Photo of Steven Boranian

When a defendant removes a case to federal court on the basis that the case presents federal questions, what happens if the plaintiff amends the complaint to remove all references to federal law, leaving only state-law claims?  The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that once the plaintiff amends to delete all federal claims, a federal district court has no discretion to exercise jurisdiction over the remain state claims.  Remand is required. 

The case is Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, No. 23-677, 2025 WL 96212 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2025), a matter that we flagged as flying under the radar just a few months ago.  The opinion is now in, and the Supreme Court has squarely and unanimously established plaintiffs as “masters” of their complaints, including their chosen venue.  The Court has also upended the expectations of generations of lawyers brought up with the rule that federal jurisdiction is determined at the “time of filing.” 

The plaintiff in Royal Canin filed her complaint in Missouri state court and alleged violations of Missouri statutes and also violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”).  So the defendant removed the case to federal court.  The plaintiff, however, didn’t like that, so she amended her complaint to “delete its every mention of the FDCA” and moved to remand the case back to state court.  Id. at *4.  Having freely alleged violations of federal law—with the predictable consequence that the defendant would remove the case to federal court—can a plaintiff just call a “do over” and escape federal court merely by redlining federal law out of her complaint? 

The answer is yes, and it comes down to the limits of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.  When a federal court has original jurisdiction over a case (for example, under federal question jurisdiction), section 1367 confers authority on the court to decide other claims involving only state law, so long as the state claims are “so related to” the federal claims as to form “part of the same case.”  This is supplemental jurisdiction, and it typically involves federal claims and state claims that arise from the same operative facts.  Royal Canin, at *5. 

Because supplemental jurisdiction begins with the federal court having original jurisdiction in the first place, the Supreme Court ruled that supplemental jurisdiction cannot survive once original jurisdiction goes away.  Or, as the Supreme Court bluntly stated, “Once the plaintiff has ditched all claims involving federal questions, the leftover state claims are supplemental to nothing—and § 1367(a) does not authorize a federal court to resolve them.”  Id. at *6.

The most important point for the Court—cited repeatedly in the opinion—was that section 1367 does not distinguish between cases removed to federal court and cases originally filed there.  That is critical because the Court has already held that when a plaintiff files a complaint in federal court and then voluntarily amends the complaint, courts look to the amended complaint to determine federal jurisdiction.  And, if an amended complaint in an originally filed case withdraws the federal claims, that filing divests the federal court of jurisdiction.  Id. (citing Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457, 473–474 (2007)). 

The Supreme Court held that the same rule should apply to cases removed from state court, noting that if Congress had intended to grant district courts discretion to decline jurisdiction under these circumstances, it would have said so.  The Court further reasoned that this result is consistent with how Congress typically views how amended pleadings can impact federal jurisdiction.  An amended complaint can create federal jurisdiction where there was none before, and section 1367 itself contemplates that when a plaintiff files an amended complaint, jurisdiction is “reviewed anew.”  If federal claims are removed, then “the state-law claims are just state-law claims, outside §1367(a)’s purview.”  Id. at *7.

Again, the court circled back to the theme that it should make no difference whether a case was removed to federal court or filed in federal court to start.  Here is the quote that you will probably most often see:

The appropriateness of federal jurisdiction—of the lack thereof—does not depend on whether the plaintiff first filed suit in federal or state court.  Rather, it depends, in either event, on the substance of the suit—the legal basis of the claims (federal or state?) and the citizenship of the parties (diverse or not?).  (That focus on substance is indeed why original jurisdiction and removal jurisdiction generally mirror each other in scope.) 

Id. at * 9.  In so holding, the Court dismissed some legitimate points.  First, what about the rule that federal jurisdiction is determined at the “time of filing”?  Well, that rule concerns only the actual “state of things” relevant to jurisdiction.  The facts on the ground.  A New York plaintiff who sues a California defendant cannot destroy diversity by moving to California.  By contrast, the claims and the parties can change, and when they do, they can impact jurisdiction.  Id. at *7 n.5.

Second, the Court distinguished its own prior authorities supporting the removing defendant’s position.  Most notably, the Court had itself articulated the rule that the defendant urged in a footnote in the Rockwell opinion: “[W]hen a defendant removes a case to federal court based on the presence of a federal claim, . . . an amendment eliminating the original basis for federal jurisdiction generally does not defeat jurisdiction.”  Id. at *10.  That sounds pretty on-point to us, especially coming from the Supreme Court itself.  The Court, however, called it “barely reasoned” dicta because Rockwell was an original federal case, not a removed one.  It was thus “beside the point.”  Id.  (As an aside, in declining to follow its own precedent, the Supreme Court noted that district courts and the Court of Appeal do not have the same prerogative: “It is of course a much different thing for this Court to reach that conclusion than for a lower court to do so.”  Id. at *10 n.10). 

Third, the Court did not share any concern over forum manipulation.  Plaintiffs can usually forum shop without resort to any amendments, including by dismissing their cases entirely and refiling somewhere else (provided there is no time bar).  In any event, the supplemental jurisdiction statute is what it is:  Jurisdiction follows the amended pleading, and section 1367 “offers no basis for treating original and removed cases differently.”  Id. at *10 n.9. 

In the end, because the plaintiff “reconfigured” her lawsuit to make it only about state law, it became a matter for a state court.  Remanded.