Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00849/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00849-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

*E-FILED 4/20/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ALISON WHITE, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C -06-00849 (RS)

ORDER VACATING HEARING

AND REQUIRING FURTHER

EVIDENTIARY SUBMISSION

Defendants Terminix International, Inc. and Terminix International Company, LP removed

this action from Santa Cruz Superior Court on grounds of diversity of citizenship between them and

plaintiff Alison White, a California resident. White now moves for remand, asserting that

defendants’ principal place of business is California and that, therefore, there is no diversity. The

Terminix entities have opposed the motion by submitting evidence and legal authority attempting to

show that for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, they are citizens of Delaware or Tennessee, but not

California.

The record before the Court is insufficient to determine whether jurisdiction exists. 

Although White has not raised the issue, Terminix International Company, LP is a partnership, not a

corporation. Thus, the focus of the parties’ papers on the issue of whether California could be

considered the “principal place of business” of the Terminix entities is misdirected, or at best,

premature.

Case 5:06-cv-00849-RS Document 16 Filed 04/20/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 “Terminex” is the spelling used in the caption of the case as reported in the Federal

Reporter. However, the body of the opinion uses the spelling “Terminix.”

2

“For purposes of deciding whether a suit by or against a limited partnership satisfies the

requirement of complete diversity of citizenship . . . the citizenship of all the limited partners, as

well as of the general partner, counts.” Hart v. Terminex International, 336 F.3d 541, 542 (7th Cir.

2003).1

 Furthermore, where a partnership has as one of its partners a second partnership, “it is the

citizenship of the partners of the second partnership that matters (and if those partners are

themselves partnerships, the inquiry must continue to their partners and so on.)” Id. at 543.

Here, the evidence submitted by the Terminix entities shows that the partners of Terminix

International Company, L.P. include ServiceMaster Consumer Service, L.P,, another limited

partnership (“ServiceMaster L.P.”). Although ServiceMaster L.P. is described as a Delaware limited

partnership with offices in Memphis, Tennessee, no information is provided as to the citizenship of

its partners. 

Hart v. Terminex provides a stark warning of the danger posed by taking jurisdictional

inquiries too lightly. Eight years of litigation through judgment resulted only in a reversal on appeal

with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, simply because no one had looked carefully

enough at the citizenship of the partners of Terminix International Company, L.P., which apparently

is the same party involved in the present case.

[T]he citizenship of unincorporated associations must be traced through however

many layers of partners or members there may be.” [Citation] This may create some

extra work for the diligent litigant, and for those with less diligence the limited

partnership has become “a notorious source of jurisdictional complications,”

[citation] in which “mistakes concerning the existence of diversity jurisdiction are

most common,”[Citation] . . . . We . . .provide, once more, a reminder to future

litigants that they should strive to establish relevant and accurate jurisdictional facts

at the outset “before unpleasant discoveries about jurisdictional facts require the

parties and the judge to bemoan the waste of time and money invested in the

litigation.” 

Id.

Accordingly, the hearing date for White’s motion to remand is hereby VACATED. On or

before May 5, 2006, the Terminix entities shall file and serve a supplemental declaration or

Case 5:06-cv-00849-RS Document 16 Filed 04/20/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

declarations sufficient to establish the citizenship, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, of Terminix

International Company, L.P., through as many layers of partnerships as may exist. The matter will

then be deemed submitted and the Court will issue a further order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2006 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-00849-RS Document 16 Filed 04/20/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

David Russell Beck Beckandmathiesen@calcentral.com,

Dean M. Robinson drobinson@lowball.com

Guy W. Stilson gstilson@lowball.com,

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 4/20/06 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:06-cv-00849-RS Document 16 Filed 04/20/06 Page 4 of 4