Forum
U.S. Supreme Court
Case Status
Docket Number
Term
2024 Term
Lower Court Opinion
Questions Presented
1. Whether such a post-removal amendment of the complaint defeats federal-question subject-matter jurisdiction.
2. Whether such a post-removal amendment of the complaint precludes a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Case Updates
Supreme Court holds that plaintiff’s post-removal amendment of complaint to delete federal-law claims providing basis for removal divests federal court of supplemental jurisdiction
January 15, 2025
The U.S. Chamber filed an amicus brief supporting the position that supplemental jurisdiction is established at the time of removal and is not divested through subsequent amendment.
U.S. Chamber files amicus brief urging Supreme Court to hold that federal jurisdiction is established upon a defendant’s proper removal of a case to federal court, and is not divested through a plaintiff’s subsequent amendment of their complaint
July 01, 2024
William M. Jay and Benjamin Hayes of Goodwin Procter LLP served as outside counsel.
Case Documents
- Lower Court Opinion -- Wullschleger v. Royal Canin, Inc. (Eighth Circuit)
- U.S. Chamber Amicus Brief -- Royal Canin, Inc. v. Wullschleger (U.S. Supreme Court)
- Opinion -- Wullschleger v. Royal Canin, Inc. (Eighth Circuit)