Plaintiff brought a putative class action in Missouri State Court against the manufacturer of prescription dog food under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and state antitrust law. The case was removed on the basis that, although the plaintiff did not expressly plead an independent claim under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Act’s provisions were thoroughly embedded in and integral to success of the plaintiff’s State Law claims. Although remanded by the District Court, the Eighth Circuit reversed.

After remand to the District Court, the plaintiff amended the complaint, such that it no longer mentioned the FDCA, and then requested remand to state court. The U.S. District Court denied remand and dismissed the suit, but the Eighth Circuit again reversed.  Affirming the Court of Appeal, and its remand to State Court, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari:

“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 case must therefore return to state court.”

 

Royal Canin v. Wullschleger, No.23-677, 2025 WL 96212 (Jan. 15, 2025)