Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gerstenecker v. Terminix International

September 19, 2007

MILTON GERSTENECKER, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED PLAINTIFF,
v.
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND SERVICEMASTER COMPANY DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

Milton Gerstenecker filed a class action complaint against the defendants in the Circuit Court, Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois on December 29, 2006. Pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), the defendants properly removed the case to this Court on March 2, 2007. Now, Gerstenecker moves the Court to remand this class action lawsuit to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4), known as the "local controversy exception" to CAFA (Doc. 16). For the reasons stated below, Gerstenecker's motion is DENIED.

CAFA gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over class actions where minimal diversity exists and the matter in controversy exceeds $5 million. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2); Hart v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 457 F.3d 675, 677 (7th Cir. 2006). Consequently, defendants may remove such cases to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, which states: any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.

However, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A) provides the "local controversy exception" to federal court jurisdiction. It states:

A district court shall decline to exercise jurisdiction under paragraph(2)-

(i) over a class action in which-

(I) greater than two-thirds of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed;

(II) at least 1 defendant is a defendant- (aa) from whom significant relief is sought by members of the plaintiff class; (bb) whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted by the proposed plaintiff class; and (cc) who is a citizen of the State in which the action was originally filed; and

(III) principal injuries resulting from the alleged conduct or any related conduct of each defendant were incurred in the State in which the action was originally filed; and

(ii) during the 3-year period preceding the filing of that class action, no other class action has been filed asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any of the defendants on behalf of the same or other persons . . . .*fn1 The removing party (generally, the defendant) has the burden of demonstrating the existence of federal jurisdiction. Hart, 457 F.3d at 679. Once the defendant proves a proper basis for federal jurisdiction on the removal question, however, "the burden shifts to the plaintiffs to prove that the local controversy exception to federal jurisdiction should apply." Id. at 680.

The parties do not dispute that the defendants met their burden of proof on removal. The question this Court confronts is whether Gerstenecker has met his burden of proving that the Court must decline jurisdiction under the local controversy exception.

For the Court to decline jurisdiction under the local controversy exception, Gerstenecker must meet all of the requirements of § 1332(d)(4)(A). This first requires Gerstenecker to show that it is more likely than not that "greater than two-thirds of the members of the class in the aggregate are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A)(I); Kitson v. Bank of Edwardsville, -- F.3d --, 2006 WL 3392753, at *7 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 24, 2006) (slip copy). Gerstenecker has failed to provide sufficient evidence for this Court to find by a preponderance of the evidence that two-thirds of the class members are Illinois citizens.

Gerstenecker argues that the class has been defined in such a way that "any and all potential class member[s] can only reside within the state of Illinois." Doc. 17, p. 4. The class in this case includes: all individuals, proprietorships, partnerships, corporations, and other entities (hereinafter "persons and entities that own any home, condominium, apartment complex, commercial building, or other structure, and/or improvements to real property (hereinafter referred to as "structure") located in the State of Illinois which have purchased contracts and/or warranties from Defendants for termite control service or whose contracts with other providers have been purchased or assumed by Defendants. . . . Doc. 2, Exh. 2 at ¶ 35.

Gerstenecker claims that this class definition requires that its members reside in Illinois. This is not entirely clear, however, as the class appears to include individuals who own property in Illinois but do not live in Illinois. More importantly, the statute unequivocally requires that two-thirds of the class members in this case must be citizens of Illinois. Seventh Circuit law clearly provides that allegations of residency are not the same as allegations of citizenship. See, e.g., Tylka v. Gerber Products Co., 211 F.3d 445, 448 (7th Cir. 2000) ("[A]llegations of residence are insufficient to establish diversity ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.