Will Bode

The Grable case itself involves a property dispute, but that implicates questions about IRS service or process and is deemed to be sufficiently federal. Okay. And sometimes not. And so the dog food companies, when this case gets filed in state court, they say, oh, there's enough federal law stuff in here that it should be in federal court and they remove it to federal court.

The Grable case itself involves a property dispute, but that implicates questions about IRS service or process and is deemed to be sufficiently federal. Okay. And sometimes not. And so the dog food companies, when this case gets filed in state court, they say, oh, there's enough federal law stuff in here that it should be in federal court and they remove it to federal court.

It's not clear whether that's right. That's the thing that the parties can dispute and the court doesn't take a position on whether it's right or wrong.

It's not clear whether that's right. That's the thing that the parties can dispute and the court doesn't take a position on whether it's right or wrong.

So what the plaintiffs then say is, okay, look, we're not sure we agree that this federal stuff makes these into federal law claims, but we'll just amend the complaint and drop it all. It's not important. We think we can make this claim just as a matter of state law without relying on the federal law stuff, so we'll just amend it and drop all the federal law stuff.

So what the plaintiffs then say is, okay, look, we're not sure we agree that this federal stuff makes these into federal law claims, but we'll just amend the complaint and drop it all. It's not important. We think we can make this claim just as a matter of state law without relying on the federal law stuff, so we'll just amend it and drop all the federal law stuff.

Now we have a complaint that's purely state law claims. They say, look, now that we've amended the complaint, we don't belong in federal court because there's no federal law issue here, so we want to go back to state court. Sorry, I got us derailed. You explained before I got distracted, you explained that it was removed, right? Yes. Okay, great. Yeah.

Now we have a complaint that's purely state law claims. They say, look, now that we've amended the complaint, we don't belong in federal court because there's no federal law issue here, so we want to go back to state court. Sorry, I got us derailed. You explained before I got distracted, you explained that it was removed, right? Yes. Okay, great. Yeah.

And so then that's the dispute the court has to face is, if you remove a case from state court to federal court, and then the plaintiff amends the complaint to drop the stuff that was the basis of removal, the federal law claims, what do you do? Yeah.

And so then that's the dispute the court has to face is, if you remove a case from state court to federal court, and then the plaintiff amends the complaint to drop the stuff that was the basis of removal, the federal law claims, what do you do? Yeah.

And until now, until the Eighth Circuit got this case, everybody had said, you assess removal jurisdiction at the time of the cases removed, and we won't allow subsequent stuff to deprive us of jurisdiction. And that includes subsequent amendments to the complaint.

And until now, until the Eighth Circuit got this case, everybody had said, you assess removal jurisdiction at the time of the cases removed, and we won't allow subsequent stuff to deprive us of jurisdiction. And that includes subsequent amendments to the complaint.

No.

No.

All right. Yes. Under supplemental jurisdiction, if there are some federal law claims that bring you into federal court, then that also brings any other state law claims that are integrated within the state court.

All right. Yes. Under supplemental jurisdiction, if there are some federal law claims that bring you into federal court, then that also brings any other state law claims that are integrated within the state court.

Yeah, that's floating around. It sort of depends on the definition of case. Does case relate to claim and stuff like that? But yeah, there are definitely some questions about the limits of that logic that I think are discussed in the new edition of the Hart and Wexler casebook that we got out this month. It's not my chapter, so I forget how deeply they're discussed, but I think so.

Yeah, that's floating around. It sort of depends on the definition of case. Does case relate to claim and stuff like that? But yeah, there are definitely some questions about the limits of that logic that I think are discussed in the new edition of the Hart and Wexler casebook that we got out this month. It's not my chapter, so I forget how deeply they're discussed, but I think so.

So on the one hand, you have the maxim that we should figure out whether a case, whether there's jurisdiction at the time the case is removed. So most circuit states had said. What the circuit said instead is there's another maxim, which is that the amended complaint is the complaint. And for all purposes, you should just treat the amended complaint as the complaint.

So on the one hand, you have the maxim that we should figure out whether a case, whether there's jurisdiction at the time the case is removed. So most circuit states had said. What the circuit said instead is there's another maxim, which is that the amended complaint is the complaint. And for all purposes, you should just treat the amended complaint as the complaint.