1. Is a contested federal question in a state law legal malpractice case "substantial," such that it would give rise to federal question jurisdiction under this Court's holdings in Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 260-64 (2013) and Grable & Sons Metal Prods. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314-16 (2005), when the answer to the question may affect the recognition and preclusive effect of an existing federal court judgment and, consequently, the rights and title of non-party purchasers of property pursuant to a federally supervised judicial foreclosure sale?

2. Will precluding the federal district court from exercising jurisdiction in this case amount to an invitation for a state court to decide the federal question in a manner that would substantially disrupt the federal-state balance of judicial responsibilities?

Whether a contested federal question in a state law legal malpractice case meets the substantiality threshold for federal question jurisdiction under Gunn and Grable precedents