Dog Food Suit Location Dispute to Get US Supreme Court Review

The Supreme Court agreed to consider whether changes to a complaint about overpriced prescription dog food precludes federal courts from hearing the dispute.

The justices on Monday agreed to take up an appeal by pet food makers Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. and Nestle Purina PetCare Company. They say federal appellate courts are split on whether so-called post-removal amendments can cancel federal subject matter jurisdiction.

The proposed class action, brought by pet owner Anastasia Wullschleger, was initially filed in Missouri state court asserting state fraud and antitrust laws.

But the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that the claims had “federal ingredients” that entitled the defendants to move the case to federal court.

Wullschleger then narrowed her claims to remove any reference to federal law, hoping to get the case sent back to state court.

The Eighth Circuit then agreed that the elimination of federally related claims prevented the ability of federal courts to hear the case.

The Eighth Circuit “runs roughshod” over the right of defendants to move a case to a different court and allows plaintiffs to “engage in a new form of federal-state forum shopping that disrupts orderly case management,” the pet food companies said in their appeal to the justices.

The case is Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, U.S., No. 23-677.