Jurisdiction plainly exists over FMC’s due process claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because they arise under the United States Constitution. See Church of Scientology Int’l v. Kolts, 846 F. Case 5:17-cv-01225-JGB-KK Document 24 Filed 11/13/17 Page 21 of 30 Page ID #:468 16 LV421015762 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Supp. 873, 886, 878 (C.D. Cal. 1994) (“Because Plaintiff states a claim arising under the Constitution (Plaintiff contends its Fifth Amendment due process rights were violated), Plaintiff’s complaint meets the requirement of ‘arising under’ the Constitution required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.”); Presbyterian Church v. United States, 870 F.2d 518, 524 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that the court had jurisdiction over a claim for declaratory relief because plaintiff alleged a violation of the First and Fourth Amendments); Staacke v. U.S. Sec’y of Labor, 841 F.2d 278, 281 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding jurisdiction under section 1331 where the plaintiff has a substantial constitutional claim).

See Section I.A, supra. The Complaint appears to acknowledge that the Declaratory Judgment Act cannot (and does not) on its own confer federal jurisdiction; the Complaint asserts that the Court “has further jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act,” “[b]ecause of the original jurisdiction” allegedly established by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. See Compl.

10 Case 3:09-cv-01734-SRU Document 63 Filed 07/09/10 Page 10 of 15 F.2d at 328. Since the Court has jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ cause of action under the FTCA as well as 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Plaintiffs may, under the DJA, properly request that the Court make use of this procedural device. IV.

10. Subject matter jurisdiction is proper in this court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 11.

¶ 11; Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105 (1977) (“The obvious effect of this modification [to 28 U.S.C. § 1331], subject only to preclusion-of-review statutes created or retained by Congress, is to confer jurisdiction on federal courts to review agency action.”); Idaho Watersheds Project v. Hahn, 307 F.3d 815, 830 (9th Cir. 2002) (“In Califano v. Sanders … the Supreme Court settled a long standing controversy by holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1331, rather than the APA, confers jurisdiction on federal courts to review agency action”). 24 Case 2:06-cv-12987-PKC Document 27 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 26 of 27 Case 2:06-cv-12987-PKC Document 27 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 27 of 27

Congress expressly granted “original jurisdiction” to all “civil actions arising under…laws…of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. That the Court had jurisdiction over this federal question case at time of removal settles the question presented by Plaintiff’s Motion.

19 141864.00601/7373824v.5 CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, the Served Defendants respectfully submit that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 based on several of Plaintiff’s claims. Dated: New York, New York April 14, 2014 Respectfully submitted, BLANK ROME LLP By: S/RobertKenney/S Robert Kenney Rither Alabre The Chrysler Building 405 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 0174-0208 Telephone: (212) 885-5251 Facsimile: (917) 332-3796 Email: rkenney@blankrome.com Panagiota Betty Tufariello INTELLECTULAW THE LAW OFFICES OF P.B. TUFARIELLO, P.C. 25 Little Harbor Road Mount Sinai, New York 11766 Telephone: (631) 476-8734 Facsimile: (631) 476-8737 Email: betty@intellectulaw.com 20 141864.00601/7373824v.

The Bush administration Defendants’ argument that the Plaintiff’s injuries were not “caused by the official capacity defendants” is premised on an incorrect understanding of the law. As set forth fully in Section (I)(2)(b) supra., the Plaintiff’s claims are against the Defendant Agencies and are brought through their respective “official capacity” directors. See, e.g., Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985); and Student Members of SAME et. al. v. Rumsfeld (in his official capacity), 321 F.Supp.2d 388 (D.C.T. 2004) (finding, in a case arising under 28 U.S.C. §1331, that Plaintiffs had standing to assert claims against the Department of Defense for violations of their constitutional rights). The alleged improper actions were conducted by the Defendant agencies. Moreover, this Court never has applied the more strict “tort” standard of “causation” to determine the traceability and causal connection of the action.

at 899 (quotation cite omitted). See also, Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Defense Contract Audit Agency, 397 F. Supp. 2d 659, 664 (D. Md. 2005) (finding that the CDA and the Tucker Act preempts 28 U.S.C. § 1331 jurisdiction). “The purpose for centralizing the resolution of government contract disputes in the Court of Federal Claims, rather than in district court, is to ensure national uniformity in government contract law.”

2016). Because the National Labor Relations Act provides a specific and exclusive grant of review jurisdiction in the federal appellate courts, district court jurisdiction is not available under the general federal and commerce jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1337. Owners- Operators Indep.