Anastasia Wullschleger v. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc.
953 F.3d 519
8th Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiffs Anastasia Wullschleger and Geraldine Brewer filed a putative class action in Missouri on behalf of purchasers of prescription pet foods made by Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. and Nestle Purina PetCare Co.
- Plaintiffs allege defendants marketed the products as requiring a veterinary prescription and as FDA-approved/regulated, but defendants never submitted the products for FDA review and no prescription is legally required.
- The complaint asserts only state-law claims (Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Missouri antitrust, unjust enrichment) but repeatedly alleges violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and FDA guidance as the basis for those claims.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court asserting CAFA diversity jurisdiction and federal-question jurisdiction; the district court remanded for lack of jurisdiction.
- Defendants appealed under 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1) limited to the federal-question jurisdiction issue; the Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo.
- The Eighth Circuit held that plaintiffs’ complaint necessarily raises a substantial, disputed federal issue and seeks relief (declaratory/injunctive) that requires interpretation and application of federal law, so federal-question jurisdiction exists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists over state-law claims that invoke violations of the FDCA | Plaintiffs say Merrell Dow controls: merely alleging an FDCA violation as an element of state law does not create federal jurisdiction | Defendants say the complaint’s repeated reliance on FDCA violations and requests for federal declaratory/injunctive relief create a federal question | Held: Federal-question jurisdiction exists because federal issues are necessarily raised, actually disputed, substantial, and capable of resolution in federal court (Gunn test) |
| Whether Merrell Dow bars removal when a complaint pleads federal-law violations | Plaintiffs rely on Merrell Dow to argue removal is improper because FDCA provides no private right of action | Defendants contend Merrell Dow does not apply where federal issues are central to non-state-law claims and relief sought | Held: Merrell Dow does not bar jurisdiction here because the federal issue permeates the non-MMPA claims and relief sought requires federal-law resolution |
| Whether antitrust and unjust enrichment claims can be adjudicated without resolving federal issues | Plaintiffs argue state-law doctrines suffice; FDCA allegations are incidental | Defendants argue those claims rest on coordinated FDCA noncompliance and cannot be resolved without interpreting federal law | Held: The antitrust and unjust enrichment claims depend on interpretations of federal law and thus raise a federal question |
| Whether plaintiffs’ prayer for declaratory and injunctive relief compels federal adjudication | Plaintiffs assert they seek state-law remedies and can avoid federal forum | Defendants point to requests to adjudicate FDCA violations and to enjoin noncompliance with federal law | Held: Requests to declare FDCA violations and to enjoin compliance with federal law demonstrate federal jurisdiction is proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Hershey Co., 557 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for remand de novo)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (plaintiff is master of the claim; federal question must appear on complaint face)
- Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (1986) (mere presence of a federal-law element in a state claim insufficient for federal jurisdiction)
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005) (federal issue must be substantial and its resolution must not disrupt federal-state balance)
- Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013) (four-part test for when federal jurisdiction over a state-law claim is appropriate)
- Thompson v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 766 F.2d 1005 (6th Cir.) (discussed in Merrell Dow regarding when state claims depend necessarily on federal law)