Supreme Court takes up prescription dog food, CBD products

WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court padded its sparse 2024 docket Monday with fights over prescription-only pet food and false advertising on CBD products.

Purina and Royal Canin asked the justices to review an appeals court ruling that allowed pet owners' conspiracy and false advertising claims against the pet food giants to move forward in Missouri state court instead of a federal court.

Clinton was prescribed Royal Canin dog food and Sassie was put on a Purina prescription diet. Both animals' owners assumed the diets included medications that would treat their pets' health issues — but then discovered the food didn't actually contain any medication.

So Anastasia Wullschleger and Geraldine Brewer sued the two pet food companies in 2019 in Jackson County, Missouri, bringing state-law claims that the companies leveraged the prescription requirements for their unmedicated foods as a way to inflate prices and monopolize the market. The pet owners also accused the companies of deceptive and misleading marketing.

Royal Canin and Purina convinced the Eighth Circuit that the case belonged in federal court because the complaint referenced violations of federal law.

Wullschleger and Brewer then amended their complaint to eliminate mention of federal food and drug law. The Eighth Circuit sided with the owners unanimously this time around and directed the case back to Missouri state court.

The pet food companies claim the changes to the complaint shouldn’t prevent the case from being heard in federal court, and say allowing the pet owners to amend their complaint gave them an unfair second chance to litigate their cases.

“A plaintiff in the Eighth Circuit is effectively granted a mulligan after a failed attempt to remand a case when the district court finds that it falls within its federal question subject-matter jurisdiction,” Christopher Curran, an attorney with White & Case representing the companies, wrote in their petition. “If a motion to remand is denied on the basis that the claims are federal in nature, a plaintiff may simply amend the complaint to eliminate or conceal the federal allegations, move to remand a second time, and force the district court to return the case to state court.”

A CBD manufacturer likewise won a Supreme Court review on Monday for its fight against a consumer lawsuit.

Red Dice Holdings makes a cannabidiol supplement called Dixie X by distilling medicinal hemp to remove impurities and any remaining THC. Hemp plants contain minimal THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, the compound responsible for producing a high, and are legal under federal law, unlike THC-rich marijuana plants, which remain federally banned.

After commercial truck driver Douglas Horn was in a car accident that left him with chronic pain, and prescription medication use became unsuccessful, he turned to natural remedies. Horn was subject to random drug tests at this trucking job, but he thought Dixie X could provide him pain relief without THC showing up on his screenings.

He was incorrect in that assumption, however, and was fired after testing positive for THC during an October 2021 test.

Horn and his wife sued Dixie X in the Western District of New York, claiming the company misled him into thinking its product was THC-free. Most of his claims were dismissed by the lower court, but the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling on Horn’s civil racketeering claim. The Second Circuit ruled that the lower court was incorrect to dismiss Horn’s RICO claim because it stemmed from a personal injury instead of harm to a business or property.

Under a civil RICO claim, a plaintiff can recover three times the damages they incurred. Dixie X asked the justices to decide if these types of claims must stem only from direct harm to a business or if they can include personal injuries, too.

The high court also agreed to hear a case about judicial review of visa denials and whether veterans should get the benefit of the doubt when appealing claims for disability benefits.

Last week the justices heard their final argument session of the October 2023 term. Despite the fireworks from blockbuster cases on the current docket, the court has added only a few appeals to its caseload next term.

The four cases granted in Monday’s order list doubled the court’s current 2024 docket to eight granted cases.

Follow @KelseyReichmann

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit