Opinion ID: 2519890
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Federal question jurisdiction

Text: For a court to exercise federal question jurisdiction, a case must arise under the United States Constitution, the laws of the United States, or treaties made under their authority. [11] The claim arising under federal law must also be substantial; that is, there must be legal substance to the position that the plaintiff is promoting. [12] 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. [13] However, if there is any foundation of plausibility to the claim[,] federal jurisdiction exists. [14] There is no question that a dismissal that results because there is no substantial federal question is a jurisdictional dismissal:  `[I]t remains the federal rule, and needs no reexamination here.' [15] In his order granting summary judgment to USF & E, Judge Sedwick found that the Miller Act could not serve as a basis for the district court to exercise jurisdiction. The court based its findings on the fact that the bond obtained by USF & E did not meet the criteria established to be a Miller Act bond; that even if it had been a Miller Act bond, Tru-Line sued the sub-sub-sub-contractor, not the prime contractor; and that even if it had sued the proper party, Tru-Line was too far removed from the prime contractor to sue under the Miller Act. As the court found that Tru-Line's Miller Act claim was not a substantial claim upon which it could exercise federal question jurisdiction, the district court could not exercise pendant jurisdiction over Tru-Line's common law contract claims. The resolution of the Miller Act claim rested on jurisdictional grounds even though these findings were made in an order of summary judgment. Although the decision may be styled a summary judgment, it should not gain increased preclusive effects because of the label chosen. [16] As such, a determination of whether the grant of summary judgment as to the federal question was on the merits should be looked at in the context of a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Such dismissals are not on the merits. [17]