green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
46.7 score
“a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions arising under 'the constitution, laws, or treaties of the united states.”
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 36 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
SEXTON v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY
a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions arising under 'the constitution, laws, or treaties of the united states.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
David Hohsfield v. Commissioner of Social Security, et al.
“A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions arising under ‘the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States’ (federal question jurisdiction) and civil actions between citizens of different states with the amount in controversy exceeding the sum or value of $75,000 (diversity jurisdiction).” Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp., 424 F. App’x 82, 83 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1332(a)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nasir Finneman v. Ms. Reilly, Mr. Dean, and Ms. Murphy
“A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions arising under ‘the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States’ (federal question jurisdiction) and civil actions between citizens of different states with the amount in controversy exceeding the sum or value of $75,000 (diversity jurisdiction).” Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp., 424 F. App’x 82, 83 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1332(a)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cartier Gray v. GT Auto Sales
As such, federal courts have “subject matter jurisdiction over civil action arising under ‘the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States’ (federal question jurisdiction) and civil actions between citizens of different states with the amount in controversy exceeding the sum or value of $75,000 (diversity jurisdiction).” Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp., 424 F. App’x 82, 83 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1332(a)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Maurice W. McLaughlin and Tracey E. McLaughlin v. Wells Fargo, N.A.
Laborers Vacation Tr. for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983)); Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp., 424 F. App’x 82, 83 (3d Cir. 2011) (‘Federal question jurisdiction exists only if a federal question is presented on the face of the complaint.” (citation omitted)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
FOSTER v. HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY FRANCHISING, LLC AND SIX CONTINENTS HOTELS, INC.
“A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions arising under ‘the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States’ (federal question jurisdiction) and civil actions between citizens of different states with the amount in controversy exceeding the sum or value of $75,000 (diversity jurisdiction).” Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp., 424 F. App’x 82, 83 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1332(a)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ARSENIS v. HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NEW JERSEY
Laborers Vacation Tr. for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983)); Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp., 424 F. App’x 82, 83 (3d Cir. 2011) (‘Federal question jurisdiction exists only if a federal question is presented on the face of the complaint.” (citation omitted)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
BEY v. COMBS
(2×)
“A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions arising under ‘the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States’ (federal question jurisdiction) and civil actions between citizens of different states with the amount in controversy exceeding the sum or value of $75,000 (diversity jurisdiction).” Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp., 424 F. App’x 82, 83 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1332(a)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MOSES v. M&M MANAGEMENT
This Court is a federal district court, which “has subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions arising under ‘the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States’ (federal question jurisdiction) and civil actions between citizens of different states with the amount in controversy exceeding the sum or value of $75,000 (diversity jurisdiction).” Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp., 424 F. App’x 82, 83 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1332(a)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
V.Y. v. STATE OF NJ
“A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions arising under ‘the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States’ (federal question jurisdiction) and civil actions between citizens of different states with the amount in controversy exceeding the sum or value of $75,000 (diversity jurisdiction).” Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp., 424 F. App’x 82, 83 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1332(a)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
WILLIAMS v. PENN DENTAL MEDICINE
“A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions arising under ‘the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States’ (federal question jurisdiction) and civil actions between citizens of different states with the amount in controversy exceeding the sum or value of $75,000 (diversity jurisdiction).” Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp., 424 F. App’x 82, 83 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1332(a)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
WILLIAMS v. WOOD
“A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions arising under ‘the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States’ (federal question jurisdiction) and civil actions between citizens of different states with the amount in controversy exceeding the sum or value of $75,000 (diversity jurisdiction).” Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp., 424 F. App’x 82, 83 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1332(a)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
WALKER v. JACKSON
Jan. 17, 2020) (“Here, pro se Plaintiff does not have standing to assert any claims on behalf of her daughter.”). actions between citizens of different states with the amount in controversy exceeding the sum or value of $75,000 (diversity jurisdiction).” Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp., 424 F. App’x 82, 83 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1332(a)). 1.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
SCHUMACHER v. BETTA
(Pl.’s Moving Br. 11) See Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp., 424 F. App’x 82, 83 (3d '' The Court also has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1963 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
FRATO, JR. v. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES L.P.
(2×)
Cal. Aug. 23, 2021) (same). question is presented on the face of the complaint.” Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp., 424 F. App’x 82, 83 (3d Cir. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
CILETTIERI v. VERIZON WIRELESS
“Federal question jurisdiction exists only if a federal question is presented on the face of the complaint.” Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp., 424 F. App’x 82, 83 (3d Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DANIELS v. CAPITAL HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER
(2×)
“A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions arising under ‘the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States’ (federal question jurisdiction) and civil actions between citizens of different states with the amount in controversy exceeding the sum or value of $75,000 (diversity jurisdiction).” Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp., 424 F. App’x 82, 83 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1332(a)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
TAYLOR v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY
Subject matter jurisdiction exists in “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States (federal question jurisdiction) and civil actions between citizens of different states with the amount in controversy exceeding the sum or value of $75,000 (diversity jurisdiction).” Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp., 424 Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
LAMBERTY v. COOPER HOSPITAL
“A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions arising under ‘the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States’ (federal question jurisdiction) and civil actions between citizens of different states with the amount in controversy exceeding the sum or value of $75,000 (diversity jurisdiction).” Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp., 424 F. App'x 82, 83 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1332(a)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
HALL v. MILLER
Compl. at 2 (marking “Federal Questions” with an “X” as the basis for jurisdiction).) “A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions arising under ‘the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States’ (federal question jurisdiction) and civil actions between citizens of different states with the amount in controversy exceeding the sum or value of $75,000 (diversity jurisdiction).” Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp., 424 F. App’x 82, 83 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1332(a)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DAVIS v. KING
“A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions arising under ‘the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States’ (federal question jurisdiction) and civil actions between citizens of different states with the amount in controversy exceeding the sum or value of $75,000 (diversity jurisdiction).” Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp., 424 F. App'x 82, 83 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1332(a)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
MANN v. RUTGERS UNIVERSITY CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE
Dec. 28, 2016) (quoting Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp., 424 F. App’x 82, 83 (3d Cir. 2011)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Captain Command At Bluebeards Beach Club Owner's Assoc. v. Brian E. Hogue
Ordinarily, a district court has jurisdiction “over civil actions arising under ‘the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States’ (federal question jurisdiction) and civil actions between citizens of different states with the amount in controversy exceeding the sum or value of $75,000 (diversity jurisdiction).” Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp., 424 F. App’x 82, 83 (3d Cir. Apr. 18, 2011) (quoting 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1332(a)) However, “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28…
discussed
Cited "see"
DEDURO v. THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Rockefeller, 424 F. App’x at 83 .
discussed
Cited "see"
DODSON v. ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY COMPANY
See Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp., 424 F. App’x 82, 82 (3d Cir. 2011) (finding that “[a] federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions arising under ‘the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States’ (federal question jurisdiction)”); Mailey v. Temple Univ., Civ.
examined
Cited "see"
S.M. v. FREEHOLD REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Rockefeller, 424 F. App’x at 83 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Doe v. MORRIS COUNTY
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Rockefeller, 424 F. App’x at 83 .
discussed
Cited "see"
E.E. v. RIDGEFIELD PARK BOARD OF EDUCATION
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Rockefeller, 424 F. App’x at 83 (federal question jurisdiction arises when a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction arising under “the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
8 ERIE ST. JC LLC v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Rockefeller, 424 F. App’x at 83 (federal question jurisdiction arises when a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction arising under “the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
YUHASZ v. CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES (CMS)
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Rockefeller, 424 F. App’x at 83 (federal question jurisdiction arises when a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction arising under “the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
RACIOPPE v. VERONA BOARD OF EDUCATION
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Rockefeller, 424 F. App’x at 83 (federal question jurisdiction arises when a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction arising under “the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
B.L. v. FETHERMAN
A federal court may have subject-matter jurisdiction through either federal question or diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1332; see also Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp., 424 F. App’x 82, 83 (3d Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
LATTA v. LUCKMAN
Supplemental Jurisdiction Over Remaining Claims A federal court must have either federal question or diversity jurisdiction to adjudicate a case. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1332; see also Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp., 424 F. App’x 82, 83 (3d Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
SAUNDERS v. NJ DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
State Law Claims (Counts One through Five) A federal court may have subject-matter jurisdiction through either federal question or diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1332; see also Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp., 424 F. App’x 82, 83 (3d Cir. 2011).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
SOMERSET ORTHOPEDIC ASSOCIATES, P.A. v. HORIZON HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.
To adjudicate a case, a federal court must have either federal question or diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1332; see also Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp., 424 F. App’x 82, 83 (3d Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Canoe Manufacturing Co.
See, e.g., Rockefeller v. Comcast Corp., 424 Fed.Appx. 82 , 83 n. 1 (3d Cir.2011) (non-precedential) (“The dismissal necessarily was without prejudice because the District Court did not (and could not) reach the merits of the complaint.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
David ROCKEFELLER, Appellant
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION; Brian Roberts, President/CEO of Comcast
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION; Brian Roberts, President/CEO of Comcast
10-4494.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Apr 18, 2011.
424 F. App'x 82
David Rockefeller, Lindenwold, NJ, pro se.
McKee, Aldisert, Weis.
Cited by 33 opinions | Unpublished
OPINION
PER CURIAM.David Rockefeller appeals pro se from an order dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because no substantial question is presented by this appeal, we will summarily affirm the order of the District Court.
Rockefeller filed a complaint against Comcast Corporation (“Comcast”) and Brian Roberts, Chairman and CEO of Com-cast, alleging that Comcast damaged his property, committed fraud and theft, over-billed for services, and fraudulently advertised. Rockefeller demanded $5,000 in damages.
The District Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The District Court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint did not allege facts supporting a federal question and the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000. Rockefeller appeals.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, [1] and exercise de novo review over the District Court’s order dismissing Rockefeller’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Price, 501 F.3d 271, 275 (3d Cir.2007).
The District Court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions arising under “the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” (federal question jurisdiction) and civil actions between citizens of different states with the amount in controversy exceeding the sum or value of $75,000 (diversity jurisdiction). 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a).
Federal question jurisdiction exists only if a federal question is presented on the face of the complaint. Club Comanche, Inc. v. Gov’t of V.I., 278 F.3d 250, 259 (3d Cir.2002) (citation omitted). In his complaint, Rockefeller alleged that Comcast damaged his property, committed fraud and theft, overbilled for services, and fraudulently advertised. None of these allegations presented a federal question pursuant to § 1331.
Although it appears that there is diversity of citizenship, as Rockefeller is a citizen of New Jersey and Comcast is incorporated in Pennsylvania, the amount in controversy does not exceed the sum or value of $75,000. The complaint demands only $5,000. Thus, Rockefeller cannot establish diversity jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s order dismissing Rockefeller’s complaint.
1
. The dismissal necessarily was without prejudice because the District Court did not (and could not) reach the merits of the complaint. There is no indication in the District Court's order that the dismissal was without prejudice because of a defect in the pleading that could be cured by amendment. In any event, Rockefeller's notice of appeal contains argument indicating his intention to stand on his complaint. See Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951-52 (3d Cir.1976).