Don’t want to be in federal court? Try amending.

In Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, the Supreme Court held that a party can amend its complaint after the case has been removed to federal court, thereby stripping the federal court of jurisdiction. This is important for practitioners to remember going forward (especially plaintiff’s attorneys). If a case is removed and you want to be back in state court, you can still amend the complaint to reach that result (assuming the only basis for federal jurisdiction is that the cases arises under federal law).

To provide a bit of legal backdrop, federal courts can exercise jurisdiction over cases “arising under” federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This means that a case filed in state court may be removed to federal court if it arises under federal law—i.e., it can be taken from state court to a federal court. When this happens, state-law claims that arise from the same “nucleus of operative fact” come with the federal claims, so that the federal court hears all claims together. This is called supplemental jurisdiction).

In Royal Canin, the plaintiff brought state claims against the defendant for allegedly fooling customers into overpaying for dog food. The complaint included alleged violations of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, allowing the defendant to remove the case to federal court. The plaintiff then amended the complaint to cut the federal law claims and all factual allegations that implicated federal law. She then moved to remand back to state court. The district court denied this request, and the Eighth Circuit concluded that the district court erred in doing so.

The Eighth Circuit stood alone on this point. In every other circuit to address the issue, the courts concluded that amendment after removal could not divest the federal court of jurisdiction. But fortune favors the bold. The Supreme Court unanimously sided with the Eighth Circuit in concluding that, once the plaintiff has ditched all claims involving federal questions, the federal court has no authority to hear the case under federal question jurisdiction.

So, for removal purposes, a case is no longer set in stone the moment it is filed. Plaintiffs now have a lot more flexibility to get their cases back to state court.