.
• Miller v. McGOVERN
  907 F.2d 957· 10th Cir.· 1990-06-29
  The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment, holding that the government's interpretation of 10 U.S.C. § 1451(e)(3) was permissible and that the SBP annuity could be reduced by the amount of Social Security survivor benefits a spouse would be entitled to, even if
• Farmers Union Cent. Exch., Inc. v. Thomas
  881 F.2d 757· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-04
  The district court lacked jurisdiction under the Clean Air Act's citizen suit provision because EPA's decision not to recognize the disputed lead credit transfer involved discretion, not a failure to perform a nondiscretionary duty.
• Chuska Energy Co. v. Mobil Exploration & Producing N. Am., Inc.
  854 F.2d 727· 5th Cir.· 1988-09-13
  A federal court does not have removal jurisdiction over a state law contract claim, even if the defendant raises a federal statute as a defense, unless the federal issue is a necessary element of the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint.
• Wilder v. Prokop
  846 F.2d 613· 10th Cir.· 1988-05-10
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to review the MSPB's decision, but the MSPB's dismissal of the appeal as untimely was not arbitrary or capricious, and mandamus relief was not warranted.
• Quarles v. Colo. Sec. Agency, Inc.
  843 F.2d 557· D.C. Cir.· 1988-04-08 ·via 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A)
  The court held that the employee's claim did not arise under federal law, thus the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
• Mitson v. Coler
  674 F. Supp. 851· S.D. Fla.· 1987-12-01
  The court held that unreimbursed medical expense portions of Veterans Administration Improved Pensions (VAIP) should not be counted as income for determining Medicaid Institutional Care Payments (ICP) eligibility.
• Knight v. The Town OF Glocester
  831 F.2d 30· 1st Cir.· 1987-10-16
  The court held that the district court's order directing the town to enroll the plaintiff in the police academy could not stand because equity must follow the law and legal rights were not invaded.
• MacMANN v. J.R. Titus
  819 F.2d 8· 1st Cir.· 1987-05-28
  The court held that the sale of the aircraft mooted the plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief, divesting both the district court and the appellate court of jurisdiction.
• Sullivan v. Mochen
  646 F. Supp. 216· S.D. Fla.· 1986-10-23
  Removal to federal court was improper because diversity jurisdiction was not established at the time the complaint was filed, and no federal question was presented.
• City OF Independence v. Bond
  756 F.2d 615· 8th Cir.· 1985-02-26
  Federal question jurisdiction exists when a case requires the interpretation of a federal statute, even if a contract contemplated by the statute is involved.
• White v. Clark
  750 F.2d 721· 8th Cir.· 1984-12-26
  The court held that the inmate's allegations failed to state a constitutional claim because post-deprivation remedies were available and the seizure was not alleged to be unlawful.
• Mitchell v. City OF LOS Angeles
  741 F.2d 281· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-24
  The court held that the attorney's claim for fees was barred by the settlement agreement and stipulation of dismissal, even if the attorney had an independent right to seek fees.
• Fidel Nieto-Santos v. Fletcher Farms
  743 F.2d 638· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-03
  The court held that a breach of contract claim, even if based on provisions mandated by federal law, does not create federal question jurisdiction absent clear congressional intent to create a federal cause of action. Furthermore, the court held that the claims did not meet the m