Opinion ID: 770309
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Trustees Waived This Issue.

Text: 11 Defendants further argue that the Trustees waived their objection to the district court's jurisdiction when they amended their complaint to include federal antitrust and RICO claims. Given the unusual procedural history of this case, we agree. 12 In general, a district court's error in failing to remand a case improperly removed is not fatal to the ensuing jurisdiction if federal jurisdictional requirements are met at the time judgment is entered. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 64 (1996). Here, the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction when it dismissed the Trustees' second amended complaint because that complaint asserted exclusively federal statutory causes of action. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337. The Trustees argue, however, that this case falls within an exception to the general rule because they amended their initial complaint involuntarily after the district court ruled that their state law claims were preempted. See In re Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir. 2000); In Home Health v. Prudential Ins. Co., 101 F.3d 600, 603-04 (8th Cir. 1996); Humphrey v. Sequentia, Inc., 58 F.3d 1238, 1241 (8th Cir. 1995). 13 In denying the Trustees' motion to remand, the district court concluded they are essentially making subrogation claims, especially with respect to their equitable claims. These claims are preempted by ERISA, and removal to federal court was proper. (Emphasis added.) Defendants then moved to dismiss the state law claims, and the Trustees moved for leave to file a second amended complaint. The district court granted the Trustees' motion, explaining: 14 Due to ERISA preemption, Plaintiffs have indicated a desire to amend their complaint to add ERISA and other federal law claims. . . . [T]he Court will grant Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint. This so being, the Court will disregard Defendants' present Motion to Dismiss and allow Defendants an opportunity to file a Second Motion to Dismiss based on Plaintiffs' anticipated Second Amended Complaint. . . . [T]he Court reiterates that ERISA is one such area in which complete preemption applies. . . . Therefore, Plaintiffs' state law claims are not dismissed; they are, in fact, displaced by ERISA. 15 If the Trustees' second amended complaint had reiterated their state law claims and added an ERISA § 502(a)(3) claim, this additional claim might well have been an involuntaryfederal claim, in which case the removal issue would be preserved for an eventual appeal. But the Trustees instead filed a second amended complaint that dropped all their state law claims, despite the district court's suggestion that some might not be preempted; failed to assert any ERISA claim; and asserted new federal antitrust and RICO claims. This radical restructuring of their lawsuit was not involuntary. Therefore, the district court had jurisdiction when final judgment was entered, and its earlier remand order was not preserved for appeal.