Other

Supreme Court Announces Bright Line Rule in Determining Federal Courts’ Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

On January 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States in Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc., et al. v. Wullschleger et al., upheld the Eighth Circuit’s decision, holding that when a plaintiff amends their complaint and deletes the federal-law claims that give a federal court jurisdiction to hear the case, leaving only state-law claims behind, the federal court loses supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims and must remand to state court.

Plaintiff Anastasia Wullschleger filed a class action lawsuit in state court against Defendants Royal Canin U.S.A. Inc. and Nestlé Purina PetCare Co., alleging that the companies misled consumers by mislabeling prescription dog food. The lawsuit contained both federal and state law claims.

Read the full article by Matthew D. Berkowitz, Esq. and Kerri Nicholson, Esq. on the Legal Ethics Blog.

Click here.

Stay Informed

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.