Cluster 4906552

Cf. Bauer v. Elrich, 8 F.4th 291 , 298 (2021) (“Maryland taxpayer standing doctrine . . . merely confers standing in state court for taxpayers to enforce a right or obligation imposed by some other provision of law.”) (emphasis added).

See Mankodi v. Trump Marina Assocs., LLC, 525 F. App’x 161, 166 (3d Cir. 2013) (dismissing breach of contract claim because “it attempts to assert a claim based on a violation of the CCA, which does not provide a private right of action” and although plaintiff “attempts to frame this claim as a common law breach of contract . . . , his complaint evidences that he is really alleging a violation of the CCA”); Bauer, 8 F.4th at 299 (“The essence of the plaintiffs’ claim, and th…

Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164, 190 (1994) 1 (“We have been quite reluctant to infer a private right of action from a criminal prohibition 2 alone”); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (criminal statutes “provide no 3 basis for civil liability”); Bauer v. Elrich, 8 F.4th 291, 295 (4th Cir. 2021) (no private right of 4 action under federal perjury statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1621 ); Khanna v. Randhawa, No. C-07-5136 5 E…

But in that case, the claim “at its core” sought to “enforce a federal statute”; the plaintiffs “d[id] not seek to advance any state law right or enforce any duty established under state law.” Id. at 297.

This court has consistently rejected end-runs around federal jurisdiction where “a congressional act forms the basis of the plaintiffs’ complaint.” Bauer v. Elrich, 8 F.4th 291, 297-98 (4th Cir. 2021). 25 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2045 Doc: 64 Filed: 10/29/2024 Pg: 26 of 40 Because we find that Count Two satisfies all four Gunn factors, we hold that the district court possessed federal question jurisdiction over Count Two under Section 1331.

This court has consistently rejected end-runs around federal jurisdiction where “a congressional act forms the basis of the plaintiffs’ complaint.” Bauer v. Elrich, 8 F.4th 291, 297-98 (4th Cir. 2021). 25 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2044 Doc: 66 Filed: 10/29/2024 Pg: 26 of 40 Because we find that Count Two satisfies all four Gunn factors, we hold that the district court possessed federal question jurisdiction over Count Two under Section 1331.

Cf. Bauer v. Elrich, 8 F.4th 291, 299 (4th Cir. 2021) (“plaintiffs cannot evade … the lack of a Congressionally authorized right of action [to enforce a federal statute]” by invoking state-law injunction claim).

Cf. Bauer v. Elrich, 8 F.4th 291, 299 (4th Cir. 2021) (“plaintiffs cannot evade … the lack of a Congressionally authorized right of action [to enforce a federal statute]” by invoking state-law injunction claim).

Bauer, 8 F.4th at 300.

Cf. Bauer v. Elrich, 8 F.4th 291, 297 (4h Cir. 2021) (holding that plaintiffs “necessarily raised” a federal issue because they sought to enforce a federal statute and did not advance a state-law right).

Federal question jurisdiction exists when a case “arises under” federal law—in other words, when “federal law creates the cause of action” or “a state-law cause of action implicates a significant federal issue.” Bauer v. Elrich, 8 F.4th 291, 297 (4th Cir. 2021).

See Bauer v. Elrich, 8 F.4th 291 , 295 (4th Cir. 2021); Day v. Bond, 500 F.3d 1127, 1138-39 (10th Cir. 2007).

See Bauer v. Elrich, 8 F.4th 291, 295 (4th Cir. 2021) (no private right of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1621 ); Lee v. United Stages Agency for Int’l Dev., 859 F.3d 74, 78 (D.C.