Anastasia Wullschleger v. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc.
75 F.4th 918
8th Cir.2023Background
- Plaintiff Anastasia Wullschleger sued Royal Canin and Nestlé Purina after her dog required "prescription" dog food; she alleged the prescription label was misleading because the FDA does not evaluate the product and the label inflated price.
- Original state-court class action pleaded Missouri antitrust, Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) claims, and unjust enrichment; defendants removed to federal court.
- On initial appeal this Court held the antitrust and unjust-enrichment claims raised substantial federal issues and therefore belonged in federal court. Wullschleger v. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc., 953 F.3d 519.
- After remand, Wullschleger amended her complaint to delete all federal-law allegations and the antitrust and unjust-enrichment claims, added a Missouri civil-conspiracy theory tied to the remaining MMPA claims, and narrowed injunctive relief.
- The district court retained jurisdiction, dismissed the amended complaint on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds, and this appeal asks whether federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists after the amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amending to remove the sole federal questions destroys federal-question jurisdiction | Amendment should control; lack of federal issues in amended complaint means no federal jurisdiction | Once a case invokes a federal question at filing/removal, federal jurisdiction remains (time-of-filing rule) | Amendment that eliminates the only federal questions destroys federal-question jurisdiction; remand required |
| Whether the time-of-filing rule requires looking only to the original complaint | Amended complaint supersedes original; the "alleged state of things" governs jurisdiction | The "state of things" at filing controls, so original federal issues keep the case federal | Distinguishes "state of things" (facts) from "alleged state of things" (pleadings); amended complaint supersedes original for jurisdictional analysis here |
| Whether supplemental jurisdiction allows federal court to keep the remaining state claims | Court can retain state claims under supplemental jurisdiction | Supplemental jurisdiction depends on an existing source of original federal jurisdiction | Supplemental jurisdiction fell away once federal claims were removed from the operative complaint; no basis to retain jurisdiction |
| Whether amendment was impermissible forum manipulation and subject to denial of leave | Amendment was voluntary and timely; district court should remand rather than deny amendment | Allow amendment could manipulate forum; courts can police manipulation by denying leave under Rule 15 | Courts may deny leave if amendment is in bad faith or unduly delayed, but here amendment was voluntary and valid; remand appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Wullschleger v. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc., 953 F.3d 519 (8th Cir. 2020) (earlier panel found federal issues in original complaint)
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005) (state claim can present substantial federal question)
- Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013) (four-part test for federal-question jurisdiction on state-law claims)
- In re Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d 1064 (8th Cir. 2000) (amended complaint supersedes and renders original without legal effect)
- Mollan v. Torrance, 22 U.S. 537 (1824) (time-of-filing rule principle)
- McClelland v. Highway Construction Co., 15 F.2d 187 (8th Cir. 1926) (duty to remand when plaintiff amends to destroy jurisdiction)
- Gale v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 929 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2019) (distinguishing "state of things" from "alleged state of things")
- M & B Oil, Inc. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 66 F.4th 1106 (8th Cir. 2023) (original jurisdiction required for removal; supplemental jurisdiction depends on existing federal claim)