When an Amended Complaint Undoes Removal

October 26, 2026  |  New York Law Journal

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Royal Canin U.S.A. v. Wullschleger established that, following removal from state court, federal jurisdiction based on a federal question depends on the operative, amended complaint, rather than the original complaint. Southern District Judge Jed S. Rakoff’s recent decision in Jason Emer MD New York City v. Kelley extends that reasoning to diversity jurisdiction, holding that adding a non-diverse plaintiff after removal can require remand to state court. In their latest New York Law Journal article, Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello P.C. partners Ed Spiro and Chris Harwood examine both decisions and their implications for litigators, explaining how they provide plaintiffs with a potential path back to state court while reminding defendants that a successful removal may be fleeting.

When an Amended Complaint Undoes Removal