Terminix Attorneys

Before Mr. Peterson of the Structural Pest Control Board was disclosed as our expert witness, David Honey (the branch manager who performed the second Terminix pest inspection report) was reportedly transferred to Terminix's branch in Hawaii and unavailable. After Mr. Peterson was disclosed as our expert witness and Mr. Honey's testimony was no longer necessary to our case, Terminix's attorneys added Mr. Honey as an expert witness. When our attorney attempted to deposition Mr. Honey, Terminix's attorneys removed him from their expert witness list. They buried our attorney in paperwork; again, increasing all the attorneys' fees:

8/18/93	David Tennant of Tennant, Williams & Drake (Terminix’s attorneys) served our attorney with an “Amended List of Expert Trial Witnesses,” to include the name of David Honey.
9/2/93	Our attorney served Tennant, Williams & Drake with a “Notice of Taking Deposition of David Honey,” and a “Notice to Compel Attendance Before the Court of David Honey.”
9/9/93	Letter to our attorney from David Tennant withdrawing David Honey as an expert.
9/13/93	Terminix’s attorney, Kathleen Williams of Tennant, Williams & Drake, filed an “Objection to the Notice to Compel Attendance of David Honey Before the Court,” stating “he is not a party of record....”
9/15/93	Letter from our attorney to Terminix’s attorney, Kathleen Williams, confirming that Terminix withdrew David Honey as an expert witness.
9/17/93	Letter from our attorney to Kathleen Williams stating that while she was out of the office, Maureen O’Hara of her office “indicated that apparently David Honey is the acting Branch Manager for the Yuba City Sutter Terminix location, and that he is apparently a resident of the State of California now for the purposes of his expert deposition testimony.” He further wrote, “I believe a Court will only conclude that your client was playing games with all the parties and basically spoiling Plaintiffs’ effort to prove his case in chief, which conduct is very serious and prejudicial to Plaintiffs.”
9/20/93	Our attorney served Tennant, Williams & Drake with a “Notice to Compel Attendance Before the Court of David Honey.”
9/21/93	Terminix’s attorney, Kathleen Williams, served our attorney with an “Objection to Notice to Compel Attendance of David Honey Before the Court,” stating David Honey is “not a party of record” and “the notice is untimely.”
9/24/93	Terminix’s attorney, Kathleen Williams, served an “Amended Objection to Notice to Compel Attendance of David Honey Before the Court,” stating in part: David Honey is and at all times since December 1991 has been a resident of Hawaii; therefore, a (sic) neither a subpoena nor a notice to appear and produce has any force in California. Ms. Williams’ statement “David Honey is and at all times since December 1991 has been a resident of Hawaii” is provably false: David Honey performed the pest inspection on our property on 4-23-92. David Honey was served at the Yuba-Sutter Terminix office with a summons for Terminix on 7-16-92.

It was Terminix’s attorney, David Tennant, that started all of this when he added Mr. Honey to Terminix’s list of expert witnesses. Every paper, every phone call, every postponement, and every court document filed increased the lawyers’ incomes. Terminix was insured for legal expenses; we were not.

David Honey did not appear.

My husband and I were not present when, on September 24, 1993, our attorney deposed Mr. Lonnie Anderson, Terminix's employee-expert witness. After the trial, I read the deposition transcript and learned that Terminix's attorney, Kathleen Williams, misstated evidence in fact which our attorney did not object to or ask for foundation or proof thereof. Perhaps he didn't realize what kind of attorney he was dealing with, or perhaps he believed her and was afraid to pursue the matter. He should have known that we had absolutely no direct contact with Terminix; and that if Terminix had contacted us, we would have referred them to him. Ms. Williams made the following false statement:

I can represent to you that Terminix cannot do anything, because your clients won’t let him on the property to do anything that may or may not have been requested by the board.

In a document later submitted to another court, David Tennant stated:

After litigation commenced, the Virgas’ attorney would not permit Terminix to perform any repairs.

When we weren’t present, they accused us. When our attorney wasn’t present, they accused him. In each case, these so-called “officers of the court” lied. Mr. Anderson’s deposition further supports the fact that neither we nor our attorney denied Terminix access to the property when he stated:

I do know that we did ask legal counsel to respond because of the fact that we could not meet the board’s requirements in this case as long as we are in litigation.

When I filed our complaint with the Structural Pest Control Board, I notified them at that time that we were in the midst of litigation. If it was a fact that Terminix could not meet the board’s requirements as long as they were in litigation, as Mr. Anderson stated, wouldn’t the Structural Pest Control Board know that?