(rejecting a claim that the federal government instead of the levee district owed compensation, the court noted that it was clear “that the Pontchartrain Levee District and not the United States of America appropriated the necessary rights of way in connection with the construction of the Diamond Levee Setback.”). We are aware that in cases similar to ours the United States of America was sought to be made a party and removed the cases to federal court. The federal district courts, finding that the only claims were those for indemnity (see Part V-B, post), dismissed the United States as a party, finding that the indemnity claims were premature, and remanded the cases to the state court. See Olivier Plantation, LLC v. St. Bernard Parish, 744 F.Supp.2d 575, 584-585 (E.D.La.2010) (<HOLDING>); Pizani v. St. Bernard Parish, unpub., 2013 WL
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 a federal district court may decide whether an activity is an unfair labor practice under the nlra when the matter is raised as a defense to a claim under an independent federal remedy over which the federal district courts do have jurisdiction holding that the district court was not divested of subject matter jurisdiction upon the dismissal of the plaintiffs federal claims holding the fourteenth amendment does not apply to the actions of the federal government holding that a determination of whether the defendants actions constituted a taking under the louisiana constitution does not implicate any issues of federal law and thus does not provides a basis for a federal district court to exercise federal subject matter jurisdiction