This case is for federal practice junkies only

This case reviews the federal statute that allows you to bring state law claims in federal court. For a variety of reasons, many plaintiff's lawyers are more comfortable in federal court than in state court. Not this case. Plaintiff wanted the case to be handled in state court. 

The key statute in this area is 28 U.S.C. 1367. The issue here: what happens if the plaintiff sues in state court under state and federal law, the case is removed to federal court (because of the federal claim), and the plaintiff then drops the federal claim in order to return to state court?

The case is Royal Canin USA v. Wullschleger, issued by the Supreme Court on January 15. This case alleges the defendant engaged in deceptive marketing practices. The product is dog food. The lawsuit asserted claims under state and federal law. Since plaintiff filed this case in state court, defendant successfully removed the case to federal court. But plaintiff did not want her case in federal court; she wanted to return to state court, for whatever reason. In fact, plaintiff wants so badly to litigate the case in federal court that she is willing to litigate the case all the way to the Supreme Court. Had plaintiff been OK with federal court, the case might have been decided by now.

This is what plaintiff did: she amended the complaint to remove all mention of federal law. She argued that this maneuver would allow the case to return to state court. At least, that's the argument. After all, as the Court says, federal courts "are courts of limited jurisdiction." You can file in federal court if you assert a federal claim. You can also file in federal court if the parties are from different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. If the case asserts claims under state and federal law, the federal court can decide issues under state law, unless the issue is so esoteric that the federal court does not feel comfortable resolving state law issues without giving the state judges a chance to resolve these issues first. 

The federal statute on this issue, 28 U.S.C. 1367, was enacted in 1990, and it has its complexities, but it does not speak to the issue in this case. The Supreme Court holds without dissent that once the federal claim is dropped from the lawsuit, the case has to return to state court. 

You may think this is a simple issue, but simple issues do not reach the Supreme Court. The certiorari petition says that the Eighth Circuit's decision in favor of remanding this case to state court was an outlier, and that the other circuits had gone the other way on this issue. The petition states:

Only the Eighth Circuit has concluded that, in a properly removed action, the district court must look to an amended complaint to determine whether it possesses federal-question subject-matter jurisdiction.  Every other circuit has come to the opposite conclusion; namely that once an action is removed to federal court, the pleading on which removal was predicated is the source of the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, notwithstanding any subsequent amendment.

This is the rare case where the Supreme Court sides with the reasoning advanced by an outlier Circuit in resolving a legal issue.