DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 
CATALUS CAPITAL USVI, LLC; VVS, 
LLC, 
              Plaintiff, 
v. 
THE SERVICEMASTER COMPANY, LLC; 
THE TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL 
COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; 
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL USVI, 
LLC, 
Defendants.   
      
) 
) 
) 
 
) 
 
) 
Civil No. 2017-17 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
Harvey W. Gurland 
Julian Antony Jackson-Fannin 
Miles L. Plaskett 
Duane Morris LLP 
Miami, FL 
For Catalus Capital USVI, LLC, and VVS, LLC, 
 
Kevin A. Rames 
Law Offices of Kevin A. Rames, P.C. 
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 
 
For The ServiceMaster Company, LLC, The Terminix 
International Company Limited Partnership, and Terminix 
International USVI, LLC. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
GÓMEZ, J. 
Before the Court is the motion to dismiss for lack of 
personal jurisdiction filed by The ServiceMaster Company, LLC, 
Case: 3:17-cv-00017-CVG-RM   Document #: 59   Filed: 03/06/18   Page 1 of 4
Catalus Capital USVI, LLC, et al. v. The Service Master Company, LLC, 
et al. 
Civil No. 2017-17 
Order 
Page 2 
 
The Terminix International Company Limited Partnership, and 
Terminix International USVI, LLC (collectively, the “Terminix 
defendants”). 
 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (“Rule 12”) allows a 
defendant to “assert the following defenses by motion: (1) lack 
of subject-matter jurisdiction; (2) lack of personal 
jurisdiction; (3) improper venue; (4) insufficient process; (5) 
insufficient service of process; (6) failure to state a claim 
upon which relief can be granted; and (7) failure to join a 
party under Rule 19.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). A motion raising 
one of these defenses “may be joined with any other motion 
allowed by this rule.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(1). Subject to 
certain exceptions not relevant here,1 “a party that makes a 
motion under this rule must not make another motion under this 
rule raising a defense or objection that was available to the 
party but omitted from its earlier motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 
12(g)(2). Thus, a party waives an available defense of lack of 
personal jurisdiction that was not included in the party’s first 
Rule 12(b) motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. (h)(1); see also 
                                                          
1 Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time. See Fed. R. 
Civ. P. 12(h)(3). “Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, 
to join a person required by Rule 19(b), or to state a legal defense to a 
claim may be raised (A) in any pleading allowed or ordered under Rule 
7(a);(B) by a motion under Rule 12(c); or (C) at trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 
12(h)(2). 
Case: 3:17-cv-00017-CVG-RM   Document #: 59   Filed: 03/06/18   Page 2 of 4
Catalus Capital USVI, LLC, et al. v. The Service Master Company, LLC, 
et al. 
Civil No. 2017-17 
Order 
Page 3 
 
Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 162 F.3d 724, 729 
(2d Cir. 1998) (“The requirement that a court have personal 
jurisdiction is a due process right that may be waived either 
explicitly or implicitly.”). 
 
Here, at 6:19 P.M. on August 15, 2017, the Terminix 
defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss for (1) failure to 
state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6); and (2) lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). Later that day, at 7:07 
P.M., Terminix filed a second motion to dismiss for lack of 
personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2). There is no 
indication that a lack of personal jurisdiction defense only 
became available 48 minutes after the Terminix defendants filed 
their first motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Terminix 
defendants have waived their personal jurisdiction defense. Cf. 
Chyba v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 14-CV-1415-BEN BLM, 
2015 WL 4523265, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 23, 2015) (“Defendants' 
motion under Rule 12(b)(2) and (3) is improper because the 
defenses of improper venue and lack of personal jurisdiction 
were available to Defendants at the time they brought their 
first Rule 12 motion.”). 
 
 
Case: 3:17-cv-00017-CVG-RM   Document #: 59   Filed: 03/06/18   Page 3 of 4
Catalus Capital USVI, LLC, et al. v. The Service Master Company, LLC, 
et al. 
Civil No. 2017-17 
Order 
Page 4 
 
 
 
The premises considered, it is hereby 
 
ORDERED that the motion to dismiss docketed at ECF Number 
18 is DENIED.  
 
 
S\ 
 
 
 
 
CURTIS V. GÓMEZ 
District Judge 
 
Case: 3:17-cv-00017-CVG-RM   Document #: 59   Filed: 03/06/18   Page 4 of 4