The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a published decision January 21, 2026, in *Moxie Pest Control (Utah) v. Nielsen*, a complex multi-jurisdictional case involving 23 separate Moxie Pest Control business entities and three individual defendants. The case, designated No. 24-4076, represents one of the largest multi-state commercial litigation matters to reach the federal appellate level in recent years.
The plaintiffs in the case include Moxie Pest Control entities operating as limited liability companies and limited partnerships across 15 states. The extensive corporate structure includes operations in Utah, Maryland, Ohio, Texas, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Georgia, Kansas, Illinois, Minnesota, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, North Carolina, California, Oklahoma, and Missouri. Each entity maintains separate state incorporation while operating under the broader Moxie Pest Control brand.
The defendants named in the appellate case include Kyle Nielsen, Conner Ruggio, and Ryan Smith, all listed as individuals in the court filing. The specific nature of their relationship to the Moxie Pest Control entities and the underlying dispute that led to the litigation was not detailed in the available court documents.
The Tenth Circuit's decision to publish the opinion indicates the court views the ruling as establishing important legal precedent that will guide future cases. Published opinions carry binding authority within the Tenth Circuit, which covers Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming, and portions of Montana and Yellowstone National Park. The designation suggests the legal issues addressed have broader implications beyond the immediate parties.
The case originated in the lower courts before reaching the Tenth Circuit on appeal. Federal appellate courts typically hear cases involving disputes over federal law, constitutional questions, or cases where diversity jurisdiction applies due to parties from different states and damages exceeding $75,000. Given the multi-state nature of the Moxie entities and the scale of operations suggested by the corporate structure, the case likely met federal jurisdiction requirements.
Moxie Pest Control operates as a franchise-style business model with separate legal entities in different markets. This corporate structure allows for localized operations while maintaining brand consistency across markets. The company provides residential and commercial pest control services, including treatments for ants, spiders, rodents, and other common pests.
The involvement of multiple state entities in a single federal case highlights the complexity of modern business litigation where companies operate across state lines. Each Moxie entity maintains separate state incorporation - the Utah entity as a Utah LLC, the Maryland entity as a Maryland LLC, and so forth. This structure often provides liability protection and allows for state-specific regulatory compliance.
Several entities share similar naming conventions but operate in different geographic markets. For example, the case includes both "MOXIE PEST CONTROL (ARIZONA), LLC" and "MOXIE PEST CONTROL (TUSCON), LLC," suggesting multiple operations within Arizona. Similarly, "MOXIE PEST CONTROL (COLUMBUS) LLC" and "MOXIE PEST CONTROL (CINCINNATI), LLC" indicate separate Ohio market operations.
The presence of both limited liability companies and limited partnerships in the plaintiff group demonstrates varying corporate structures within the Moxie system. California operations include "MOXIE PEST CONTROL (ORANGE COUNTY), L.P.," "MISSION PEST CONTROL, L.P.," and "JOSHUA'S PEST CONTROL, L.P.," all structured as limited partnerships rather than LLCs.
Federal appellate decisions often address questions of contract interpretation, employment law, franchise relationships, or regulatory compliance in multi-state business operations. The pest control industry faces various federal and state regulations regarding pesticide use, licensing requirements, and consumer protection laws.
The timing of the decision in January 2026 suggests the case proceeded through the normal appellate timeline, typically taking 12-18 months from filing to decision. The Tenth Circuit's workload and the complexity of multi-party litigation can extend this timeframe.
Appellate courts review lower court decisions for legal errors rather than re-examining factual determinations. The Tenth Circuit likely addressed questions of law applicable to the multi-state business operations or procedural issues arising from the complex party structure.
The published nature of the decision means it will be available in legal databases and cited in future cases involving similar issues. This precedential value extends beyond the pest control industry to other businesses operating through multiple state entities.
For the pest control industry, the decision may provide guidance on issues common to franchise operations, multi-state business structures, or regulatory compliance. The involvement of individual defendants alongside corporate entities suggests potential issues related to personal liability or fiduciary duties.
The case demonstrates the intersection of state corporate law and federal jurisdiction in modern business litigation. Companies operating across multiple states must navigate varying state regulations while potentially facing federal court jurisdiction when disputes arise.