Class Actions Brief Blog

Two Missouri pets—and what’s in their prescription food—may ultimately determine where and how class actions are litigated. Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court held oral argument in Royal Canin U.S.A. Inc. v. Wullschleger, where the central question is whether putative class action plaintiffs who have had their cases removed to federal court can amend their complaints to strip references to federal jurisdiction and return to state court.

Royal Canin began in 2019, when the owners of a dog named Carter and a cat named Sassie filed a proposed class action in Missouri state court alleging that pet food manufacturers tricked them into buying higher-priced, prescription-only pet food. Although the claims were purportedly based upon state law, the manufacturers removed the case to federal court, citing federal question jurisdiction as well as diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The District Court remanded, holding that the plaintiffs’ claims did not raise questions of federal law and that minimal diversity did not exist for removal under CAFA. The Eighth Circuit disagreed, holding that there was federal question jurisdiction because the plaintiffs’ claims required “explication of federal law.”

Upon return to the District Court, the plaintiffs amended the complaint to remove any reference to federal law and moved to remand. Eventually, the case returned to the Eighth Circuit, which sua sponte asked for briefing on whether the amended complaint impacted the jurisdiction of the trial court. In contrast with every other Circuit to opine on the issue, the Eighth Circuit held that the amended complaint controlled and because the amended complaint contained no reference to federal law, federal jurisdiction did not exist. This new Circuit split caught the U.S. Supreme Court’s attention (as well as the attention of many amici on both sides) and oral argument took place on October 7th.

Although the Court’s determination of this issue could alter jurisdictional analysis in cases across the country, the arguments on each side are fairly simple. In the words of the Eighth Circuit, Royal Canin requires the Court to weigh “forum-manipulation concerns” against “jurisdictional rigor.” Wullschleger v. Royal Canin U.S.A. Inc., 75 F.4th 918, 923 (8th Cir. 2023). The plaintiffs argue that an amended complaint supersedes an original complaint. Thus, when the original complaint contains references to federal law that the amended complaint does not, those references to federal law are without legal effect. The manufacturers, however, argue that jurisdiction depends on the state of things at the time an action is brought. In other words, a post-removal amendment is irrelevant to the question of federal jurisdiction.

The outcome of this dispute may be dictated by a footnote from Justice Scalia’s opinion in Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457 (2007). In Rockwell, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff who originally filed in federal court could amend the complaint to remove federal jurisdiction. But in a non-determinative footnote, the Court wrote that “[i]t is true that, when a defendant removes a case to federal court based on the presence of a federal claim, an amendment eliminating the original basis for federal jurisdiction generally does not defeat jurisdiction.” According to the Court, forum-manipulation concerns do not exist when a plaintiff initially chooses a federal forum and then amends to remove jurisdiction, but such concerns do arise when a plaintiff tries to amend after a defendant removes the case to federal court.

The Court’s interpretation of the Rockwell footnote and its ultimate determination of this jurisdictional question could create significant consequences for class action litigants. If amended complaints control, then class action plaintiffs can take multiple bites at the apple to ensure their claims stay in their preferred forum. As in Royal Canin, this could include removing references to federal law, or it may include amendments to skirt the requirements for federal jurisdiction under CAFA. As the defendants say in their petition, this grants the plaintiffs “a mulligan after a failed attempt to remand a case” “that burdens both the state and federal court with start-and-stop litigation.” Conversely, the plaintiffs and their amici argue that the pre-Royal Canin state of affairs permitted federal determination of what ultimately became questions of pure state law.

In short, class action litigants should be alert for the Court’s Royal Canin decision in early 2025, as it will dictate where and how class actions and many other types of cases are litigated moving forward.