Opinion ID: 786176
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Federal Court Jurisdiction over State-Law Claims

Text: 23 The propriety of hearing Bracey's case in federal court turns on whether the case falls within the original `federal question' jurisdiction of the federal courts. Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808, 106 S.Ct. 3229, 92 L.Ed.2d 650 (1986). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal courts have original jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law. 24 Federal jurisdiction is typically based on the fact that federal law creates the plaintiff's asserted cause of action. See Am. Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257, 260, 36 S.Ct. 585, 60 L.Ed. 987 (1916) (A suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action.). But a plaintiff need not allege a cause of action created by federal law for the case to arise under federal law. If the plaintiff's statement of his or her state-law claim in a well-pleaded complaint necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law, Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 28, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983), then the case may also arise under federal law within the meaning of section 1331, Barbara v. N.Y. Stock Exch., Inc., 99 F.3d 49, 54 (2d Cir.1996). 25 As the quoted language from Franchise Tax Board suggests, the mere presence of a federal issue in a state cause of action does not automatically confer federal-question jurisdiction. Merrell Dow, 478 U.S. at 813, 106 S.Ct. 3229; accord W. 14th St. Commercial Corp. v. 5 W. 14th Owners Corp., 815 F.2d 188, 193 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 850, 108 S.Ct. 151, 98 L.Ed.2d 107, and cert. denied, 484 U.S. 871, 108 S.Ct. 200, 98 L.Ed.2d 151 (1987). The federal question to be resolved must be substantial. Greenblatt v. Delta Plumbing & Heating Corp., 68 F.3d 561, 570 (2d Cir.1995) (quoting, inter alia, Merrell Dow, 478 U.S. at 813-14, 106 S.Ct. 3229). We have pointed to language in Supreme Court opinions to the effect that in determining federal question jurisdiction, courts must make principled, pragmatic distinctions, engaging in a selective process which picks the substantial causes out of the web and lays the other ones aside. Id. (quoting, inter alia, Merrell Dow, 478 U.S. at 813-14, 106 S.Ct. 3229) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 26 The Supreme Court has instructed that a federal question is sufficiently substantial to support federal jurisdiction if the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law. Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. at 9, 103 S.Ct. 2841. Leading commentators have suggested that for purposes of § 1331 an action `arises under' federal law if in order for the plaintiff to secure the relief sought he will be obliged to establish both the correctness and the applicability to his case of a proposition of federal law. Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also T.B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu, 339 F.2d 823, 827 (2d Cir.1964) (Friendly, J. ) (Even though the claim is created by state law, a case may `arise under' a law of the United States if the complaint discloses a need for determining the meaning or application of such a law.), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 915, 85 S.Ct. 1534, 14 L.Ed.2d 435 (1965). 27 In Merrell Dow, the Supreme Court indicated that when a state-law claim is based on federal law but Congress has chosen not to create a private right of action for violation of that federal law, the federal issue is not sufficiently substantial to confer federal jurisdiction. See Merrell Dow, 478 U.S. at 814, 106 S.Ct. 3229. Some circuit courts read Merrell Dow as requiring that there be a federal right of action for there to be section-1331 jurisdiction. See, e.g., Seinfeld v. Austen, 39 F.3d 761, 764 n. 2 (7th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1126, 115 S.Ct. 1998, 131 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1995) ( Merrell Dow interpreted the word `substantial' in this phrase to mean a congressional choice to include a private right of action in favor of plaintiffs.); see also Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Daniel J. Meltzer, and David L. Shapiro, Hart and Wechsler's The Federal Courts and the Federal System 885 (5th ed.2003) (discussing the differing views among the circuits). 5 28 Although ... cases in this circuit have not read Merrell Dow categorically to preclude federal question jurisdiction in the absence of a private remedy for violation of the relevant federal law, see, e.g., [ W. 14th St., 815 F.2d at 196], the existence vel non of such a private right of action is the starting point for our inquiry into the substantiality of the federal questions involved in a lawsuit. Barbara, 99 F.3d at 54.