depends on a question of federal law only when every legal theory supporting the claim requires the resolution of a federal issue.” Dixon, 369 F.3d at 816 (emphasis in original). Because the plaintiffs advance a theory in support of their claims for equitable relief that does not require the resolution of a federal issue, the “necessarily raised” requirement formulated and explained by the Supreme Court in Grable and Gunn has not been satisfied. See id. (emphasizing that “if the plaintiff can support his claim with even one theory that does not call for an interpretation of federal law, his claim does not ‘arise under’ federal law for purposes of § 1331); see also Springsted v. Valenti Motors, Inc., No. 3:16CV214, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66959, 2016 WL 2977235 (D. Conn. May 20, 2016) (<HOLDING>); Lougy v. Volkswagen Grp, of Am., Inc., No.
holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding that rookerfeldman did not bar the plaintiffs federal action where a pennsylvania state court had previously dismissed the plaintiffs petition for review of an agencys decision for failure to comply with the pennsylvania rules of appellate procedure since the extent of the plaintiffs compliance with those rules had no bearing on the merits of the plaintiffs constitutional claims holding that the plaintiffs state statutory claim against volkswagen did not give rise to federal question jurisdiction under grable since the claim was based on alternative theories some of which had no necessary federal element holding that the plaintiffs claims against volkswagen and others did not necessarily raise a federal question since they were also based on the assertion that the plaintiffs vehicle did not comply with state law holding that exercise of jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims was proper on the basis of supplemental jurisdiction even though the plaintiffs had erroneously claimed diversity jurisdiction because a legitimate federal question was also presented and the state law claims formed part of the same case or controversy as the federal claim