Pet owners are alleging that pet food makers falsely claimed their products required a prescription for purchase. The Supreme Court will decide if changes made to a state-level legal complaint about allegedly overpriced dog food prevent the federal court system from hearing a proposed class action by consumers. The pet food manufacturers involved in the appeal argue that federal courts of appeal are divided on whether changes made to a state-level complaint after its transfer to federal court negate federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The pet owners in Missouri claim they were deceived into thinking certain products required a prescription when they did not. Royal Canin U.S.A. Inc. and Nestle Purina PetCare Co. are the petitioners in the case. Anastasia Wullschleger and Geraldine Brewer, who filed the initial lawsuit in Missouri, claim they overpaid for the pet food due to false claims made by the companies. The case involves allegations related to federal food and drug laws, antitrust laws, and state consumer protection laws. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit reversed the federal district court’s decision to remand the case to state court, citing the presence of substantial federal issues in the claims made by the pet owners. The pet owners deny asserting any federal claims and argue that the companies transferred the case to federal court. The Supreme Court is now reviewing the case to determine if federal jurisdiction is appropriate.
Darue Engineering and Manufacturing (2005)
Following that decision, the pet owners made changes to their legal complaint in order to remove any aspects that could potentially fall under federal jurisdiction. However, in a subsequent appeal, the circuit court concluded that the amended complaint did not establish federal jurisdiction and ruled that remand was necessary. This decision was based on the well-established principle that once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint becomes invalid.
The court is set to review the case of Royal Canin U.S.A. Inc. v. Wullschleger in the upcoming term starting in October.
