L.Ed. 755, 760-762 (1934); Hill v. Marston, 13 F.3d 1548, 1550 (11th Cir.1994). “[T]he fact that federal law may be the source or basis of the plaintiffs state-law claims does not support removal.” Austin v. American Gen. Fin., Inc., 900 F.Supp. 396, 399 (M.D.Ala.1995). In a case similar to the instant action, the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not have jurisdiction over the action. Hill, 13 F.3d at 1550. In Hill, the plaintiff alleged negligence, breach of contract, and state securities violations. The court determined that while the state claims involved some interpretation of related federal securities law, the existence of federal issues was insufficient to create federal jurisdiction. Id.; see also Meinders v. Refco Sec., Inc., 865 F.Supp. 721, 723 (D.Colo.1994)(<HOLDING>). In this case, the claimed violations of
holding that alleged violations of a state statute did not give rise to federal constitutional claims holding that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over securities act class actions recognizing a duty of best execution under federal securities law holding that a state securities claim which alleged federal mail wire and securities violations as the predicate acts did not arise under federal law and thus did not create federal jurisdiction recognizing that every theory of relief must raise federal issue for claim to arise under federal law