{"id":1950,"date":"2025-01-16T17:30:38","date_gmt":"2025-01-16T21:30:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=1950"},"modified":"2025-01-17T10:01:30","modified_gmt":"2025-01-17T14:01:30","slug":"post-removal-amendment-to-hybrid-state-federal-law-complaint-dropping-federal-law-claims-requires-remand-to-state-court-says-scotus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2025\/01\/16\/post-removal-amendment-to-hybrid-state-federal-law-complaint-dropping-federal-law-claims-requires-remand-to-state-court-says-scotus\/","title":{"rendered":"Post-Removal Amendment To Hybrid State\/Federal Law Complaint Dropping Federal Law Claims Requires Remand To State Court, Says SCOTUS"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

By Rebecca S. Bjork<\/strong>, <\/strong>Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.<\/strong>, and Jennifer A. Riley<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaway<\/em><\/strong>:  In a unanimous decision<\/a> issued on January 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Royal Canin U. S. A. v. Wullschleger<\/em>, No. 23-677 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2025), that when a plaintiff files a civil suit under both state and federal law and subsequently amends the complaint to drop the federal law claims, the case must be remanded to state court due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the district court.  This decision lends clarity to employers who have been navigating a circuit split on the question of whether federal district court subject matter jurisdiction is determined at the time of removal to federal court, or whether subsequent amendments abandoning federal claims destroys such jurisdiction.  This issue arises over and over again in class action litigation.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a decision that will provoke readers\u2019 memories (fondly or otherwise) of first year civil procedure class in law school, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff\u2019s deceptive marketing lawsuit originally stating both state and federal causes of action, that later dropped the federal claim in an amended complaint, must be remanded to state court.  In a 9-0 decision, Justice Kagan explained that once the state law claims are stripped away, no federal subject matter jurisdiction exists and remand is required.  Deciding a split amongst the circuit courts, the Supreme Court sided with the Eighth Circuit \u2013 and against the First, Third, Fourth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits \u2013 in deciding that when a case is removed to federal court, an amended complaint dropping the federal claims destroys the district court\u2019s jurisdiction. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is obviously of interest for employers facing federal statutory class-wide claims involving issues such as wage and hour and discrimination, that also implicate overlapping state statutes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Ruling In Royal Canin U. S. A. v. Wullschleger<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The U.S. Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Royal Canin U. S. A. v. Wullschleger<\/em>, \u00a0No. 23-677 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2025). In this case, the plaintiff purchased the defendant\u2019s dog food that requires a prescription to obtain, believing that it contains medicine that off-the shelf dog food does not. \u00a0Id<\/em>. at 4.\u00a0 After learning that it does not, she filed suit in Missouri state court alleging violations of the state\u2019s statute against deceptive marketing practices.\u00a0 Her complaint also included a claim under the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 301 (\u201cFDCA\u201d), that also forbids deceptive marketing practices.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Royal Canin, seeking perhaps to avoid being thrown to the dogs in a state court jury pool, decided to file a notice of removal of the plaintiff\u2019s lawsuit to federal district court based on federal question jurisdiction (the plaintiff\u2019s FDCA count).  Id.<\/em> at 4-5.  In response, the plaintiff amended her complaint, dropping the FDCA claim, and only seeking relief under Missouri state law.  Id<\/em>. at 5.  She then moved to remand to state court where she originally filed her complaint, but the district court denied her motion.  Id<\/em>.  She ultimately appealed the dismissal of her amended complaint on the merits to the Eighth Circuit, and it reversed the district court\u2019s decision to maintain jurisdiction of the matter and remanded it to state court.  Id<\/em>.   Royal Canin sought certiorari<\/em> to resolve the circuit split, and the Supreme Court obliged and affirmed the Eight Circuit\u2019s ruling. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Basis Of The <\/strong>Supreme <\/strong>Court\u2019s Opinion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a very systematic and straightforward opinion of the Court, Justice Kagan explained why the limitations on federal court jurisdiction established by statute (e.g<\/em>., 28 U.S.C. 1331 \u2013 cases \u201carising under\u201d federal law) mandate SCOTUS\u2019 unanimous conclusion.  Long-established precedent holds that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Also, Congress has determined the scope of \u201csupplemental jurisdiction,\u201d where federal courts interpret and apply state law but only so long as they have concurrent federal jurisdiction to do so in the litigation.  28 U.S.C. 1367.  And, the Supreme Court emphasized another statute that mandates that if at any time it appears that the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case \u201cmust\u201d be remanded to state court.  28 U.S.C. 1447(c).  Id.<\/em> at 3-4.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Applying these principles, the Supreme Court rejected Royal Canin\u2019s argument that such limitations do not apply once a case has been removed to federal court and so-called \u201cremoval jurisdiction\u201d exists.  The Supreme Court explained, \u201cRoyal Canin argues that our precedent makes an exception for when an amendment [to a complaint] follows a lawsuit\u2019s removal, but that is to read two bits of gratuitous language for a good deal more than they are worth.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at 6.  The Supreme Court continued that \u201cNothing in <\/a>\u00a7 1367\u2019s text  . . . distinguishes between cases removed to federal court and cases originally filed there.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at 8.  And, unfortunately for Royal Canin, the Supreme Court has already held that in such a circumstance relating to original<\/em> jurisdiction, the amended complaint is what determines jurisdiction, not the one at the time of removal.  Id<\/em>.  As a result, the Supreme Court concluded that when the plaintiff \u201creconfigured her case to make it only about state law\u201d her suit \u201cbecame one for a state court.\u201d  Id<\/em>. at 20.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications For Employers<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As employers know, many class and collective action lawsuits are filed by plaintiffs that allege both state law and federal law claims.  The classic example is a hybrid class and collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and a similar but often more onerous state statute governing how employees are paid.  In our experience, many plaintiffs add their state law claims in order to extend the relevant statute of limitations period, for example, or sweep in certain state law substantive claims that are not available under a governing federal law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Royal Canin U. S. A. v. Wullschleger<\/em> will simplify litigation strategy decisions for employers with nationwide workforces.  However, it remains to be seen how the plaintiffs\u2019 bar will respond in terms of crafting both original and amended complaint strategies in the employment law space.  We will be following developments closely and will provide our analysis and insights here.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Rebecca S. Bjork, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., and Jennifer A. Riley Duane Morris Takeaway:  In a unanimous decision issued on January 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Royal Canin U. S. A. v. Wullschleger, No. 23-677 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2025), that when a plaintiff files a civil suit under both state and … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Post-Removal Amendment To Hybrid State\/Federal Law Complaint Dropping Federal Law Claims Requires Remand To State Court, Says SCOTUS”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":579,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[11,7,9],"class_list":["post-1950","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general"],"authors":[{"term_id":11,"user_id":579,"is_guest":0,"slug":"rsbjork","display_name":"Rebecca S. Bjork","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/bjorkrebecca-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":9,"user_id":576,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jariley","display_name":"Jennifer A. Riley","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/08\/rileyjennifer-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1950","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/579"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1950"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1950\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1950"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1950"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1950"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=1950"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}