Supreme Court Wrestles With Venue in Prescription Pet Food Fight

The US Supreme Court wrestled with whether a federal court still has the power to hear a consumer class action against Royal Canin and Purina over prescription pet food.

Royal Canin U.S.A. Inc. and Nestlé Purina PetCare Co. argue the federal court retains its right to hear the dispute even though the consumers eliminated the federal issues the original lawsuit raised after it was moved from state court.

Congress codified the Supreme Court’s longstanding precedent to make clear that if a federal court has original jurisdiction, it shall continue to have supplemental jurisdiction unless Congress expressly says otherwise, the companies’ attorney Katie Wellington said.

At first, Justice Elena Kagan seemed to disagree.

“You’re asking for a very kind of unique rule where it’s like, no we don’t look to the operative complaint, we look at this old complaint that has nothing to do with the case anymore,” she said.

Chief Justice John Roberts also seemed to reject the companies’ claim that the consumers are trying to manipulate the court’s rules and a ruling against them will allow litigants to forum shop.

“I don’t see how that’s a problem here,” Roberts said. “They started in state court. They want to go back to state court. They’re not trying to manipulate anything.”

But after the consumers’ attorney Ashley Keller stepped up to the lectern to argue the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit was right to send the case back to the state court where it started, both Kagan and the chief appeared to switch sides.

Until the Eighth Circuit ruling, the position of the companies had always been understood, Kagan said.

That record also seemed to trouble Roberts. He asked if the court has ever come out the other way when every other appeals court has ruled the same way.

None immediately sprung to Keller’s mind, but the Keller Postman LLC senior partner said he knows he can find one.

“That’s pretty bold to take the position without knowing one,” Roberts said eliciting laughs from the audience.

There was no mention during the hour-long argument of the dog named Clinton and cat named Sassie, which sparked the litigation that now asks the justices to answer technical questions about civil procedure and whether federal courts have jurisdiction to hear a case that was amended after it was moved from state to federal court.

The dispute started in 2019 when Anastasia Wullschleger and Geraldine Brewer filed a class action in Missouri state court against Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. and Nestlé Purina PetCare Company alleging they were deceived into thinking certain pet food products couldn’t be legally obtained without a prescription.

Wullschleger, who had purchased Royal Canin’s prescription food for her dog, Clinton, and Brewer, who had bought Purina’s prescription pet food for her cat, Sassie, accused the companies of conspiring to inflate prices with the prescription requirement and conspiring to monopolize the market in violation of the state’s antitrust law.

They also made separate claims that Royal Canin and Purina knowingly sold their prescription pet food using deceptive and misleading marketing practices in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, and were unjustly enriched.

Purina moved to have the case heard in federal court and it has ping ponged between state and federal court ever since.

The Eighth Circuit originally rejected a federal district court’s decision to send the case back to the Missouri state court, but later agreed after the pet owners changed their lawsuit to remove the antitrust and unjust enrichment claims, which it had said raised federal issues.

The appeals court said the amended lawsuit supersedes the original complaint.

The case is Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, U.S., No. 23-677, oral arguments 10/7/24.