KELLY, Circuit Judge:
This case concerns the scope of federal subject matter jurisdiction under section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). Plaintiff-Appellant Nu Image, Inc., brought suit in federal district court under section 301(a) against Defendant-Appellee International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, Its Territories and Canada, AFL-CIO ("IATSE"). Nu Image claimed that IATSE engaged in intentional and negligent misrepresentation to induce Nu Image to enter into a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") and sought a declaratory judgment that part of the CBA was invalid. The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that section 301(a) grants jurisdiction only for suits that claim a violation of a CBA, which Nu Image did not do. Nu Image, Inc. v. Int'l All. of Theatrical Stage Emps. , No. 2:15-CV-05704-CAS( ), 2016 WL 917887, *4, *7 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2016). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Prior to 2006, Nu Image, an independent movie production and marketing company, and IATSE, a labor organization that represents motion picture production crew members, entered into single production CBAs. These CBAs governed their relationship on a per-motion-picture basis. After 2006, Nu Image and IATSE entered into negotiations for an "Overall CBA"
*638that would govern all motion picture productions. The Overall CBA required Nu Image to make residual contributions to the Motion Picture Industry Health and Pension Plans (the "Plans").
During negotiations for the Overall CBA, Nu Image alleges that it told IATSE "it would not agree to an Overall CBA if it were required to remit Residual Contribution payments to the Plans." 3 ER 318. Nu Image claims that IATSE orally represented that neither IATSE nor the Plans would seek contribution. Between 2006 and 2009, Nu Image did not pay into the Plans and neither the Plans nor IATSE took the position that Nu Image was required to pay.
On May 13, 2013, however, the Plans sued Nu Image for breach of the Overall CBA for failure to pay residual contributions to the Plans from 2006 to 2010.1 Nu Image informed the Plans of the prior oral agreement between Nu Image and IATSE; however, IATSE denied that any oral agreement occurred. On March 9, 2015, IATSE filed a grievance under the Overall CBA against Nu Image for its failure to pay into the Plans, which IATSE maintained was a "continuing breach of the parties' [CBA]." 3 ER 224. Nu Image and IATSE thereafter entered in arbitration. Nu Image soon hired new counsel, put the arbitration on hold, and filed the present suit. Asserting jurisdiction under section 301(a), Nu Image claimed that as a result of IATSE's intentional and negligent misrepresentation, Nu Image incurred and will continue to incur significant costs. Nu Image also claimed that IATSE claimed "that Nu Image breached the CBA ... by failing to pay Residual Contributions." 3 ER 314. Nu Image finally sought declaratory relief requesting "a judicial determination that the Residual Contribution provisions in the [Overall CBA] do not apply to Nu Image." 3 ER 324. IATSE filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction arguing that Nu Image's complaint was not a suit for violation of a contract. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The district court agreed and dismissed the action. This timely appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
A district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reviewed de novo. Young v. United States , 769 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2014).
This case presents a difficult question regarding the scope of the jurisdiction granted by section 301(a). Nu Image argues that the LMRA grants a district court jurisdiction to hear any case in which a party, or third party, has alleged a violation of a CBA. According to Nu Image, it does not matter whether the plaintiff in a given case specifically alleges a violation of a CBA as an element of its claims. As a result, Nu Image contends that the district court has jurisdiction to hear this case because it arises out of the fact that IATSE accused Nu Image of violating the Overall CBA.
IATSE, on the other hand, argues that section 301(a) grants jurisdiction to hear only those cases in which the plaintiff alleges a claim based on a violation of a CBA. Because Nu Image does not allege that there has been a violation of the Overall CBA as an element of any of its claims contained in its complaint, IATSE argues that section 301(a) does not provide the district court with subject matter jurisdiction *639to resolve Nu Image's claims. We agree.
Section 301(a) grants federal courts jurisdiction to hear "[s]uits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization." 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). This statute is an "exception to the primary jurisdiction doctrine [of the NLRB] ... designed to afford the courts jurisdiction to resolve labor disputes that focused on the interpretation of the terms of the collective bargaining agreement." Pace v. Honolulu Disposal Serv. , 227 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting United Ass'n of Journeymen v. Valley Eng'rs , 975 F.2d 611, 614 (9th Cir. 1992) ). Section 301(a) is designed to allow federal courts the limited role of "enforc[ing] ... collective bargaining agreements." Lewis v. Benedict Coal Corp. , 361 U.S. 459, 470, 80 S.Ct. 489, 4 L.Ed.2d 442 (1960).
This seemingly simple statute is complicated by precedent. We previously have allowed an employer to sue under section 301(a) for declaratory relief and misrepresentation to void a provision of a CBA. See Rozay's Transfer v. Local Freight Drivers, Local 208, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am. , 850 F.2d 1321 (9th Cir. 1988). In Rozay's Transfer , Rozay's Transfer, an employer, sued Teamster's Local 208 ("Teamster's") under section 301(a) for fraudulent inducement into executing a new CBA. Id. at 1323. During the negotiations for the new CBA, Rozay's had expressed concern that it might not be able to pay trust fund contributions that would be owed under the new CBA. Id . at 1324. Teamster's told Rozay's that it would ask the Trust Fund to waive them. Id . When asked, however, the Trust Fund refused to waive the contribution requirements. Id. Teamster's did not inform Rozay's of the denial and it entered into the new CBA. Id. Southwest Administrators, the Trust Fund's assignee, subsequently sued Rozay's for failure to pay into the fund. Id. Because Rozay's could not assert a fraudulent inducement claim against the fund under the law, Rozay's instead filed a separate suit against Teamster's for fraudulent inducement to recover its damages. Id. at 1324-25. The district court resolved the action in favor of Rozay's. Id. at 1325. On appeal, union amicus contested jurisdiction, arguing that this court did not have jurisdiction over the claim because the NLRB had exclusive jurisdiction. This court disagreed and held that the district court had jurisdiction under section 301(a) to "entertain this action alleging fraudulent inducement in the formation of the agreement." Id. at 1325-26.
The parties agree that if Rozay's Transfer remains good law, then the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Since Rozay's Transfer , however, the Supreme Court decided Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Division, Avco Corp. v. United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, 523 U.S. 653, 118 S.Ct. 1626, 140 L.Ed.2d 863 (1998), which calls into doubt Rozay's holding. Thus, the question before us is whether Rozay's Transfer remains good law and, if not, whether Textron now forecloses section 301 jurisdiction over Nu Image's claims. See Miller v. Gammie , 335 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Cir. 2003).
In Textron , the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America ("UAW") and Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Division ("Textron") were parties to a CBA that "required Textron to give the Union seven days' notice before entering into any agreement to 'subcontract out' work." 523 U.S. at 654-55, 118 S.Ct. 1626. Textron later announced that it would subcontract out its work, causing many Union members to lose jobs. Id . at 655, 118 S.Ct. 1626.
*640UAW sued under section 301(a) claiming that it was fraudulently induced into signing a CBA and seeking a declaratory judgment that the CBA was void. Id . Of importance, UAW did not allege that either it or Textron had violated the CBA. Id . Applying a textual analysis of section 301(a), the Court held that because " '[s]uits for violation of contracts' under [section] 301(a) are not suits that claim a contract is invalid , but suits that claim a contract has been violated," the district court lacked jurisdiction. Id . at 657, 118 S.Ct. 1626 (emphasis added).
After careful consideration of both opinions, we conclude that Textron has abrogated the reasoning underlying Rozay's Transfer . In Rozay's Transfer , citing previously established circuit precedent, this court held that the declaratory relief and misrepresentation claims could move forward because "[s]ection 301 ... applies not only to suits for breach of a collective bargaining agreement once it is duly formed, but also to suits impugning the existence and validity of a labor agreement." 850 F.2d at 1326. Textron clearly states that section 301(a) 's grant of jurisdiction does not sweep so broadly. 523 U.S. at 656, 118 S.Ct. 1626. Thus, our holding in Rozay's , that an employer can sue under section 301(a) for declaratory relief to void a provision of a CBA all without alleging a contract violation, cannot stand after Textron .
This does not end the case though. Textron made clear that its holding "does not mean that a federal court can never adjudicate the validity of a contract under [section] 301(a)." 523 U.S. at 657, 118 S.Ct. 1626. Instead,
[ Section 301(a) ] simply erects a gateway through which parties may pass into federal court; once they have entered, it does not restrict the legal landscape they may traverse. Thus if, in the course of deciding whether a plaintiff is entitled to relief for the defendant's alleged violation of a contract, the defendant interposes the affirmative defense that the contract was invalid, the court may, consistent with [section] 301(a), adjudicate that defense. Similarly, a declaratory judgment plaintiff accused of violating a collective-bargaining agreement may ask a court to declare the agreement invalid . But in these cases, the federal court's power to adjudicate the contract's validity is ancillary to, and not independent of, its power to adjudicate '[s]uits for violation of contracts.' "
Id. at 657-58, 118 S.Ct. 1626 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). Nu Image argues this language completely supports its position-Nu Image is "a declaratory judgment plaintiff" that has been "accused of violating a collective-bargaining agreement" and is now asking the court to "declare the agreement invalid." While Nu Image may admit that its suit is one claiming the contract is invalid (which Textron does not allow), it argues that in this context "ancillary" refers to "a federal court's power to entertain a declaratory judgment action as part and parcel of its jurisdiction over 'suits for violation of contracts' under Section 301(a)." Aplt. Reply Br. at 13. Therefore, its suit passes through the jurisdictional gateway and the court has jurisdiction.
Nu Image's reading of Textron ignores what Textron commands: a party must first pass through the jurisdictional "gateway" (by alleging a violation of contract) before asking if any of its additional claims (such as its declaratory judgment action to void the Overall CBA) are ancillary or independent. Textron , 523 U.S. at 658, 118 S.Ct. 1626.
We hold that Nu Image has not crossed this initial threshold. Its claim is that part of the Overall CBA is invalid because *641IATSE misled Nu Image during the contract negotiations. Complaint at 2, Nu Image, Inc v. Int'l All. of Theatrical Stage Emps. , No. 2:15-CV-05704 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2016), ECF No. 1. Clearly, Nu Image seeks not the enforcement of a contract, but rather the voiding of it . Nu Image forthrightly asks "[f]or a judicial determination that the Residual Contribution provisions in the Basic Agreement do not apply to Nu Image." Id. at 11. While its motivation for seeking this relief may be an accusation of a contract violation by IATSE, Nu Image did not bring suit "because a contract has been violated ." Textron , 523 U.S. at 657, 118 S.Ct. 1626. Textron bars suits claiming a contract is void unless a plaintiff also alleges as an element of its claim2 a "violation of the collective-bargaining agreement," which Nu Image has not done. Id. at 661, 118 S.Ct. 1626. To the contrary, Nu Image does not claim that either it or IATSE violated the Overall CBA. To restate: Nu Image filed suit seeking to void the CBA (which Textron clearly bars) based on an alleged state law misrepresentation claim (a theory the NLRB arguably has primary jurisdiction over, see id. at 662, 118 S.Ct. 1626 (Stevens, J., concurring) ), all under a statute that grants jurisdiction for only "[s]uits for violation of contracts." 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). This is a bridge too far.
Considering both the plain language of the statute, Textron 's holding, and the limited role of federal courts in labor disputes, we hold that Nu Image's claim is too far removed and too independent to pass through section 301(a) 's jurisdictional gateway. We are mindful that this point has divided the circuits, compare Gerhardson , 698 F.3d at 1058 (" Textron only permits a litigant to raise the validity of a contract as an affirmative defense; it does not allow such claims to be asserted offensively"), with Hous. Ref., L.P. v. United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg. , 765 F.3d 396, 406 n.16 (5th Cir. 2014) ("A plaintiff's claim that it (and not the defendant) allegedly violated a labor contract is sufficient to support section 301 jurisdiction."), and J.W. Peters, Inc. v. Bridge, Structural & Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local Union 1 , 398 F.3d 967, 973 (7th Cir. 2005), as amended on denial of reh'g and reh'g en banc , No. 04-2797, 2005 WL 957272 (7th Cir. Mar. 28, 2005) (holding that district court had jurisdiction over declaratory judgment plaintiff "accused of violating the terms of the collective bargaining agreement"), but in our judgment, absent some affirmative claim by the plaintiff3 of a violation of the contract, a district court does not have jurisdiction under section 301(a).
The dissent advances two principal reasons against our reading of Textron . First, in its view, the examples provided in Textron (after invocation of the "gateway" metaphor) are all examples of the types of cases that automatically pass through the gateway and by holding otherwise, we are ignoring "clear guidance" in the form of Supreme Court dicta. Second, the dissent suggests that Nu Image is without recourse and our result favors *642IATSE. Neither reason is persuasive. Under the dissent's view, section 301(a) as a jurisdictional grant is limitless.
We reject the first reason because the dissent's broad reading of Textron 's gateway language does not make sense in context. Supreme Court dicta should be given "due deference," but it is the Court's holding that is ultimately binding. See United States v. Montero-Camargo , 208 F.3d 1122, 1132 n.17 (9th Cir. 2000). Textron 's very next sentence-"the federal court's power to adjudicate the contract's validity is ancillary to, and not independent of, its power to adjudicate '[s]uits for violation of contracts' "-belies any notion that a party may pursue non-contract violation claims without first alleging a violation of contract. Concerning the second reason, Nu Image cannot complain about inequity, having intentionally withdrawn from arbitration to pursue a federal forum. The dissent also gives no reason, and we see none, why Congress cannot create a jurisdictional statute that at times allows one party into federal court but not another. It is not strange at all that Nu Image cannot file in federal court because IATSE could file a claim. Cf. Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr. for S. Cal. , 463 U.S. 1, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983).
In the end, the dissent's reading of the statute would expand section 301(a) beyond recognition. Any party seeking to invalidate a contract would have a federal forum merely by alleging that another party claimed, in any context , a contract violation. Section 301(a), a limited jurisdictional grant, cannot sweep so broadly.
IATSE also argues that Rozay's Transfer was implicitly overruled by the Supreme Court's opinion in Granite Rock Co. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters , 561 U.S. 287, 130 S.Ct. 2847, 177 L.Ed.2d 567 (2010). Because we resolve the case on the reasoning above, we decline to rule on the applicability of Granite Rock .
AFFIRMED.