Pet Food Products-Deceptive Advertising-Federal Question Jurisdiction

Listen to this article

Plaintiffs appealed from the remand of their putative class action alleging that defendants misrepresented that their prescription pet foods were approved by the FDA. The district court had remanded the case after finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction

Where adjudication of plaintiffs’ state law claims depended on resolving issues of federal law, there was a basis for the district court to exercise federal question jurisdiction.

Judgment is vacated and remanded.

Wullschleger v. Royal Canin U.S.A. Inc. (MLW No. 74695/Case No. 19-2645 – 5 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Erickson, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri. Fenner, J. (Bryan A. Merryman, of Los Angeles, CA for appellant; Charles W. German, of Kansas City, Christopher M. Curran, of Washington, DC., Jason M. Hans, of Kansas City, John E. Schmidtlein, of Washington, DC., Michael S. Hargens, of Kansas City, Bryan A. Merryman, of Los Angeles, CA., Jerry Frank Hogue, of Washington, DC., Benjamin M. Greenblum, of Washington, DC., Susanna R. Allen, of Washington, DC., Catherine S. Simonsen, of Los Angeles, CA on brief) (Daniel Rees Shulman, of Minneapolis, MN for appellee; James P. Frickleton, of Leawood, KS., Wade H. Tomlinson, III, of Columbus, GA., Michael P. Morrill, of Atlanta, GA, Julia Dayton Klein, of Minneapolis, MN on brief)