Blaine Leased Housing Associates III, LLLP v. Rentokil North America, Inc.
- John Tunheim
- 0:25-cv-02318
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Blaine Leased Housing Associates III, LLLP v. Rentokil North America, Inc., Judge Foster recommended remanding the case because federal jurisdiction was not established.
Blaine Leased Housing Associates III, LLLP and Rentokil North America, Inc.; the recommendation would return their case to Anoka County District Court if adopted.
What happened
Blaine Leased Housing Associates III, LLLP sued Rentokil North America, Inc., doing business as Presto-X, in Anoka County District Court. Presto-X removed the case to federal court.
The federal court required Presto-X to explain why federal jurisdiction existed, particularly because BLHA is a limited liability limited partnership. Presto-X later stated that it could not establish the citizenship information needed for federal diversity jurisdiction.
The court recommended sending the case back to Anoka County District Court because federal subject-matter jurisdiction was not established. Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued the recommendation, which was not a final order or directly appealable judgment; the parties could file objections.
The detailed version
- Blaine Leased Housing Associates III, LLLP v. Rentokil North America, Inc. · No. 0:25-cv-02318
- John Tunheim
- June 16, 2025
Background
Blaine Leased Housing Associates III, LLLP (BLHA) filed a complaint against Rentokil North America, Inc., doing business as Presto-X, in Anoka County District Court in Minnesota on May 6, 2025. Presto-X removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on June 3, 2025.
Presto-X's notice of removal was apparently cut off before explaining the basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction. On June 4, the court directed Presto-X to file an amended notice explaining why federal jurisdiction existed, particularly in light of BLHA's status as a limited liability limited partnership.
Jurisdiction
On June 11, Presto-X told the court that, after reviewing the available materials and conferring with BLHA's counsel, it could not establish the citizenship information necessary for diversity jurisdiction. Presto-X therefore stated that the case should be remanded to state court.
The court explained that subject-matter jurisdiction is a threshold requirement for federal litigation and that the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. Because Presto-X stated that it could not meet that burden, and the record did not establish that the burden had been met, the court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Recommendation and procedural posture
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster recommended that the case be remanded to Anoka County District Court for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The document is a report and recommendation, not an order or judgment of the District Court. It stated that the parties could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served, and that the recommendation was not directly appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.