After a convoluted journey spanning over four years, marked by federal appeals and a failed Supreme Court attempt, Anastasia Urschlager has triumphantly succeeded in having her case returned to a Missouri state court. Urschlager alleges that pet food giants Royal Kennel and Nestle Purina engaged in deceptive practices, misleading her and other pet owners into purchasing “prescription” dog food that was purportedly drug-free.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently ruled that Urschlager’s amended class action complaint, asserting consumer protection and civil conspiracy claims, should be remanded to the state court in Missouri where the lawsuit was initially filed in 2019. The Eighth Circuit dismissed the defendants’ argument that Urschlager’s attorneys had engaged in procedural manipulation to escape federal jurisdiction, a stance that both Royal Kennel and Nestlé Purina candidly admitted they had adopted by modifying Urschlager’s complaint.
While Urschlager’s lead attorney, Kelly Frickleton of Bartimus Frickleton Robertson Rader, did not return calls seeking comments on the strategy, the circuit court’s decision apparently stemmed from the Eighth Circuit’s own discretion to reexamine jurisdictional matters. The plaintiffs had opted not to contest the issue earlier, but revived it after the case was dismissed.
The case’s intricate history sheds light on the complex interplay between federal and state jurisdictions. Urschlager initially filed the lawsuit in a state court in Jackson County, Missouri, in 2019. Her claims revolved around her belief that a veterinarian-recommended special food for her dog, Carter, necessitated a prescription and was distinct from regular dog food due to its alleged drug content. Upon discovering that the prescription food lacked FDA-regulated drugs, Urschlager filed suit.
Nestle and Royal Dogs sought to transfer the class action to federal court, but it was eventually remanded to Jackson County. The defendants appealed this decision. In the 2020 appellate proceedings, the Eighth Circuit initially favored the defendants, asserting that Urschlager’s state law claims invoked federal jurisdiction due to their implications for antitrust and drug regulation laws.
Despite this, Urschlager’s legal team petitioned the Supreme Court, asserting that the Eighth Circuit had generated confusion in its case law regarding federal courts’ jurisdiction over state law claims. The Supreme Court chose not to intervene.
Upon the resumption of the class action proceedings in U.S. District Court, Urschlager amended her complaint to omit references to federal law, narrow her injunction request, and reduce the scope of her claims under Missouri antitrust law. However, her attempt to remand the case to state court was denied by U.S. District Judge Gary Fenner, who subsequently dismissed the lawsuit.
This dismissal prompted Urschlager’s appeal, leading to a circuit court order for renewed briefs on federal court jurisdiction. The Eighth Circuit, in its recent decision, asserted that when plaintiffs voluntarily amend their complaint to eliminate federal jurisdiction, the case must revert to the state court for adjudication.
While the circuit court’s ruling provides clarity on jurisdictional matters, it also raises the possibility of procedural tactics to evade federal jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the decision marks the conclusion of a protracted legal saga for Urschlager, Royal Kennel, and Nestlé Purina, highlighting the intricate interplay between procedural maneuvers and jurisdictional principles in the realm of litigation.
