Minute Summary
This case was about whether a lawsuit should be handled in federal or state court. Anastasia Wullschleger sued Royal Canin, a pet food company, in state court, claiming the company misled customers about its prescription dog food. Because her original lawsuit included claims under federal law, Royal Canin moved the case to federal court. However, because she did not want the case to be tried in federal court, Wullschleger removed all mentions of federal law from her complaint, leaving only state law claims. The Supreme Court ruled that when all federal claims are removed from a lawsuit, federal courts lose their power over the case. Because of this, the case had to be sent back to state court.
Important Definitions
Federal Jurisdiction: The power of federal courts to hear a case, usually because it involves federal law or disputes between people from different states.
State Jurisdiction: The power of state courts to hear cases involving state laws.
Removal: A legal process that allows a defendant to transfer a case from state court to federal court if it involves federal law.
Supplemental Jurisdiction: A rule that allows federal courts to decide related state-law claims if they are connected to a federal issue in the case.
Remand: Sending a case back to the original state court after determining that the federal court should not handle it.
Extended Summary
In Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, the Supreme Court decided whether a case that started in state court but was moved to federal court should stay there if the plaintiff, or person who brought the law suit, removes all federal claims.
Anastasia Wullschleger sued Royal Canin, a pet food company, in Missouri state court. She claimed that Royal Canin misled customers by requiring a veterinarian’s prescription for its dog food when the food did not actually contain any medication. Her lawsuit originally included both state-law claims, such as false advertising, and federal claims, which were made under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.Because federal claims were included, Royal Canin moved the case to federal court. Federal law allows this because federal courts have jurisdiction over cases that involve federal law, and they can also rule on state-law claims that are related to the matter at hand through what is called supplemental jurisdiction.
However, because federal court was unfavorable for her, Wullschleger adjusted her lawsuit, removing all mentions of federal law and leaving in only claims pertaining to state-law. She then asked the court to send the case back to state court. The lower court refused, but the appeals court ruled in her favor, saying that once the federal claims were removed, the federal court no longer had authority over the case.
The Supreme Court agreed with the appeals court. It ruled that when a plaintiff removes all federal claims from a lawsuit, the federal court must give up control of the case and return it to state court. The Court explained that federal courts only have power over state claims if they are connected to federal claims, and once the federal claims are gone, so is their authority to decide the case.
It is so ordered.
Think of It Like This
Imagine a student, Anastasia, brings a complaint to the school principal about a class project. She says that her group members broke both school rules (federal claims) and classroom rules (state claims). Because school rules are involved, the principal and the rest of the school's administration (federal court) is obligated to handle the situation.
Later, Anastasia realized she does not want to get administration involved and only wants to focus on the classroom rules because Anastasia believes that will be more effective. So, she removes all references to school rules. The school's administration now no longer has a reason to be involved, and the case must go back to the classroom teacher (state court) for judgment.
Comments