JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ANDREW MADUK

1615 N Wilcox Ave, #3224,

Los Angeles, CA 90028

 

Plaintiff in Pro Per

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

 

 

ANDREW MADUK,

,

vs.

CASTER NORTH HOLLYWOOD STORAGE PARTNERS, LP, A-1 SELF STORAGE, BRIAN DAMARS, DANIA NUNEZ, and RUSSELL BIART

Defendants

 CASE NO.:                             

 

 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

 

COMPLAINT

  1. Plaintiff ANDREW MADUK, (“the Plaintiff”), files this Complaint, against Defendants CASTER NORTH HOLLYWOOD STORAGE PARTNERS, LP, A-1 SELF STORAGE, BRIAN DAMARS, DANIA NUNEZ, and RUSSELL BIART (“defendants”), and alleges the following:

THE PARTIES

  1. The Plaintiff ANDREW MADUK is an individual, a resident of the State of California and resides at 1615 N Wilcox Ave, #3224, Los Angeles, CA 90028.
  2. Defendant CASTER NORTH HOLLYWOOD STORAGE PARTNERS, LP is a company headquartered in San Diego, California.
  3. Defendant A-1 SELF STORAGE, is a company offering self-storage services in California.
  4. Defendant BRIAN DAMARS, is an individual, a resident of the State of California and resides at ____________.
  5. Defendant DANIA NUNEZ, is an individual, a resident of the State of California and resides at ____________.
  6. Defendant RUSSELL BIART, is an individual, a resident of the State of California and resides at ____________.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

  1. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants pursuant to California Constitution, Article VI, section 10, and California Code of Civil Procedure section 410.10, in that each Defendant does substantial business in California; all of the Defendants have purposely availed themselves of the benefits of doing business in this state; and the Defendants’ violations of law alleged herein occurred, in whole or in part, in this state.
  2. The claims herein alleged in this Complaint occurred in Los Angeles County. Venue for this matter properly lies within Los Angeles County because the claims herein alleged in this Complaint occurred, in whole or in part, in Los Angeles County.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Agreement

  1. Plaintiff entered an agreement with A-1 Self Storage, and rented out unit 995 in said Defendant’s facility. The agreement was strictly between Plaintiff and A -1 Self Storage, and not Caster North Hollywood Storage Partners. L.P.
  2. Plaintiff had been storing his items in unit 995 of the A-1 Self Storage.
  3. Plaintiff duly paid his rent, and did not owe money until the Covid 19 pandemic during which the California Covid authority and federal government paid a subsidy to the storage businesses to be lenient to their customers, so that they do not lose what they have in storage.

The Lawsuit Against Plaintiff

  1. However, after the covid leniency passed, Caster North Hollywood Storage Partners, LP decided to sue Plaintiff, claiming a principal amount of $7,285.25. In the suit, Caster North Hollywood Storage Partners, LP claimed to own A-1 Self Storage. Also, in the suit, the Claimant called itself Caster North Hollywood Storage Partners. L.P. dba A-1 Self Storage 5310 vineland Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91601.
  2. It is notable that the address above is the same as the A-1 self-storage where Plaintiff physically stored his property since 2015.
  3. Before the court case, Plaintiff had noticed the weird relationship and called the manager of the storage facility whom he had been dealing with since 2015 to find out why it was Caster North Hollywood was the entity bringing the suit. The manager said he could not answer Plaintiff’s question. He stated thus: “They told me not to answer any questions about your storage UNIT…” So, he never answered Plaintiff’s questions anymore. Besides, Plaintiff could not speak with him ever since because he no longer took Plaintiff’s calls. The Lady from Caster North Hollywood was therefore the one calling and emailing, while the legitimate manager of A-1 Self Storage gave his responsibility to her. Caster North Hollywood was therefore the entity that Plaintiff dealt with in Court.
  4. It was Plaintiff’s intention to ask A-1 Self Storage why Caster had become the main company and assumed authority over the case. Plaintiff did not have anything to do with Caster for 7 years, since he had been a customer of A-1 Self Storage. Plaintiff also wanted to ask the manager for A-1 Self Storage whether they sold the company to Caster.
  5. It is notable that Plaintiff also needed documentary proof that A-1 Self Storage had legally vested its authority to Caster, so that he brings the issue up in court on the day of trial. However, as Plaintiff has already stated, the A-1 Self Storage Manager refused to talk to him and answer said question. It is Plaintiff’s contention that A-1 Self Storage and Caster wanted to take his property. Notably, Caster’s counsel had said the following before arbitration: “We just want you out of the storage space because you have been there for too long…” They all denied Plaintiff the knowledge he should have to plead his cause and the case before the court and the judge.
  6. In the pendency of the case, the Defendant’s counsel told Plaintiff that she would like the matter settled through arbitration. The attorney further informed Plaintiff that going to arbitration would help resolve the case and that Plaintiff would not incur substantive cost.
  7. Plaintiff expressed his displeasure with the option to go to arbitration, because he intended to request the judge to extend the deadline to settle Defendant’s debt. Plaintiff also expressed his concern to the Defendant’s counsel, that he needed the matter to be expedited. That notwithstanding, Defendant’s counsel assured Plaintiff that they had a deal to strike with Plaintiff, and that the process would be expedited.
  8. However, the arbitration process was fraudulent. Plaintiff was oblivious of the fact that Plaintiff’s counsel already had the arbitrator arranged. To compound the counsel’s trickery, the arbitrator was deaf and dumb and could only communicate by sign language, which Defendant did not understand. Interestingly, Plaintiff’s counsel had already arranged for the interpreters. Defendant never got a chance to have a say in either the selection of the arbitrator and the interpreters. Also, the arbitral proceeding was itself ridden in confusion. The interpreters were shouting the meaning of the sign the arbitrator was making and everyone trying to understand what she was communicating, because they did not fully know what was going on.
  9. Ultimately, Plaintiff’s counsel gave Defendant a document to sign. The document provided in pertinent part that Defendant had agreed to pay $100 to move his stuff by June 30, 2023, that he would keep everything said in the arbitration secret, and that he would lose his stuff if he failed to pay or move out of the storage unit.
  10. When the arbitration document was presented to the Court, the Court agreed with the results thereof, and never probed whether it was arrived at amicably. The Court then entered a judgment in favor of the Defendant.
  11. The court ordered Defendants to work out an installment payment with Plaintiff. However, Defendant refused the court order and went on their own agenda.
  12. After the court case, the A-1 Self Storage manager who had refused to answer Plaintiff, sent emails asking whether Plaintiff had come in to pay $100 as agreed and move his stuff, and that the foregoing implying that Plaintiff was abandoning his property. He called Plaintiff three times and left messages detailing the court order and their victory that Plaintiff must pay the $100 and move by June 30, 2023, as stipulated by the court order. Plaintiff emailed him that he did not have the facility to move yet, and that he did not have money for a facility.

The Form SC-105

  1. In a bid to present his side of the story and to obtain a favorable Order from the Court, Plaintiff filed and mailed Form SC-105 to the Defendant on 6/28/2023. V. Valentine received and signed for it on Thursday 6/29/2023 at about 2:40 pm.
  2. However, after filing and mailing the Form SC-105, Plaintiff received information from Defendant that they had sold his property.
  3. Consequently, Plaintiff wrote a letter to the manager of A-1 Storage. The letter stated in pertinent part as follows:

 

Yesterday I received a letter from Ms. Dania Nunez, the Area Manager of A-1 Self Storage and Caster North Hollywood Storage Partners, that you have moved out and sold my property in unit 995 of Self Storage.  I am devastated beyond measure as I grappled with what you might have been thinking relative to what you have done.  After close to eight years of my patronage with and to A-1 Self Storage, you have sold everything I have, amounting to millions of dollars – a part of my lifetime of hard work and aspirations to make heaven… And my writings and thesis, my award-winning short film, my award-winning screenplay – my various copyrights, trademarks, other intellectual property…  and numerous items of academia added to a lifetime of family and cultural identities…- plus irreplaceable personal items and their attendant tidbits… These items in storage were parts of my startup of four businesses which Ron Meyers and Ted Meyers and their henchmen coveted, disrupted, co-opted, seized, and purloined.   I have a list of the items in storage unit 995 – from the scores of boxes of manufactured upper-leather goods, casual wear fashion brands, and the design for several other brands…

 

You took my case to court, even against my pleading to give me extra time to pay off what I owe and move out.  You said that you owned my property and that you had the right to sell them.  YOU CANNOT SELL WHAT DIDN’T BELONG TO YOU IN A SITUATION WHERE AN SC-105 HAS BEEN FILED.  You should have been wise enough to wait for the court’s pronouncement on the matter.  But you felt and were cavalier enough to abuse your privilege as the Area Manager of A-1 Self Storage to move out my things which you felt you have the right to do. The court says once SC-105 is filed and served both parties in a case must wait for the court to make contact; that’s also written on form SC-105B which you sent me,. Below is the court’s REASON for Form SC-105.  I have also attached the FedEx document of their delivery of the SC-105, which shows that I filed and mailed my form SC-105 on 6/28/2023 and Mr. V. Valentine received and signed for it on Thursday at about 2:40 pm, 6/29/2023 – both dates are weekdays.  I have spoken with the court and had spoken with an attorney – I was told to await the court’s eminent decision.

 

I am a law-abiding US citizen.  So I will wait for the court order before I proceed further…

  1. The foregoing shows how even after the Defendant received Plaintiff’s Form SC-105 before the 60-day expiration, they still moved, seized, and sold Plaintiff’s property. They did not wait for the court order as stipulated by the SC-105.
  2. It is Plaintiff’s contention that Caster has something to do with Ron Meyers and his mother, who are subject of Plaintiff’s related complaint. The woman who they introduced to Plaintiff in the year 2000 when Plaintiff went to sign a business partner, in which they seized Plaintiff’s startup and businesses because they said that Plaintiff was a criminal, a high school dropout who pretended that he had undergraduate and postgraduate degrees from Syracuse University. That woman who was said to live in Seattle Washington at the time, moved to A-1 Self Storage North Hollywood (a distance of over 1000 miles) to rent directly across from Plaintiff’s unit (#995).
  3. Notably, the unit they rented was #996, which was directly across from Plaintiff’s unit. And before Plaintiff could no longer afford to pay, Ron Meyers and his people were constantly at the facility, any time Plaintiff showed up. They were there but would just watch Plaintiff and not say a word. It is therefore questionable how they always knew Plaintiff would show up when Plaintiff was there. It was because the management told them. It is therefore Plaintiff’s contention that Ron Meyers sent the individuals to rent Unit #996, to continue to harass Plaintiff, and steal from him.
  4. Plaintiff has detailed some of the foresaid in a letter that he sent to the FBI, so they are aware of the continuing harassment and subjugative impositions Plaintiff has been suffering.

CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT 1

Violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 1179.01 et seq

  1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all foregoing paragraphs as though set out in full herein.
  2. Code of Civil Procedure § 1179.01 et seq provides relief to tenants who are unable to pay their rent or other financial obligations under the lease in full because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The statute provides the procedure for recovering COVID-19 debt.
  3. Further, Code of Civil Procedure § 1179.06 provides that “[a]ny provision of a stipulation, settlement agreement, or other agreement entered into on or after the effective date of this chapter, including a lease agreement, that purports to waive the provisions of this chapter is prohibited and is void as contrary to public policy.” Emphasis added.
  4. Further, Code of Civil Procedure § 1179.04 provides for mandatory notices that should have been sent to tenants who had not made rental payments that came up during the Covid-19 period. The notices specify that a tenant cannot be evicted for failing to make said payments.
  5. Also, Code of Civil Procedure § 1179.03 further provides that “[a] notice which does not meet the requirements of this section, regardless of when the notice was issued, shall not be sufficient to establish a cause of action for unlawful detainer or a basis for default judgment.”
  6. In the instant action, Caster disregarded all the guidelines set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1179.01 et seq. Said law sets out in pertinent detail the rights and obligations of landlords with regards to Covid-19 rental debts. Defendants instituted the case against Plaintiff seeking the payment of amounts owing in rent, which were caused by Covid-19. Defendants refused to communicate with Plaintiff regarding the debts. Notably, A-1 Self Storage’s manager said he could not answer Plaintiff’s question. He stated thus: “They told me not to answer any questions about your storage UNIT. Also, Caster’s counsel told Plaintiff that: “We just want you out of the storage space because you have been there for too long…”
  7. Also, Caster instituted their case against Plaintiff by filing Form SC-100 (Plaintiff’s Claim, and Order to Go to Small Claims Court). The form has an annotation for the person filing the case entitled: “Instruction for the Person Filing: Do not use this form for the recovery of Covid-19 rental debt, which is unpaid rent and other financial obligations under tenancy due between March 1, 2020, and September 30, 2021 (See Code of Procedure 1179.02). To recover Covid-19 rental debt, use form 5SC-500. Plaintiff’s Claim and ORDER to Go to Small Claims Court.”
  8. The foregoing shows how the Defendants blatantly violated the said statute, and ended up denying Plaintiff access to his items in his storage unit.
  9. As a proximate cause of Defendants’ actions and/or inactions as discussed above, Plaintiff suffered emotional injury. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to judgment in his favor.

COUNT 2

Wrongful/illegal possession

  1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all foregoing paragraphs as though set out in full herein.
  2. Defendants refused to communicate with Plaintiff. Plaintiff could not therefore discuss how he would get the items in his storage unit. The property consists of the Fashion Wing of Plaintiff’s startup. Plaintiff designed and developed four brands and had fully manufactured the samples of branded jeans, jackets, and t-shirts, which he had manufactured in Shenzhen, China. He had also men’s leather wallets, lady’s and gent’s leather fashion tote bags, and a whole lot more designs for the XZenGiant brands. The fashion brands are the only evidence left of a startup that were projected to do over one billion dollars.
  3. Plaintiff has been concerned whether his property is still intact in the storage unit. Plaintiff even sent Defendants an email requesting access to his property. However, none of the Defendants has ever replied or wished to discuss the property.
  4. By their failure to return Plaintiff’s communications, and address Plaintiff’s concerns over his property, the Defendants had animus to exclude Plaintiff from his property.
  5. As a proximate cause of Defendants’ actions and/or inactions as discussed above, Plaintiff suffered emotional injury. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to judgment in his favor.

COUNT 3

Intentional infliction of emotional distress and/or harm

  1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all foregoing paragraphs as though set out in full herein.
  2. The Defendants acted intentionally and recklessly, without caring about effects of their conduct on the
  3. The Defendants’ conduct was extreme in that they not only denied Plaintiff’s access to his property, but also violated well-laid-out statutory provisions.
  4. The said conduct caused the Plaintiff’s immense
  5. As a proximate cause of Defendants’ actions and/or inactions as discussed above, Plaintiff suffered emotional injury. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to judgment in his favor.

COUNT 4

Fraud

  1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all foregoing paragraphs as though set out in full herein.
  2. In the pendency of the action filed against Plaintiff by the Defendants, it was Plaintiff’s intention to have the matter determined before the Court without going to arbitration. While Plaintiff admits to owing Defendants the alleged debt, it was Plaintiff’s intention to plead with the Court to extend the time to pay the debt. However, when Plaintiff got to court, the Caster’s counsel told Plaintiff that she, the attorney, would like the matter settled through arbitration. The attorney further informed Plaintiff that going to arbitration would help resolve the case and that Plaintiff would not incur substantive cost.
  3. Plaintiff expressed his disapproval with Castor’s counsel’s request. Further, Plaintiff stated why he needed the matter to be heard by the Court, so that he would request for additional time to settle the debt. It was also Plaintiff’s intention to avoid unnecessary processes that would otherwise lengthen the matter. Castor’s counsel still assured Plaintiff that he should not worry since both could be done right away on the same day. She further assured Plaintiff that she had received instructions from Castor to give Plaintiff a deal.
  4. Plaintiff was oblivious of the fact that Castor’s counsel already had the arbitrator arranged. To compound the counsel’s trickery, the arbitrator was deaf and dumb and could only communicate by sign language, which Plaintiff did not understand. Interestingly, Castor’s counsel had already arranged for the interpreters. Plaintiff never got a chance to have a say in either the selection of the arbitrator and the interpreters. Also, the arbitral proceeding was itself ridden in confusion. The interpreters were shouting the meaning of the sign the arbitrator was making and everyone trying to understand what she was communicating, because they did not fully know what was going on.
  5. Ultimately, Castor’s counsel gave Plaintiff a document to sign. The document provided in pertinent part that Plaintiff had agreed to pay $100 to move his stuff by June 30, 2023, that he would keep everything said in the arbitration secret, and that he would lose his stuff if he failed to pay or move out of the storage unit.
  6. When the arbitration document was presented to the Court, the Court agreed with the results thereof, and never probed whether it was arrived at amicably.
  7. Plaintiff asserts that the arbitration award was entered as a result of fraud. In the discussion above, Plaintiff has clearly explained how Defendants’ counsel exploited Plaintiff’s vulnerability by enticing Plaintiff to engage in the flawed arbitration process. The Defendants knew Plaintiff has financial difficulties and that he would not move out, and as such, they would own all Plaintiff’s possessions in the storage unit on June 20, 2023. Notably, Plaintiff received a physical letter, which stated that if Plaintiff does not move his property by June 30, 2023 by 5 PM, Plaintiff has forfeited his property and has granted them “WAIVER OF LAWS.
  8. It follows; Defendants’ counsel lied to Plaintiff that the arbitration process would be fair and that everything would be in order. Contrary to said counsel’s statement, the arbitration process was already rigged against Plaintiff. Notably, Defendants’ counsel organized for an arbitrator without involving Plaintiff. Next, the counsel organized for interpreters without involving Plaintiff.
  9. Second, there was no way for Plaintiff to discover the fraud at that time. Plaintiff even expressed his concerns over subjecting the matter to lengthy procedures that would be detrimental to him. Plaintiff further informed Defendants’ counsel that his intention was to request the Court to grant him extension of time to settle the debt. In response to Plaintiff’s concerns, Defendants’ counsel promised and/or assured Plaintiff that the arbitration process would be properly conducted.
  10. Lastly, the fraud materially related to the issue of the settlement of the debt. Defendant’s counsel induced Plaintiff to subject to arbitration, so that Plaintiff would append his signature to the arbitration document that obligated Plaintiff to pay $100 to move his stuff by June 30, 2023. Had the matter been heard solely before the Court, Plaintiff would have requested the Court to grant him extension to pay the debt, and the matter would be concluded simply.
  11. It follows; Defendants’ counsel committed fraud against Plaintiff.
  12. As a proximate cause of Defendants’ actions and/or inactions as discussed above, Plaintiff suffered emotional injury. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to judgment in his favor.

COUNT 5

Conversion

  1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all foregoing paragraphs as though set out in full herein.
  2. Plaintiff had a right to possess the items in Storage Unit #995. The items included Fashion Wing of Plaintiff’s startup. Plaintiff designed and developed four brands and had fully manufactured the samples of branded jeans, jackets, and t-shirts, which he had manufactured in Shenzhen, China. He had also men’s leather wallets, lady’s and gent’s leather fashion tote bags, and a whole lot more designs for the XZenGiant brands. The fashion brands are the only evidence left of a startup that were projected to do over one billion dollars. The items also included Plaintiff’s writings and thesis, his award-winning short film, his award-winning screenplay – his various copyrights, trademarks, other intellectual property and numerous items of academia and irreplaceable personal items and their attendant tidbits. Plaintiff was the bona fide owner of all the items in the storage unit.
  3. Defendants knowingly and intentionally interfered with said property by selling them without Plaintiff’s consent. Worse still, the Defendants sold the properties after they received Plaintiff’s Form SC-105, which obligated Defendants to cease from taking any other step until the Court’s determination of Plaintiff’s prayers in said form.
  4. Plaintiff did not consent to the sale of the properties.
  5. Plaintiff has been harmed by the sale of the property. The property that Defendant illegally sold amounted to millions of dollars and were a part of Plaintiff’s lifetime of hard work and aspirations. Further, the properties were copyrighted, and are irreplaceable.
  6. Defendants’ conduct in selling the properties was a substantial factor in causing the harm identified above.

 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

  1. Plaintiff demands jury trial of all issues.

PRAYER AND RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff ANDREW MADUK, respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendants as follows:

  1. An order and judgment awarding damages amounting to $ ___________________ for violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 1179.01 et seq, wrongful possession, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud.
  2. An Order sanctioning Defendants for selling Plaintiff’s properties after Plaintiff had already filed and mailed to Defendants Form SC-105.
  3. An order awarding reasonable attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs of
  4. An Order granting such other and further relief as the Court deems

 

DATED:                                                     

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

 

ANDREW MADUK

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that, on this                   day of                       , 2023, a copy of the foregoing was to:

 

 

[ENTER DEFENDANTS’ ADDRESS]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Date              /        2022

 

 

ANDREW MADUK

 

 

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )