On January 15, 2025, in Royal Canin v. Wullschleger, the Supreme Court held that when a plaintiff amends a complaint to eliminate federal law claims—leaving only state law claims—federal courts lose jurisdiction over the remaining claims and must remand the case to state court (if the case was removed) or dismiss the case (if originally filed in federal court).   

As previously summarized in Dykema’s October 2024 edition, Anastasia Wullschleger and Geraldine Brewer filed their case in state court against Royal Canin and Nestlé Purina, alleging the companies engaged in deceptive marketing practices. The plaintiffs raised issues under federal law, including alleged violations of the FDA’s labeling requirements. Based on these federal questions, the defendants removed the case to federal court, but the district court remanded the case, reasoning that the claims were predominantly state law in nature. The defendants sought permission to appeal, and the Eighth Circuit agreed to hear the case and reversed. Back in the district court, but undeterred by the court of appeals’ decision, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to eliminate all references to federal law. Back up on appeal, this time the Eighth Circuit held that the post-removal amendment eliminated subject-matter jurisdiction.

In a decision authored by Justice Kagan, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed, relying on its 2007 decision in Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States, which established that federal courts should examine the amended complaint to determine subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court concluded that, under the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), once a plaintiff withdraws the federal claims, the federal court loses supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims. The Court emphasized that the statute draws no distinction between cases originally filed in federal court and those removed from state court, and federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Therefore, subject-matter jurisdiction follows the operative pleading, and, in this case, the federal court had no basis to hear the state claims once the amended complaint extinguished all federal questions.

For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Mark Magyar, Monika Harris, or Harry Merz.