Justices let prescription pet food scuffle continue in state court

WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court threw a bone to Missouri pet owners Wednesday, letting an updated complaint over labeling on prescription food products be heard by a state court.

Royal Canin and Nestle Purina asked the justices to keep a challenge to their veterinarian-prescribed diets in federal court. In a unanimous ruling, the high court refused to do so.

Justice Elena Kagan, a Barack Obama appointee, wrote for the court that when a plaintiff amends a complaint to remove federal law claims that caused the case to be removed to federal court in the first place, the federal court then loses its supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law claims. Therefore, Kagan added, the case must return to state court.

“When [Anastasia] Wullschleger amended the complaint, the jurisdictional analysis also changed,” Kagan wrote. “Wullschleger had reconfigured her suit to make it only about state law. And so the suit become one for a state court.”

Anastasia Wullschleger and Geraldine Brewer sued the pet food giants, saying they violated food and drug laws by marketing products made with over-the-counter ingredients as prescriptions. Royal Canin and Purina require veterinarian approval before pet owners can purchase their products.

Wullschleger and Brewer paid a premium price for the prescription food assuming it contained active medications. The pet owners felt betrayed when they found out that the active ingredients in the food were available without a prescription.

Wullshleger and Brewer sued in Missouri state court, arguing that Royal Canin’s product was merely ordinary dog food and only sells the product with a prescription not because its ingredients make one necessary, but “solely to fool consumers into paying a jacked-up price,” Kagan said, describing the underlying arguments.

The owners accused Royal Canin and Purina in a class action of violating Missouri antitrust law and the state’s Merchandising Practices Act. The pet food companies, however, thought the complaint involved federal questions and should be heard by a federal court.

A lower court agreed, but the Eighth Circuit reversed after Wullschleger and Brewer amended their complaint to remove the federal questions.

During oral arguments in October, the justices seemed torn between upholding decades of precedent — Royal Canin and Purina’s argument — or coming to a more logical conclusion — Wullschleger and Brewer’s preference.

The companies’ removal demand led to a procedural back-and-forth, as Royal Canin first requested the case be removed to federal court, where a federal judge would properly be able to address Wullschleger’s Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act claims that were intertwined with her state-law claims.

Wullschleger then amended her complaint to remove any reference to the federal statute and unsuccessfully petitioned the federal judge to remand the case to state court.

The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals, however, reversed and ordered a remand. The appellate court determined that an amended complaint superseded the original and rendered it “without legal effect.”

“The possibility of supplemental jurisdiction, vanished right alongside the once-present federal questions,” the appellate court ruled, adding that it “makes no difference” that the case was first removed to federal court.

Kagan highlighted a split between the Eighth Circuit and other appellate circuits that have held “that a post-removal amendment cannot divest a federal court of jurisdiction.” Wednesday’s affirmation of the Eighth Circuit’s ruling resolves that split.

According to federal jurisdiction law — 28 U.S. Code Section 1367 — Kagan said that for an amended complaint that excises the federal law claims that enabled removal, the court’s power to resolve the dispute dissolves both in terms of the federal and state law claims.

The companies argued that Supreme Court precedent made an exception for cases where an amendment follows a lawsuit’s removal, citing subsection 1367(a), but Kagan said the argument “reads two bits of gratuitous language for a good deal more than they are worth.”

The subsection allows federal courts to decider certain “other” claims in suits that involve only state law and subsequent subsections show that the conferred supplemental jurisdiction requires claims that share a “common nucleus of operative fact” with the federal law claims.

However, Kagan explained, that in such cases the state law claims are “where the real action is” and that while a federal judge could exercise supplemental jurisdiction, they do not need to and instead “and indeed, ordinary should,” kick the case to state court.

“Once the plaintiff has ditched all claims involving federal questions, the leftover state claims are supplemental to nothing — and Section 1367(a) does not authorize a federal court to resolve them,” Kagan said.

Follow @KelseyReichmann Follow @kelseyreichmann.bsky.social