WASHINGTON (Gray DC) – On the surface, the case Royal Canin USA v. Wullschleger is about false advertisement on so-called prescription dog food.
Digging deeper, this case is actually about whether someone can choose where their case is heard – in Federal, or state court.
“It is conventional wisdom that corporations and businesses tend to prefer to litigate when they’re defendants in federal court as opposed to state court,” said UCSF Law Professor Scott Dodson.
Dodson says Federal judges are usually much friendlier to corporations.
Individual plaintiffs, underdogs if you will, usually fair better in state courts.
“There should be a consistent rule and not one that just drastically favors defendants in a limited situation,” said Trip Coyne, a lawyer for the plaintiff.
Coyne is hoping they’ll get a fair shake.
“We were encouraged by the questions the court asked and we feel like they embrace the arguments. We feel like our counsel performed excellently and we’re optimistic that the court will do the right thing,” said Coyne.
Although he was disappointed it wasn’t more, dogmatic.
“A couple a couple of quick references, a few pet puns, but not as much as you can hope for some types”
A decision in this case is expected by June 2025.
Copyright 2024 Gray DC. All rights reserved.