Docket 23-677
Royal Canin U. S. A., Inc. v. Wullschleger
DecidedJan 15, 2025
9-0unanimous decision
Source: CourtListener.
Court rules plaintiffs who delete federal claims after removal must return to state court
What it does
When a plaintiff removes all federal-law claims from her complaint after a case has been moved to federal court, the federal court loses its power to hear the remaining state-law claims and must send the case back to state court. This resolves a split among federal appeals courts, some of which had held that jurisdiction is fixed at the moment of removal and cannot be undone by a later amendment. The ruling establishes that federal courts must look to the current, amended complaint — not the original one — to determine whether they have authority to hear a case.
Who benefits
Plaintiffs who originally filed suit in state court and later wish to return there by dropping their federal claims from an amended complaint. State courts, which now must receive cases remanded under this rule.
Who is affected
Defendants who removed cases to federal court based on a plaintiff's federal claims, and who may be forced back into state court if the plaintiff later amends the complaint to remove those federal claims.
Practical impact
Defendants who remove cases to federal court based on a plaintiff's federal claims now face the risk that the plaintiff will amend the complaint to drop those claims and force the case back to state court — a strategic option plaintiffs can use to choose their preferred forum. Federal district courts that previously retained jurisdiction over such cases under the rule from other circuits must now remand them to state court once all federal claims are deleted. Plaintiffs who want to litigate purely state-law claims in state court have a clearer path to get there, even after a defendant has removed the case.
Majority reasoning
The Court held that the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. §1367(a), grants federal courts power over state-law claims only when those claims are paired with claims that independently belong in federal court — and that pairing must exist in the current, operative complaint, not a prior version. The Court reasoned that when a plaintiff amends a complaint, the new version replaces the old one entirely, so jurisdiction must be re-evaluated based on what the new complaint actually says. Because §1367(a) draws no distinction between cases originally filed in federal court and cases removed there, the same rule applies in both settings: strip out the federal claims, and supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims disappears with them. The Court also pointed to §1367(c) — which lists situations where a court may choose to decline supplemental jurisdiction — and noted that if jurisdiction survived the deletion of all federal claims, that extreme situation would surely have appeared on that list, yet it does not, confirming that §1367(a) simply does not reach those leftover state claims. Finally, the Court dismissed two passages from prior cases (Carnegie-Mellon v. Cohill and a footnote in Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States) that seemed to support the opposite rule, finding both were side comments that did not control the outcome of those cases and therefore carry no binding weight.
Constitutional question
When a plaintiff amends her complaint after a defendant removes the case to federal court — deleting all federal-law claims and leaving only state-law claims — does the federal court retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims, or must it send the case back to state court?
Precedent changed
The Court narrowed the reach of a footnote in Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457, 474 n.6 (2007), which had stated that in removed cases an amendment eliminating the basis for federal jurisdiction "generally does not defeat jurisdiction," holding that footnote to be non-binding dictum with no precedential effect. The Court also declined to follow the implication in Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988), that a federal court retains discretion to keep such a case, finding that passage equally non-binding.