EXTRA SPACE STORAGE Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Extra Space Storage - June 2021 Salt Lake City Utah

Extra Space Storage is a PUBLICALLY traded company under stock ticker EXR. The Federal alegations against Extra Space Storage alleges that it is a habitual offender of Chapter 105A of the General Laws of the State of Massachusetts.

The company failed to propery serve the Plaintiff with an auction notice. Sold the Plaintiff's property and refused to hand over the balance of the auction funds as required by MA law. The company also refuses to hand over legal documents, photos, keys and mail delivered to it by the winning bidder also in violation of MA law. It is believed the company wrongly disposed the Plaintiffs personal items delivered to it by the winning bidder which is against its own rules and MA law. It is also believed that the company has harmed hundreds to thousands of other individuals across the United States in this manner for finanicial gain and to boost its stock price.

It appears Extra Space Storage is making extra money by violating hundreds to thousands of its clients' rights in holding these illegal auctions. The company settled a prior class action lawsuit for $5 Million which also contained allegations pertaining to their auctions of storage units. The company has NOT learned its lesson and it is primed for another class action lawsuit. 

The following is the allegations against Extra Space Storage. If you have been harmed in a similar manner by this company, send your facts, storage unit and address to the following email and it will be presented to the Federal judge during a hearing to determine punitive damages against Extra Space Storage. This will not affect any lawsuit you seek to file against Extra Space Storage. It will only be presented as "A matter of fact" to what this company has been doing. 

MBK20001@yahoo.com

NATURE OF ACTION

1.                  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated Chapter 105A of the General Laws of the State of Massachusetts when on March 12, 2021, without notice via ELECTRONIC MAIL or VERIFIED MAIL or HAND DELIVERY to the Plaintiff, the Defendant auctioned the Plaintiff’s personal items located in a storage unit numbered 350 located at 245 Washington Street, Auburn, MA. And thereafter converted Plaintiff’s personal items and monies to the Defendant’s own use. And after repeated requests by the Plaintiff, Defendant intentionally and maliciously continues to refuse to deliver to the Plaintiff his remaining personal items in its possession after the auction which were personally handed to the Defendant by the winning bidder and the balance of the auction funds. 

THE PARTIES

2.         Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Florida and resides at 5701 Collins avenue, Miami Beach, Fl.

3.         Defendant is a foreign corporation headquartered in Utah at 2795 East Cottonwood Parkway, Ste 400, Salt Lake City, Utah and operates self-storage facilities throughout the State of Massachusetts.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

            4.         This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332.

            5.         Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C 1391.

MATERIAL FACTS

            6.         On September 29, 2020, The Plaintiff rented storage unit from the Defendant numbered 350 and located at 245 Washington Street, Auburn, MA (“Unit 350”).

            7.         On February 2, 2021, the Plaintiff received an email from the Defendant that contained the names of Wiley Settle, Site Manager, and Regina Clement, Assistant Site Manager. In that email, there contained a computer screenshot of the Plaintiff’s account and which showed the Plaintiff owed an outstanding balance on Unit 350 of $409.40 and was Past due 36 days (“Default Email”). The email also showed a charge of $85 for a “Pre-Foreclosure Fee” without an auction notice.

            8.         That the Defendant’s Default Email contained the Plaintiff’s CORRECT email address of mbk20001@yaoo.com and his mailing address of 5701 Collins Avenue, Unit 1104, Miami Beach, Fl 33140. 

            9.         That on February 9, 2021, the Plaintiff received a second email from the defendant that contained the names of Wiley Settle, Site Manager, and Regina Clement, Assistant Site Manager. In that email, the Defendant NEVER informed the Plaintiff that Unit 350 was scheduled to be auctioned off on March 12, 2021. 

10.       That the Defendant did FAIL to serve the Plaintiff with NOTICE of the March 12, 2021 auction via ELECTRONIC SERVICE as required by Chapter 105A of the General Laws of the State of Massachusetts.

            11.       That the Defendant did FAIL to serve the Plaintiff with NOTICE of the March 12, 2021 auction via VERIFIED MAIL as required by Chapter 105A of the General Laws of the State of Massachusetts.

            12.       That the Defendant did FAIL to serve the Plaintiff with NOTICE of the March 12, 2021 auction via HAND DELIVERY as required by Chapter 105A of the General Laws of the State of Massachusetts.

            13.       That the Defendant did FAIL to serve the Plaintiff NOTICE of the March 12, 2021 auction via ELECTRONIC MAIL or VERIFIED MAIL or HAND DELIVERY after 14 days of the Plaintiff’s payment default as required by Chapter 105A of the General Laws of the State of Massachusetts. 

            14.       That the Defendant did FAIL to serve the Plaintiff NOTICE of the March 12, 2021 auction via ELECTRONIC MAIL or VERIFIED MAIL or HAND DELIVERY that (1) contained notice of a lien against Unit 350, (2) a statement that the contents of Unit 350 were subject to the operator lien, (3) a general description of the contents of Unit 350, (4) a statement of the Defendant’s claim, indicating the charges due on the date of the notice, the amount of any additional charges which shall become due before the date of the sale, and the date such additional charges shall become due, (5) a demand for payment of the charges due with specific time, not less than 14 days after receipt of the NOTICE (“14 Day NOTICE”), (6) a statement that unless the claim is paid within the time stated, the contents of Unit 350 would be advertised for sale and sold at auction at a specific time and place, and (7) the name address, and telephone number of the Defendant, or its designated agent, whom the Plaintiff may contact to respond to the notice as required by Chapter 105A of the General Laws of the State of Massachusetts. 

15.       That upon information and belief, the Defendant did FAIL to ADVERTISE the March 12, 2021 auction of Unit 350 for 2-weeks after the expiration of the 14 Day Notice to the Plaintiff as required by Chapter 105A of the General Laws of the State of Massachusetts.

16.       That upon information and belief, the Defendant did FAIL to advertise the March 12, 2021 auction (1) in a newspaper of general circulation, (2) in a periodical that circulates weekly or more frequently in the county where the self-service storage facility is located, (3) or by advertising the sale in any other commercially reasonable manner; provided, however, that the manner of advertisement shall be deemed commercially reasonable if at least 3 independent bidders attend the sale at the time and place advertised, and (4) by failing to include a description of the property in Unit 350, the name of the Plaintiff, and the time and place of the sale. 

17.       That upon information and belief, the Defendant did FAIL to hold the March 12, 2021 auction 15 days after the first week of advertising the auction as required by Chapter 105A of the General Laws of the State of Massachusetts.

18.       That upon information and belief, the Defendant did sell Unit 350 on March 12, 2021 for more money than the outstanding balance Plaintiff owed the Defendant of $409.40 and Defendant has INTENTIONALLY and MALICIOUSLY refused to deliver the balance of funds from that sale to the Plaintiff. And Thus, the Defendant is guilty of conversion pursuant to Chapter 105A of the General Laws of the State of Massachusetts. 

19.       That on March 26, 2021, the winning bidder of Unit 350 named Jen, contacted the Plaintiff by text message and informed him that she delivered the plaintiff’s legal documents, mail, keys and irreplaceable photos of his dead mother to the Defendant’s office located at 245 Washington Street, Auburn, MA. Although the Defendant’s own website instructs all auction bidders that such property is to be returned to the Plaintiff, the Defendant has INTENTIONALLY and MALICIOUSLY refused to deliver the property to the Plaintiff after multiple requests to do so. Upon information and belief, the defendant disposed of the Plaintiffs personal property delivered to it by Jen and has irreparably harmed him as the photos of his dead mother are irreplaceable and no other copies exist. And Thus, the Defendant is guilty of conversion pursuant to Chapter 105A(4)(12) of the General Laws of the State of Massachusetts.

20.       That the Plaintiff fell on hard times due to the COVID-19 epidemic and was unable to timely pay the $409.40 outstanding bill and had communicated with the Defendant for an extension of time. Defendant gave the Plaintiff until February 21, 2021 to pay the $409.40 bill BUT when the Plaintiff contacted the Defendant a second time for an additional extension, he was told his personal items in Unit 350 were sold on March 12, 2021. The Plaintiff regularly checked his Unit 350 account via the Defendant’s website by utilizing a username and passcode provided by the Defendant to determine if Unit 350 was scheduled for auction. NOT once did the Defendant’s website have any NOTICE posted to the Plaintiff that an auction was scheduled for March 12, 2021.

21.       That the Defendant is an INTENTIONAL and HABITUAL OFFENDER in violating Chapter 105A of the General Laws of the State of Massachusetts. The Defendant INTENTIONALLY and MALICIOUSLY engages in business practices that are designed to generate a multitude of unit auction sales by (1) FAILS to serve all its clients with a NOTICE via ELECTRONIC MAIL or VERIFIED MAIL or HAND DELIVERY for the purpose of having the mail late, misplaced, undelivered or over-looked by the clients to prevent the clients from stopping the sales, (2) FAILS to post any NOTICE of an auction in the clients’ account on the Defendant’s website to CONCEAL that the clients’ units are scheduled to be auctioned to prevent the clients from stopping the sales, and (3) FAILS to disclose that a unit is scheduled to be auctioned off during its email communications with its clients for the purpose of CONCEALING the auctions from its clients to prevent them from stopping the sales. The Defendant then sells the clients’ personal items in each unit in an auction, charges the clients for the auctions and upon information and belief converts all the money from those auctions to its own use which includes monies belonging to its clients and disposes any remaining property a winning bidder returns to the Defendant as it has done in the Plaintiff’s case.

22.       That the Defendant’s conduct is OUTRAGEOUS and DESPICABLE. The Defendant has complete disregard for the personal property and mental well-being of many individuals who have lost their homes and jobs. Many going through divorces. Those devastated by COVID-19. And many who are at their lowest emotional and financial level to only find their personal belongings being placed under the care of the Defendant who engages in illegal activity to deprive these individuals of their personal items for the Defendant’s own financial gain. To have the Defendant come along and victimize the Plaintiff and so many other individuals who unlike the Plaintiff can’t defend themselves is beyond comprehension and demands for appropriate and harsh action against the Defendant due to the fact the Defendant has proven it will continue with its illegal auctions because it is financially benefiting from it.

23.       The Defendant continues to violate Chapter 105A of the General Laws of the State of Massachusettsbecause it knows if its clients are late on paying their unit fees most likely those clients will be unable to afford a lawyer to sue the Defendant. And many lack the knowledge, courage and emotional strength to file a Pro Se action against the Defendant. And for those who have sued the Defendant, the Defendant settles. For example, under the class action Gomes vs. Extra Space Storage, Action No. 2:13-cv-929 U.S. District Court, NJ, the defendant paid over FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ($5,000,000.00) to settle a class action lawsuit that contained similar allegations pertaining to violations in conducting its auctions.  HOWEVER, the Defendant is continuing to violate the law because the damages it pays out in Court settlements/awards is outweighed by the financial gain it receives from its illegal auctions.  The only way the Defendant will stop its illegal auctions and adhere to governing laws is by penalizing the Defendant to an extent that reduces the financial benefit the Defendant receives from its illegal conduct. In other words, the penalty must outweigh the financial benefit that the Defendant’s illegal conduct generates.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 105A OF THE

          GENERAL LAWS OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

24.      Defendant with intent and malice did fail to provide NOTICE to the Plaintiff of the March 12, 2021 auction of Unit 350 via ELECTRONIC MAIL or VERIFIED MAIL or HAND DELIVERY in violation of Chapter 105A(4)(2) of the General Laws of the State of Massachusetts.

25.      Upon information and belief, Defendant did FAIL to schedule and advertise the auction of Unit 350 in violation of Chapter 105A(4)(1-4)  of the General Laws of the State of Massachusetts.

26.      Upon information and belief, Defendant did FAIL to provide proper NOTICE and did FAIL to conduct the auction of Unit 350 in a commercially reasonable manner in violation of Chapter 105A(4)(3-4) of the General Laws of the State of Massachusetts. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

CONVERSION - CHAPTER 105A(4)(12) OF THE 

GENERAL LAWS OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

27.      The Defendant did wrongly convert the Plaintiff’s personal items located in Unit 350 to its own personal use and sold said items which damaged the Plaintiff in the amount of EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS ($8,000.00).

28.      Upon infomation and belief, Defendant sold the contents of Unit 350 for more money than the Plaintiff owed the Defendant and Defendant has intentionally and maliciously refused Plaintiff’s repeated requests to release the balance of the auction funds to the Plaintiff in violation of Chapter 105A(4)(10) of the General Laws of the State of Massachusetts.

29.      The Defendant did intentionally and maliciously refuse to release the Plaintiff’s legal documents, mail, keys and irreplaceable photos to the Plaintiff delivered to the Defendant by the winning auction bidder, Jen, in violation of Chapter 105A(4)(10) of the General Laws of the State of Massachusetts.

30.      Upon information and belief, the Defendant did dispose of the Plaintiff’s legal documents, mail, keys and personal photos which included irreplaceable photos of his dead mother which were delivered to the Defendant by the winning auction bidder, Jen.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests a judgement against the Defendant and in favor of the Plaintiff for compensatory damages of EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS ($8,000.00) for his personal property, punitive damages of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00), Court costs, Injunctive relief as to Plaintiffs legal documents, mail, keys and photos held by the Defendant, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.