The Faulks brought a class action in State Court under State Law.  While one of the defendants is incorporated in Alaska, where the plaintiffs reside, Jeld-Wen is a Delaware corporation, and the case was therefore removed under CAFA. The Faulks sought to file a second amended complaint to remove the class action allegations and to have the case remanded back to State Court. The U.S. District Court believed that the Faulks’ procedural move “reeked of forum manipulation” and applied the long-standing Ninth Circuit rule that jurisdiction is determined at the time of removal.

While the Faulk’s appeal was pending, however, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Royal Canin v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22 (2025), in which a plaintiff who initially brought state and federal claims in state court amended her complaint to remove all federal claims. The Court held that “when an amendment excises the federal-law claims that enabled removal, the federal court loses its supplemental jurisdiction over the related state-law claims.”

The Court of Appeals therefore reversed:

“Earlier this year, the Supreme Court decided Royal Canin. The Court recognized that a plaintiff is master of the complaint, and therefore controls much about her suit, … extending beyond the time her first complaint is filed. When a plaintiff removes the basis for federal jurisdiction from her complaint, that plaintiff alters a federal court’s authority. So when any federal anchor supporting jurisdiction is gone, jurisdiction over the residual state claims disappears as well. We have since held that Royal Canin abrogated our precedent holding that the availability of supplemental jurisdiction depended on the allegations in the complaint at the time of removal, and that subsequent amendments did not eliminate the district court’s ability to exercise supplemental jurisdiction….

“Under Royal Canin, there is no subject matter jurisdiction over the Faulks’ SAC. With the Faulks’ excision of their class action allegations, we can no longer rely on minimal diversity under CAFA. Because the Faulks, an Alaska couple, also sued Spenard, an Alaska corporation, complete diversity is lacking. With no diversity or federal question jurisdiction, no original jurisdiction remains. Without another basis for federal jurisdiction, the case must therefore return to state court.

“Put another way, the Faulks are masters of their complaint. They sacrificed a litigation advantage by excising their class action allegations. With that currency, they appear to have purchased a remand to state court. Royal Canin requires that we accept the exchange.”

 

Faulk v. Jeld-Wen, 159 F.4th 618 (9^th Cir. 2025).