Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC (2014)

Relevant here, a case most commonly “arises under federal law” and confers jurisdiction “when federal law creates the cause of action asserted.” Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).

In the present case, the defendants asserted federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 , which grants jurisdiction to federal district courts over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” A case “arises under” federal law when, based on the allegations in the complaint, “federal law creates the cause of action” or “a state-law cause of action implicat[es] a ‘significant’ federal issue.” Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Fr…

Ownership rights flow only from prior use[.]’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177, 182 (4th Cir. 2014) (citing McCarthy, supra § 16:18 (4th ed. 2001) (collecting cases))).

But a claim “necessarily depends on a question of federal law only when every legal theory supporting the claim requires the resolution of a federal issue.” Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177, 182 (4th Cir. 2014) (quoting Dixon, 369 F.3d at 816 ).

See generally Burrell, 918 F.3d at 381 (“A federal question is ‘necessarily raised’ for purposes of § 1331 only if it is a necessary element of one of the well-pleaded state claims.” (some internal quotation marks omitted)); Flying Pigs, 757 F.3d at 182 (“[A] plaintiff’s right to relief for a given claim necessarily depends on a question of federal law only when every legal theory supporting the claim requires the resolution of a federal issue.”).

In making this determination, the “well-pleaded complaint rule” demands that the court confine its inquiry to “the plaintiffs statement of his own claim[s] ... unaided by anything alleged in anticipation or avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose.” Flying Pigs, LLC v. RBAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177, 182 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).

However, the Fourth Circuit stated that “a claim ‘necessarily depends on a question of federal law only when every legal theory supporting the claim requires the resolution of a federal issue.’” Id. (quoting Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177, 182 (4th Cir. 2014); other citation omitted).

Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177, 182 (4th Cir. 2014) (emphasis in original).

Within this category, arising-under jurisdiction “will lie over state-law claims that implicate significant federal issues.” Grable, 545 U.S. at 312 ; see Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. at 9 . “[F]Jederal jurisdiction over a state law claim will lie if a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.” Gunn, 568 U.S. at 258 ; see Em…

Id. at 383 (quoting Pressl, 842 F.3d at 303 ; Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177, 182 (4th Cir. 2014); Dixon v. Coburg Dairy, Inc., 369 F.3d 811, 816 (4th Cir. 2004)).

Plaintiffs’ wrongful discharge claim thus in that part could be resolved under North Carolina law, without requiring “the resolution of a federal issue.” Flying Pigs, 757 F.3d at 182 (4th Cir. 2014).

See Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. at 13 ; Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177, 182 (4th Cir. 2014) (‘“[A] plaintiff’s right to relief for a given claim necessarily depends on a question of federal law only when every legal theory supporting the claim requires the resolution of a federal issue.”’) (quoting Dixon v. Coburg Dairy, Inc., 369 F.3d 811, 816 (4th Cir. 2004)) (en banc) (emphasis in the original); Pinney v. Nokia Inc., 402 F.3d 430, 442 (4th Cir. 20…

“A civil action can ‘arise under’ federal law in two ways.” Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2014).

See Pressl v. Appalachian Power Co., 842 F.3d 299, 302 (4th Cir. 2016) (holding that federal question jurisdiction exists “when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint”) (quotation omitted); Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2014) (noting the “well-pleaded complaint rule” requires the court to limit its inquiry to the “plaintiff’s statement of his own claim”) (quotation omitted).

“A civil action can ‘arise under’ federal law in two ways.” Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2014).

“A civil action can ‘arise under’ federal law in two ways.” Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2014).

Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2014); Marshall v. Manville Sales Corp., 6 F.3d 229, 232 (4th Cir. 1993).

If there is any legal theory which allows for the resolution of WVSU’s claims through the application of state law alone, then a federal issue is not “necessarily raised.” Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177, 182 (4th Cir. 2014) (“[A] plaintiff’s right to relief for a given claim necessarily depends on a question of federal law only when every legal theory supporting the claim requires the resolution of a federal issue.”) (quoting Dixon v. Coburg Dairy, I…

Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2014); Marshall v. Manville Sales Corp., 6 F.3d 229, 232 (4th Cir. 1993).

Ownership rights flow only from prior use.” Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177, 182 (4th Cir. 2014) (alterations in original). “‘Neither application for nor registration of a mark at the federal level wipes out the prior nonregistered, common law rights of others.’” Daniel Group v. Service Performance Group, Inc., 753 F. Supp. 2d 541, 546 (E.D.N.C. 2010) (quoting 2 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 16:2 (5th ed. 2020 update)).

The Supreme Court has recently “brought greater clarity to what it describes as a traditionally ‘unruly [substantial federal question] doctrine,’ emphasizing its ‘slim contours.”” Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177, 182 (4th Cir. 2014).

In that Circuit, “a plaintiff’s right to relief for a given claim necessarily depends on a question of federal law only when every legal theory supporting the claim requires the resolution of a federal issue.” Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177, 182 (4th Cir. 2014) (emphasis in original) (quoting Dixon v. Coburg Dairy, Inc., 369 F.3d 811, 816 (4th Cir.2004) (en banc)).

“Among other prerequisites for ‘significance,’ the federal issue must have been ‘necessarily raised’ in the litigation.” Flying Pits, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177, 182 (4th Cir. 2014) (citing Grable, 545 U.S. at 314 and Gunn, 568 U.S. at 258 ).

“A civil action can ‘arise under’ federal law in two ways.” , 757 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2014).

For purposes of federal question jurisdiction, there are two ways in which a civil action can “ ‘arise under’ federal law.” Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2014).

When considering whether an action arises under federal law, ‘“the well-pleaded complaint rule’ demands that we confine our inquiry to the ‘plaintiffs statement of his own claim ... unaided by anything alleged in anticipation or avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose.’” Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir.2014) (quoting Christianson v. Colt Indus.

Co., 255 U.S. 180, 199-202 , 41 S.Ct. 243 , 65 L.Ed. 577 (1921) (finding arising-under jurisdiction where a state-law claim rested on “the alleged unconstitutionality of the acts of Congress”). “[F]ederal jurisdiction over a state-law claim will lie if a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.” Gunn, 133 S.Ct. at 1065 ; s…

As the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has recognized, “ ‘a plaintiffs right to relief for a given claim necessarily depends on a question of federal law only when every legal theory supporting the claim requires the resolution of a federal issue.’ ” Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177, 182 (4th Cir.2014) (quoting Dixon, 369 F.3d at 816 ).

See, e.g., Fly ing Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177,182-83 (4th Cir. 2014).

Id. at 1569; accord Flying Pigs, 757 F.3d at 182 (recognizing that every theory of relief must raise federal issue for claim to arise under federal law).

See Reply Br. of Appellant 29 (quoting Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177, 182 (4th Cir. 2014)).

Id. at 443 , 445-46 ; see also Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC , 757 F.3d 177 , 181 (4th Cir. 2014) ("well-pleaded complaint rule" confines § 1331 inquiry to the "plaintiff's statement of his own claim ... unaided by anything alleged in anticipation or avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose" (internal quotation marks omitted)).

See, e.g., Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177, 182-83 (4th Cir. 2014). 42 Neither the district court nor the majority have grappled with the Grable decision and its jurisdictional principles.

See, e.g., Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177, 182-83 (4th Cir. 2014). 42 Neither the district court nor the majority have grappled with the Grable decision and its jurisdictional principles.

See, e.g., Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2014) (holding that a plaintiff’s request to “foreclose on the equitable lien awarded by the Guilford County court is manifestly a cause of action created by state law”).

“A dispute over property ownership does not properly fall under federal law just because the property is a federally- created interest like a trademark or a copyright.” Gibraltar, P.R., Inc. v. Otoki Grp., Inc., 104 F.3d 616, 619 (4th Cir. 1997); see also Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177, 182-83 (4th Cir. 2014) (concluding that a dispute over ownership of intellectual property such as copyrights does not necessarily raise a significant federal issue).

See Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2014).

See Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177 , 181–82 (4th Cir. 2014) (explaining that a civil action can “arise under” federal law “when federal law creates the cause of action asserted” or when a state law cause of action implicates a “significant” federal issue) (citing Grable & Sons Metal Prod., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 312 (2005)).

See Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, 757 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2014).