On January 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States in Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc., et al. v. Wullschleger et al., upheld the Eighth Circuit’s decision, holding that when a plaintiff amends their complaint and deletes the federal-law claims that give a federal court jurisdiction to hear the case, leaving only state-law claims behind, the federal court loses supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims and must remand to state court.
Plaintiff Anastasia Wullschleger filed a class action lawsuit in state court against Defendants Royal Canin U.S.A. Inc. and Nestlé Purina PetCare Co., alleging that the companies misled consumers by mislabeling prescription dog food. The lawsuit contained both federal and state law claims. The Defendants removed the case to Missouri federal court. In response, the Plaintiff amended her complaint, removing each federal allegation and asked the federal court to remand the case to state court. The federal court denied the request, and Plaintiff appealed that decision. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit remanded the case to state court since Plaintiff’s amendment eliminated any basis for federal-question jurisdiction, and thus, supplemental jurisdiction did not exist over the state law claims.
The case went before the United States Supreme Court to resolve the issue, and the Court upheld the Eighth Circuit’s decision. Justice Kagan noted that plaintiffs are “‘master[s] of the complaint,’ and therefore control[] much about [their] suit.” Amending a complaint can “bring the suit either newly within or newly outside a federal court’s jurisdiction.” When a plaintiff, “after removal, cuts out all her federal-law claims, federal-question jurisdiction dissolves. And with any federal anchor gone, supplemental jurisdiction over the residual state claims disappears as well. The operative pleading no longer supports federal jurisdiction, and the federal court must remand the case to the state court where it started.”
This case is an example of creative lawyering and how it can affect a case’s outcome in significant ways. Attorneys frequently debate about where to initiate a suit based on pros and cons associated with state and federal court. The outcome of this case raises concerns about forum shopping and how quickly a plaintiff can dictate which court will hear the merits of the issues, despite a defendant’s use of their statutory right to remove cases to federal court. This type of gamesmanship, though upheld by the Supreme Court, may increase duplicative proceedings and exacerbate a case’s time tied up in litigation. Defendants should be mindful of this and anticipate that plaintiffs may use a similar method to get a case back before a state judge and jury. Defendants should, as much as possible, implement strategies that safeguard their statutory right to remove cases to federal court.