-
Director, Center for Supreme Court AdvocacyNational Association of Attorneys General
May 9, 2024 | Volume 31, Issue 11
This Report summarizes cases granted review on April 19 and 26, 2024 (Part I).
Case Granted Review
Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 23-677.
The Court granted certiorari to resolve whether a party can compel a remand to state court by amending the complaint to omit federal questions in an action that has already been properly removed to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441(a). The questions presented are (1) whether a post-removal amendment of the complaint defeats federal-question subject matter jurisdiction and (2) whether such a post-removal amendment of the complaint precludes a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.
Respondents are Missouri consumers whose pets suffered from health issues that veterinarians advised could be treated with prescription pet food from petitioners’ companies. Respondents paid a premium for the food, but allege that the food contained no medication and was not a prescription product. Based on the higher sales price and lack of medicine, respondents filed a complaint against petitioners in Missouri state court alleging violations of Missouri’s antitrust laws, Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act, and unjust enrichment. Petitioners removed the case to federal court based on the substantial federal question doctrine. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit determined that respondents’ antitrust and unjust enrichment claims encompassed significant federal questions. Respondents then modified their complaint to remove all mentions of federal law, abandoned their antitrust and unjust enrichment allegations, and introduced a civil conspiracy claim. Based on their amended complaint, respondents moved to have the case remanded to Missouri state court. The district court denied the motion, stating that federal-question jurisdiction still existed, and instead granted petitioners’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On appeal of the motion to dismiss, the Eighth Circuit asked the parties to submit supplemental briefing on whether subject matter jurisdiction exists. The Eighth Circuit, relying on the “longstanding rule that an amended complaint supersedes an original complaint and renders the original complaint without legal effect,” ruled that respondents’ amendment to the complaint destroyed federal-question jurisdiction and precluded supplemental jurisdiction. The court vacated and remanded with directions to remand the case to Missouri state court. 75 F.4th 918.
Petitioners argue that “the Eighth Circuit purposefully departed from uniform law in all other circuits” by erroneously looking at the amended complaint to determine whether, in a properly removed action, subject matter jurisdiction remains. Petitioners claim that the Eighth Circuit mistakenly relied on cases initially filed in federal court, which do not implicate a defendant’s statutory right to remove a case to federal court. In doing so, petitioners allege that the Eighth Circuit ignored that cases removed to the federal court are treated differently than those initially filed in federal court and would allow forum manipulation. According to petitioners, the Eighth Circuit’s rule would allow a plaintiff to “destroy the jurisdictional choice that Congress intended to afford a defendant in the removal statute.” Petitioners emphasize the forum gamesmanship, noting that “[i]f a motion to remand is denied on the basis that the claims are federal in nature, a plaintiff may simply amend the complaint to eliminate or conceal the federal allegations, move to remand a second time, and force the district court to return the case to state court.”
Respondents counter that the Eight Circuit’s ruling was correct because an amended complaint supersedes an earlier complaint for all purposes. They assert that there “is no statutory basis for treating amendments in cases that were removed from state court on the basis of federal question justification differently from those amendments in cases first filed in federal court” because they both involve the elimination of all claims giving rise to federal jurisdiction. Given that the amended complaint here failed to assert any claim supporting federal-question jurisdiction, respondents claim the Eighth Circuit correctly declined to create a “time of filing” rule to evaluate jurisdiction in cases like this one. Respondents contend there is no rationale for treating cases removed to federal court differently. They point to the disparate results under petitioners’ rule under which “the existence of federal jurisdiction in two cases with the same amended complaint—with identical nonfederal claims and parties—would depend solely on where the action was first filed.” They further dismiss petitioners’ reliance on the removal statute to support varying outcomes, pointing out that “Congress could have instructed federal courts to handle post-removal amendments to complaints removed from state court differently from those originating in state court.” They also emphasize that while a defendant has the right to pursue a federal forum for resolving claims based on federal law, there’s no inherent entitlement for any party to litigate state-law claims in federal court unless diversity is involved.
NAAG Center for Supreme Court Advocacy Staff
- Dan Schweitzer, Director and Chief Counsel
- Melissa Patterson, Supreme Court Fellow
- Amanda Schwartz, Supreme Court Fellow
The views and opinions of authors expressed in this newsletter do not necessarily state or reflect those of the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG). This newsletter does not provide any legal advice and is not a substitute for the procurement of such services from a legal professional. NAAG does not endorse or recommend any commercial products, processes, or services.
Any use and/or copies of the publication in whole or part must include the customary bibliographic citation. NAAG retains copyright and all other intellectual property rights in the material presented in the publications.