See id. ¶¶ 29-37. As the Supreme Court recently explained in a similar context, a plaintiff pursuing a “state-law action for breach of contract” could allege, “for atmospheric reasons,” that the defendant’s conduct also contravened federal law. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Manning, - U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1562, 1568, 194 L.Ed.2d 671 (2016); id. at 1574-75 (extending Grable test for § 1331 “arising under” jurisdiction to alleged violations of Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). Such a “hypothetical suit” would not arise under federal law, however, “because the plaintiff can get all the relief he seeks just by showing the breach of an agreement,” without proving that the defendant violated federal law. Id. at 1569; accord Flying Pigs, 757 F.3d at 182 (<HOLDING>). In other words, the hypothetical
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 holding that just because a claim implicates a federal issue or involves construction of federal law does not necessarily give rise to a federal question and confer removal jurisdiction on a federal court holding that merely alluding to federal law does not raise a federal question holding that federal law governs res judicata effect of an earlier federal judgment based on federal law