Peter Peters (P), a resident of California, was a famous football player for the Los Angeles, Rams. He was in a terrible car accident in Los Angeles, California, and broke his back. P contacted Dr. Diane (D), a citizen of New York and a world-renown back surgeon. P asked D to travel to California to perform back surgery because P's injuries made it difficult for P to fly. D explained she had never been to California for work or vacation and was hesitant to travel out of state to work. P promised to pay her extra money to travel to California so she agreed. Secretly, D knew she probably would be unable to fix P's back, but wanted the publicity of being asked to perform a surgery on a famous athlete. P paid for all of D's travel expenses to Los Angeles, California, where D performed the surgery.

As part of the operation, D put screws in P's back bone. The screws were manufactured by Max Screws (M) which was incorporated in California and headquartered in New York. Unfortunately, the screw in P's back broke just a few days after his surgery causing permanent paralysis and ending his career.

P filed a lawsuit against D and M in federal court located in the Central District of California where Los Angeles is located. P sued D for $3 million for medical malpractice and sued M for $5 million for violating 10 U.S.C. 4311, a federal law which required the use of safe medical equipment. P's state law medical malpractice claim is well established under California law and does not raise any complex issue. P timely and properly served D and M and by personal service.

(38 points) Does the federal district court have proper subject matter jurisdiction over P's claims? In answering this question, using IRAC form, specifically address the following:

1. Analyze whether there is a federal question under 28 U.S.C. 1331 raised in P's claim against M.