On January 15, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that when plaintiffs amend their complaint to delete the federal law claims which initially warranted removal to federal court, the federal court loses jurisdiction and must remand the case to state court. Royal Canin U. S. A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, No. 23-677, 2025 WL 96212 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2025). The Court’s decision altered the status quo among most lower courts, which had historically looked to the original complaint—and not any later amendment—to determine federal jurisdiction, and thus allowed cases to continue in federal court even after plaintiffs had amended their complaint to remove all federal law issues. The ruling represents a victory for the plaintiffs’ bar and increases the likelihood that more business disputes are heard in state, rather than federal, courts.
Background
This case stems from a prospective Missouri class action brought by pet owners Anastasia Wullschleger and Geraldine Brewer (Pet Owners) against Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. and Nestlé Purina PetCare Co. (Pet Food Companies) over allegedly overpriced prescription pet food. The original complaint, filed in state court, alleged claims under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), as well as state claims under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and state antitrust law. Relying on the FDCA claims, the Pet Food Companies removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. §1441(a).
Two years after removal to federal court, the Pet Owners amended their complaint to remove all references to the FDCA, leaving only claims under Missouri state law. The Pet Owners then immediately sought remand to state court. Although the District Court rejected the Pet Owners’ request, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the decision and ordered remand to state court, finding that “an amended complaint [supersedes] an original complaint and renders the original complaint without legal effect.” Wullschleger v. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc., 75 F.4th 918, 922 (8th Cir. 2023). Accordingly, the Eight Circuit found that because the Pet Owners’ amended complaint contained only state law claims, the suit must be returned to state court.
The Eighth Circuit’s decision created a circuit split as other Courts of Appeals had long held that federal jurisdiction must be determined based on the complaint at the time of removal and not as of any later amendment. See, e.g., Gale v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 929 F.3d 74, 78 n.2 (2d Cir. 2019); Harper v. AutoAlliance Int’l, Inc., 392 F.3d 195, 210-211 (6th Cir. 2004). Under their view, once a case has been properly removed to federal court, the elimination of federal law claims would not impact the federal court’s jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Elena Kagan, the Supreme Court affirmed the Eighth Circuit and held that post-removal amendment of a complaint to eliminate federal claims deprives the federal court of jurisdiction over the remaining claims, requiring remand to state court. The Court determined that the result was both consistent with the text of 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (governing supplemental jurisdiction), and with other federal rules and statutes which provide that an amended pleading “wipe[s] the jurisdictional slate clean, giving rise to a new analysis with a different conclusion.”
The Justices dismissed arguments by the Pet Food Companies that the Court was bound by prior decisions such as Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States, which stated, in a footnote, that for cases removed from state to federal court due to the existence of a federal question, supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims remains even after the deletion of federal law claims. 549 U.S. 457, 474 n.6 (2007). Rejecting the footnote in Rockwell as “a drive-by assertion . . . extraneous to the Court’s holding” and the forum-shopping concerns as uncompelling, the Justices instead focused on the core holding of Rockwell, which provided that “when a plaintiff files a complaint in federal court and then voluntarily amends the complaint, courts look to the amended complaint to determine jurisdiction.” Id. at 474 (emphasis added).
The central holding of Rockwell, the Justices explained, is consistent with other federal rules and statutes which tie jurisdictional determinations to the amended complaint, without regard to the original filing. Importantly, under this regime, courts look to an amended complaint to determine jurisdiction in actions brought 1) initially in federal court or 2) removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The Court found that such “result must be the same” in a case removed based on federal question jurisdiction, “because nothing in § 1367(a)’s text distinguishes between cases removed to federal court and cases originally filed there.”
The Justices further noted that, had Congress intended § 1367(a)’s grant of jurisdiction to include lingering state law claims in an amended complaint, they would have provided such grant in the list of discretionary situations in § 1367(c). But Congress did not, a result which the Court deemed consistent with the goals of the federal rules to ensure that “the case, as it will actually be litigated, merits a federal forum.” The Justices explained that cases containing solely state law claims, like the amended complaint in Royal Canin, are “ill-suited to federal adjudication.”
Key Takeaways
- Plaintiffs, who often prefer to litigate in state court, will likely benefit from this decision. With assurance that federal claims can be dropped to defeat federal jurisdiction, plaintiffs may begin to include federal law claims in addition to state law claims more often than is done currently, knowing that if the case is removed they may nevertheless return to state court.
- The Supreme Court’s decision will likely increase the number of cases against businesses in state courts, which may provide a substantive advantage to plaintiffs. For example, many state courts, including New York and Delaware, have lower pleading standards which make obtaining pre-discovery dismissal harder to achieve. (Indeed, some states allow dismissal only if there is no conceivable set of facts entitling the plaintiff to relief, virtually ensuring that all cases get to discovery).
- Moreover, while time will tell, the relatively favorable law in some state courts with respect to unanimity of jury verdicts, as well as the potential for higher damages awards, may compel earlier and larger settlements.
