Pet Food Giants Face Jurisdictional Challenge in Supreme Court Case

Royal Canin and Purina find themselves embroiled in a legal battle that has reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The case, originally filed in 2019, centers on allegations that the companies misled consumers about "prescription" pet food pricing.

The dispute has evolved into a complex jurisdictional issue, highlighting the intricacies of the U.S. dual court system. The pet food giants, preferring federal court, argue for maintaining federal jurisdiction despite plaintiffs amending their complaint to remove federal law references.

The case has drawn attention from business groups, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and state chambers filing amicus curiae briefs supporting the companies. These organizations, representing a significant portion of the $30 billion U.S. pet food industry, view federal courts as more predictable for corporate litigation.

In a surprising move, the pet owners' legal team, led by Ashley Keller of Keller Postman, has shifted focus to challenge a fundamental legal precedent. They argue for overturning the 2005 Grable decision, which established a complex test for federal jurisdiction in cases involving state law claims with federal elements.

"Its reasoning is unpersuasive [and] its standard is entirely unworkable. Overturning it will save decades of pointless litigation with minimal offsetting costs."

The lawyers propose reverting to the clearer 1916 American Well Works test, which simply states that a suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action. This approach would potentially simplify jurisdictional determinations, affecting thousands of cases annually.

The Supreme Court, which typically hears only about 80 cases out of 7,000-8,000 petitions each year, is scheduled to hear this case in October 2024. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for how courts determine jurisdiction in cases involving both state and federal elements.

Christopher Curran of White & Case, representing the pet food companies, has not commented on the new brief. The companies' reply, expected later this summer, will likely address this unexpected challenge to established precedent.

This case underscores the complexity of the U.S. legal system, where even seemingly straightforward consumer disputes can evolve into debates over fundamental legal principles. As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments, the legal community awaits a decision that could potentially reshape jurisdictional standards in federal courts.