(6th Cir.2000) (noting that federal question jurisdiction may exist for a case based on a state law cause of action “if a substantial federal question of great federal interest is raised by a complaint framed in terms of state law, and if resolution of that federal question is necessary to the resolution of the state-law claim”). It is not enough that a federal issue is merely present in a state law cause of action. See Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 813, 106 S.Ct. 3229, 92 L.Ed.2d 650 (1986). In addition, jurisdiction does not exist if only one of the plaintiffs alternate theories for its claim requires resolution of a federal question. See Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 810, 108 S.Ct. 2166, 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988); Long, 201 F.3d at 761 (<HOLDING>). Rather, the federal element must truly be
holding that the federal district courts dismissal of the plaintiffs federal claims deprived the court of its jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims arising from the same incident holding that in diversity cases federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law holding federal courts are bound by state court determinations of state law holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding that plaintiffs complaint did not invoke federal courts arising under jurisdiction because it put forth alternate state and federal policies to support its state law claim