Royal Canin And The Jurisdiction It Left Behind: The Class Action Fairness Act

Authors

• Nicole Brosnan, Fordham University School of Law

Keywords

federal jurisdiction; amended complaint; class actions; class action fairness act; 28 § 1332(d); supplemental jurisdiction; removal; Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger

Abstract

Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger created waves in the federal litigation world by setting forth a new rule, declaring that a plaintiff’s amendment of a complaint following removal is capable of destroying federal jurisdiction. Prior to this case, courts generally followed the “time-of-filing rule” by which federal jurisdiction attached at the time of removal. The U.S. Supreme Court was clear that this rule applies to federal claim jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but the Court remained generally silent on its application to jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.

This Note explores this lack of clarity and proposes an approach that divides the requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act into two buckets. The first bucket is controlled by the time-of-filing rule and consists of facts outside of the plaintiff’s control, namely alterations to amount in controversy and citizenship of the parties. The second bucket is controlled by the Royal Canin holding and consists of factors within the plaintiff’s control, including alterations to the claims and parties. This framework holds central the legal maxim the Supreme Court highlights throughout the Royal Canin opinion: The plaintiff is the master of the complaint.

Recommended Citation

Nicole Brosnan, Royal Canin And The Jurisdiction It Left Behind: The Class Action Fairness Act, 95 Fordham L. Rev. 731 (2026).
Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol95/iss2/10