Bernahl

facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

and review the district court’s decision de novo. DaVinci Aircraft, Inc. v. United

States, 926 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2019). We affirm.

Federal jurisdiction exists if the resolution of state-law claims “rises or falls

on the plaintiff’s ability to prove the violation of a federal duty.” Merrill Lynch,

Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Manning, 578 U.S. 374, 382–83 (2016). To meet

this standard, the federal issue must be “(1) necessarily raised, (2) actually

disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without

disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.” Gunn v. Minton, 568

U.S. 251, 258 (2013). “For an issue to be substantial, it is not enough that the

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Dana L. Christensen, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.

23-3506 federal issue be significant to the particular parties in the immediate suit . . . . The

substantiality…