to the diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Because federal courts have jurisdiction in this case under the federal question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the district court erred by applying the domestic relations exception. Nonetheless, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of this case because Plaintiff has not exhausted his tribal court remedies. AFFIRMED. 1 . The record is not entirely clear on the status (Indian or non-Indian) of Defendant Hanson and of Lexie’s maternal grandmother. Determination of those factual questions is unnecessary to the resolution of the issue before us. 2 . Because we have subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331, we need not determine whether an alternative basis for jurisdiction also exists. See Boozer, 381 F.3d at 934 n. 2
recognizing that every theory of relief must raise federal issue for claim to arise under federal law holding that jurisdiction exists under federal common law and declining to address the plaintiffs alternative jurisdictional theory recognizing the common enterprise theory of marriage holding that no scholars privilege exists under the first amendment or common law holding that plaintiffs are ordinarily entitled to instructions consonant with their theory of the case where evidentiary support for the theory exists