The Complaint Giveth, but the Amended Complaint Taketh Away: Supreme Court Rules on Federal Jurisdiction
In Royal Canin U. S. A., Inc., v. Wullschleger, No. 23-677, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 365 (2025), the Supreme Court of the United States resolved a circuit split as to whether a plaintiff’s amendment of her complaint after the defendant’s proper removal to federal court can eliminate all federal claims and force remand to state court. This opinion, the Court’s first of 2025, clarifies that federal courts must remand if the amended complaint removes the basis for federal jurisdiction, even if jurisdiction existed at the time of removal.
The plaintiff, Ms. Wullschleger, sued Royal Canin in Missouri state court, alleging deceptive marketing practices surrounding Royal Canin’s prescription-only sale of a certain dog food. Her complaint alleged both state and federal claims. Royal Canin removed the case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. But Wullschleger decided that she’d rather keep her state court forum than her federal law claims, so she amended her complaint to leave only state law claims. She then moved to remand the case to state court.
The district court denied Wullschleger’s motion, but the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the plaintiff’s amendment of her complaint deleted any basis for federal jurisdiction. Because there was no longer a basis for original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, there remained no basis for supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. As a result, remand was appropriate.
The Eighth Circuit’s conclusion created a circuit split with other Courts of Appeals decisions that amendment of the complaint post-removal does not destroy a federal court’s jurisdiction. Thus, the Supreme Court faced a simple question: Is jurisdiction based on the well-pleaded complaint, as amended? Or, when removal is involved, is it based on the complaint as it stood at the time of removal?
The Supreme Court unanimously determined that, removal or not, where the complaint gives a federal court jurisdiction, the amended complaint may yet take it away. The Court’s rationale was grounded in the plain meaning of § 1367, other statutes, and numerous judge-made rules that draw no distinction for jurisdictional purposes between cases brought in federal court and cases removed there. Once the complaint is amended, federal jurisdiction depends on the amended complaint, not the initial complaint. Further, the plaintiff, as the master of the complaint, may control the forum by the claims she includes in her complaint—or by those she chooses to preserve in her amended complaint. Finally, the Court dismissed as dicta language from two of its prior cases that Royal Canin raised as evidence that post-removal amendment does not defeat jurisdiction.
The Court’s decision reinforces the plaintiff’s control over the forum, even after the defendant has properly removed. It also reinforces the principle that an amended complaint wipes the slate clean, particularly when it comes to ascertaining federal jurisdiction. Whether litigating in state or federal court, parties should be aware of the significance of an amended complaint and the options available to plaintiffs and defendants to select an advantageous forum or reconfigure the claims at issue.
