STATE OF XXX DISTRICT COURT SECOND
COUNTY OF XXX JUDICIAL DISTRICT
| XXX III, PRO SE Plaintiff,
v. THE RICCIARDELLA TEAM, INC. OWNER AND AGENT OF CRYSTAL VIEW CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC; CRYSTAL VIEW HOLDING CO II LLCC, D/B/A NORTH END SELF STORAGE MN LLC; AND CRYSTAL VIEW HOLDING CO III LLC D/B/A NORTH END SELF STORAGE MN LLC And CRYSTAL VIEW CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC OWNER AND AGENT OF CRYSTAL VIEW CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC; CRYSTAL VIEW HOLDING CO II LLC, D/B/A NORTH END SELF STORAGE MN LLC; AND CRYSTAL VIEW HOLDING CO III LLC D/B/A NORTH END SELF STORAGE MN LLC And CRYSTAL VIEW HOLDING CO II LLC, D/B/A NORTH END SELF STORAGE MN LLC And CRYSTAL VIEW HOLDING CO III LLC D/B/A NORTH END SELF STORAGE MN LLC And MATTHEW JACOB RICCIARDELLA, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS PRESIDENT, MANAGING PARTNER AND AGENT OF THE RICCIARDELLA TEAM, INC; CRYSTAL VIEW CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC; CRYSTAL VIEW HOLDING CO II LLC, D/B/A NORTH END SELF STORAGE MN LLC; AND CRYSTAL VIEW HOLDING CO III LLC D/B/A NORTH END SELF STORAGE MN LLC And BRYAN PATRICK BARZ IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS AGENT OF THE RICCIARDELLA TEAM, INC.; CRYSTAL VIEW CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC; CRYSTAL VIEW HOLDING CO II LLC, D/B/A NORTH END SELF STORAGE MN LLC; AND CRYSTAL VIEW HOLDING CO III LLC D/B/A NORTH END SELF STORAGE MN LLC DAVID JOHN HEIL IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS MANAGER, OWNER AND AGENT OF STATE STORAGE MIDWEST LLC; STATE STORAGE SAINT PAUL LLC; AND NORTH END STORAGE MN LLC And DYLAN RYBAK IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS MANAGER OWNER AND AGENT OF STATE STORAGE MIDWEST LLC; STATE STORAGE SAINT PAUL LLC; AND NORTH END STORAGE MN LLC AND ANDREW DIPILATO IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS MANAGER OWNER AND AGENT OF STATE STORAGE MIDWEST LLC; STATE STORAGE SAINT PAUL LLC; AND NORTH END STORAGE MN LLC AND STATE STORAGE MIDWEST LLC; STATE STORAGE SAINT PAUL LLC; AND NORTH END STORAGE MN LLC AND ROYAL CREDIT UNION AND NOKEY’S 24 HOUR TOWING AND WRECKING SERVICE And NOKEY LAMAR ANDERSON IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS TRUCKER, AGENT, OWNER, OPERATOR OF NOKEY’S 24 HOUR TOWING AND WRECKING SERVICE And LOWRELL ROYAL ANDERSON IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS TRUCKER, AGENT, OWNER, OPERATOR OF NOKEY’S 24 HOUR TOWING AND WRECKING SERVICE And LOWRELL CURTIS ANDERSON IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS TRUCKER, AGENT, OWNER, OPERATOR OF NOKEY’S 24 HOUR TOWING AND WRECKING SERVICE And CHRISTOPHER TRUJILLO IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS AGENT OF THE RICCIARDELLA TEAM, INC.; CRYSTAL VIEW CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC; CRYSTAL VIEW HOLDING CO II LLC, D/B/A NORTH END SELF STORAGE MN LLC; AND CRYSTAL VIEW HOLDING CO III LLC D/B/A NORTH END SELF STORAGE MN LLC And KARL JOSEPH PIGG IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS AGENT OF THE RICCIARDELLA TEAM, INC.; CRYSTAL VIEW CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC; CRYSTAL VIEW HOLDING CO II LLC, D/B/A NORTH END SELF STORAGE MN LLC; AND CRYSTAL VIEW HOLDING CO III LLC D/B/A NORTH END SELF STORAGE MN LLC And JACOB CARROLL IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS AGENT OF THE RICCIARDELLA TEAM, INC.; CRYSTAL VIEW CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC; CRYSTAL VIEW HOLDING CO II LLC, D/B/A NORTH END SELF STORAGE MN LLC; AND CRYSTAL VIEW HOLDING CO III LLC D/B/A NORTH END SELF STORAGE MN LLC And JANE DOE (JACOB CARROLL’S MOTHER) IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS AGENT OF THE RICCIARDELLA TEAM, INC.; CRYSTAL VIEW CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC; CRYSTAL VIEW HOLDING CO II LLC, D/B/A NORTH END SELF STORAGE MN LLC; AND CRYSTAL VIEW HOLDING CO III LLC D/B/A NORTH END SELF STORAGE MN LLC And SPRINT SPECTRUM, LP DBA STC FIVE LLC Defendants. |
Court File No.: XXX
Judge: XXX Case Type: Contract Jury Trial Demanded PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
|
Plaintiff, XXX, Pro Se (hereinafter referred to as “XXX), hereby moves the Court for an Order for Default Judgment in favor of Plaintiff against Defendants on the basis of Plaintiff’s claims and request for damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, including reasonable costs, and any other amounts the Court deems just and equitable.
This motion is based upon Rule 55 of the Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 117 of the General Rules of Practice, the pleadings on file, and the affidavits and documents that will be filed pursuant to the General Rules of Practice
INTRODUCTION
Defendant, North End Self Storage, relaxed security features, including, but not limited to moral lapses by its employees, disabling security cameras and other security measures. Defendant also locked Plaintiff out of the facility, directly breached Plaintiff’s locking mechanisms by cutting Plaintiff’s locks off, implemented brute force and broke into and burglarized property belonging to Plaintiff, stored at North End Storage’s secured storage facilities. The aforementioned events occurred on more than one occasion, beginning with the unlawful breaching and damaging a large double storage unit that Plaintiff rented from North End. Defendants also breached Plaintiff’s fully loaded 53-foot commercial trailer, for which Plaintiff rents storage space at the Defendant Storage Operators’ facilities. Defendants implemented brute force in breaching Plaintiff’s locked commercial trailer and storage unit, at the Defendant Storage Operators’ North End’s storage site, in St. Paul, Minnesota. Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendants. Defendant North End responded by filing a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. Accordingly, this Motion seeks to oppose said Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant North End Storage and its prior owners have leased a double storage unit to Plaintiff for a period of about 7 years.
Defendant North End Storage has also leased space to Plaintiff to park the Plaintiff’s owned 53-foot commercial trailer in the Defendant’s storage facility for approximately five years.
To entice Plaintiff to lease space, the Defendant North End Storage recommended its site as a secure facility, featuring controlled access via an electric powered gate, with barbed wire and other security features.
In the fall of 2019, Defendant North End Storage required Plaintiff to relocate its 53-foot commercial trailer from the location where Defendant North End Storage directed Plaintiff to park it years earlier, and to do so at Plaintiff’s own expense, under direct threat by Defendant North End Storage to have the trailer towed to an impound lot. Plaintiff complied with the sudden request and positioned the trailer on the southeastern portion of Defendant’s North End Storage lot, in front of Defendant’s North End Storage rear gate, which Defendant North End Storage secured by a locking system.
Defendant North End Storage failed to provide the access to Plaintiff as promised, and instead surrounded the Plaintiff’s trailer by other vehicles, including other, large commercial vehicles, making access to the Plaintiff’s trailer nearly impossible. The Plaintiff’s trailer was also immobilized due to the way it was surrounded by the said vehicles. Plaintiff repeatedly requested that Defendant remove the vehicles to afford Plaintiff reasonable and necessary access to Plaintiff’s 53-foot commercial trailer. However, Defendants never granted Plaintiff’s request.
Plaintiff has duly paid all rents.
Plaintiff’s storage locker that he had taken on rent had the locks cut off. The perpetrators burglarized the unit, took many items, even a 12-foot bay window, among numerous other windows, a brand-new garbage disposal, lamps, chandeliers, doors, stone, tile, wine coolers, wood and many other items were stolen. Plaintiff reported the theft to the Defendant.
Plaintiff repeatedly asked the Defendant North End Storage to move the vehicles surrounding his commercial trailer so he could take his trailer and all of the remaining belongings out of storage, but the Defendant North End Storage did not move the other vehicles that were boxing the Plaintiff’s 53-foot trailer so Plaintiff couldn’t get the trailer moved out.
On or about May 16, 2020, Plaintiff visited the premises of the Defendant North End Storage that he had paid rent to park his trailer. But he could not enter since Defendant North End Storage has changed the entire entry security pad to a new yellow box and did not give Plaintiff the security code.
Plaintiff then went to the Defendant’s North End Storage 1379 Rice St. office; the mother of the Manager (Jake) was there. They refused to give Plaintiff the code. Plaintiff followed her into the facility. Upon entry, Plaintiff noticed that Defendant North End Storage still had their red lock on Plaintiff’s storage unit, and the 53- foot commercial trailer had ball peen hammer marks all over the aluminum sheathing where Plaintiff lock used to be. The trailer was open, and a lot of Plaintiff’s items were stolen.
Neither Plaintiff nor anyone else with Plaintiff’s authorization had removed a single item from the trailer. There is also no agreement that permits the Defendant North End Storage to empty the stored items. Defendant North End Storage did so without any notice and breached the trust and due process. Accordingly, the burglary at the Defendant’s North End Storage facility resulted in the theft of the of the Plaintiff’s trailer contents. Defendant North End Storage also damaged the right side of the trailer door, obviously trying to open it with something.
Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the North End Self Storage with the Attorney General on 19 May 2020. Attorney General directed the Defendant to resolve the issues with Plaintiff swiftly and amicable. Defendant after the Complaint with Attorney General shared the security code with Plaintiff but have not done anything to compensate the damage caused by their breach.
Plaintiff reached Jennifer at the Defendant’s North End Storage Las Vegas office 702-546-7226 and gave her the aforementioned details. She said someone would call her back. As at the time of this Complaint, the Las Vegas office has refused to contact Plaintiff and did not pick up Plaintiff’s phone call.
As at the time of this Complaint, Defendant North End Storage’s facilities continue possessing Plaintiff’s vehicle, which he requested to move out of their facility. This constitutes a denial of property that belongs to the Plaintiff.
Although, Plaintiff’s rent has been fully paid, in excess, Defendants also demand that Plaintiff to relocate the trailer, which resulted in great expense to Plaintiff and caused theft of items in trailer and loss to the Plaintiff.
Defendants have also, inappropriately, and unlawfully delayed in sharing the security code with Plaintiff to access the storage facility that caused Plaintiff to suffer great loss.
Despite demands made by Plaintiff to give security code and remove vehicles surrounding the Plaintiff trailer to take all remaining personal property of Plaintiff, Defendants have failed to do so and return the personal property of Plaintiff contrary to the lease Agreement. Defendants have failed to cooperate with the police to investigate the burglary of the Plaintiff’s goods while the trailer was in Defendant’s premises.
ARGUMENTS
PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS
- Defendants Failed to Provide an Answer or Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint Within Twenty (20) Days Of Service
Rule 12.01 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure requires that defendants provide an answer to a complaint or a responsive motion within twenty (20) days of service of the Summons and Complaint. The consequence of a defendant’s failure to respond is addressed in Rule 55.01, which states:
When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend within the time allowed therefor by these rules or by statute, and that fact is made to appear by affidavit, judgment by default shall be entered against that party as follows:
…
(b) In all other cases, the party entitled to a judgment by default shall apply to the court therefor. If a party against whom judgment is sought has appeared in the action, that party shall be served with written notice of the application for judgment at least three days prior to the hearing on such application. If the action is one for the recovery of money only, the court shall ascertain, by a reference or otherwise, the amount to which the plaintiff is entitled, and order judgment therefor.
MINN. R. CIV. P. 55.01(a)–(b). See also Doe v. Legacy Broad. of MN, Inc., 504 N.W.2d 527, 528 (Minn. App. 1993) (holding default judgment may be entered against party who fails to plead or otherwise defend claim within time allowed by law).
Plaintiff served her Summons and Complaint on Defendants more than twenty (20) days ago. (See Affidavits of Service in the Court file). Defendants failed to serve an Answer or responsive pleading upon Plaintiff within the required twenty (20) days. Thus, the time period set forth by the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for which Defendants had time to answer or respond has elapsed. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter default judgment against Defendants in a manner consistent with the proposed Order provided herewith.
- Plaintiff has Established A Prima Facie Case On The Issues Of Defendants’ Liability
Once a court determines that a party is in default, the complaint’s factual allegations, except those related to damages, will be considered as true. Cole v. Metro. Council HRA, 686 N.W.2d 334, 337 (Minn. App. 2004). To obtain a liability judgment, the party seeking the default must establish a prima facie case. See Hill v. Tischer, 385 N.W.2d 329, 332 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986); Elk River Enterp., Inc. v. Adams, 357 N.W.2d 139, 140–41 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). Prima facie evidence is “evidence which, if unrebutted, would support a [favorable] judgment.” Ulrich v. City of Crosby, 848 F. Supp. 861, 867 (D. Minn.1994) (quotation and citation omitted).
The evidence submitted, and the allegations in the Complaint (which have been admitted by Defendants’ default herein) support a favorable judgment for Plaintiff. Notably, Plaintiff’s claims are legally viable. Plaintiff raises the following claims:
- Breach of Contract
Minnesota recognizes breach of contract as one of the claims in law. Under Minnesota law, the basic elements of a breach of contract claim are “(1) the formation of a contract, (2) the performance of conditions precedent by the plaintiff, and (3) the breach of the contract by the defendant.” Thomas B. Olson & Assocs., P.A. v. Leffert, Jay & Polglaze, P.A., 756 N.W.2d 907, 918 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Briggs Transp. Co. v. Ranzenberger, 217 N.W.2d 198, 200 (Minn. 1974)).
In the instant action, Plaintiff contracted with the North End Defendants herein to use their facilities for storage services. These Defendants had agreed to keep the Plaintiff’s rented storage unit and commercial trailer safe and secured and to provide Plaintiff with unfettered access to his personal property. However, the Defendant North End has breached their contractual obligation by completely failing to maintain security and safety on their premises. The said Defendant’s cutting of Plaintiff’s locks, and lapses in security and monitoring are the direct and proximate cause of the burglaries of the Plaintiff’s personal property.
- Breach of the Implied warranty of Good Faith
Under Minnesota law, a party establishes bad faith “by demonstrating that the adverse party has an ulterior motive for its refusal to perform a contractual duty.” Omega Genesis Corp. v. Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Research, 132 F. Supp. 3d 1119, 1127 (D. Minn. 2015). Bad faith is “not an honest mistake regarding one’s rights or duties.” Sterling Capital Advisors, Inc. v. Herzog, 575 N.W.2d 121, 125 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998).
Defendant North End had extended its contracts with the Plaintiff, knowing that it would not perform by failing to maintain security features, withholding access codes from Plaintiff, and taking the egregious action of cutting Plaintiff’s locks off, as well as denying his access to Plaintiff’s commercial trailer and storage garage. Such actions amount to a breach of the implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing.
- Specific performance
Specific performance is provided under Sec. 513.06 MN Statutes (2020). It follows, specific performance is an equitable claim to compel the specific performance of agreements in cases where one party is in breach thereof.
In the instant case, Defendant North End failed to perform duties owed to the Plaintiff to protect Plaintiff’s property, and to provide the Plaintiff with unfettered access to North Ends facilities and to all his personal property, including Plaintiff’s fifty-three-foot trailer and its contents. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an order for Specific performance against Defendant North End.
- Unjust enrichment
Unjust enrichment is a claim that is recognized by Minnesota courts. In Minnesota, to establish a claim for unjust enrichment, a claimant must show that another party knowingly received something of value to which he or she was not entitled and that the circumstances are such that it would be unjust for that person to retain the benefit. See Schumacher v. Schumacher, 627 N.W.2d 725 (2001).
- Negligent Misrepresentation
To establish negligent misrepresentation in Minnesota, a plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, (2) the defendant supplied false information to the plaintiff, (3) the plaintiff justifiably relied on that information, and (4) the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in communicating the information. See Aulick v. Skybride Ams., Inc., 860 F.3d 613, 623 (8th Cir. 2017).
The North End Defendant owed a duty to take care of the Plaintiff’s personal property stored at the Defendant storage facility as per their advertisement. A duty to maintain safety and security of the facility, to provide the Plaintiff with access by tending the access security codes and direct, physical access to the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s instead conspired to perpetuate unlawful bailment of the Plaintiff’s personal property including the contents of the Plaintiff’s rented storage unit and his commercial trailer vehicle, as well as the vehicle, itself.
- Illegal bailment
Bailment is usually done through agreement as a paid service. In Minnesota, the bailee has a minimum duty of care to ensure the safety of the property. A bailee who breaches or fails to uphold that duty can be held legally liable for damages. A bailee can also be held liable for conversion if he or she uses the property without the bailor’s permission or doesn’t return the property to the bailor upon request.
Defendants have denied access, withheld the security access code, following the initial burglary of the Plaintiff’s storage unit. Also, though Plaintiff made multiple demands for North End to return the Plaintiff’s personal property, the Defendants have failed to return it. They refuse to do so, thus resulting in the unlawful detention of Plaintiff’s goods by Defendants.
- Racial Discrimination
It is settled law that racial remarks are sufficient to state a claim under section 1981. See Evans v. McKay, 869 F.2d 1341, 1345 (9th Cir. 1988). Defendant Karl Pigg uttered discriminatory remarks against Plaintiff to wit, “when I talked to you on the phone, I thought you were going to be, uh taller, and uh, lighter”. As already said, such remarks are sufficient to raise a racial discrimination claim because they impliedly demean a particular race. It can also be reasonably concluded that the said Defendant went ahead to facilitate the theft of Plaintiff’s belongings because of Plaintiff’s racial identity.
- Punitive Damages for Theft
Civil liability for theft is contained in Minn. Stat. § 604.14, subd. 1. The said Section states in pertinent part that, “A person who steals personal property from another is civilly liable to the owner for its value when stolen plus punitive damages of either $50 or up to 100 percent of its value when stolen, whichever is greater.” Defendant Karl Pigg is liable for theft. Upon information and belief, Mr. Pigg had retained a second, matching key, with the specific intention of looting Plaintiff’s belongings, sometime after the replacement lock had been installed. This became apparent, after the passage of some time, when, unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Mr. Pigg had been replaced by a new Manager, and had acted on his intentions to pilfer Plaintiff’s belongings. Plaintiff’s suspicion became true later when Mr. Carroll intimated that Mr. Pigg was fired by the company because of “thievery”. Also, the said Defendant had made a statement that alluded to his intentions to steal Plaintiff’s belongings. Notably, Mr. Pigg stated to Plaintiff that the Plaintiff “must have some valuable stuff in all that storage” because Plaintiff had been “paying big rents for a long time.” Mr. Pigg’s blameworthy character can also be seen when Defendant Mr. Pigg claimed that Plaintiff’s rental check was in a safe in the Defendant’s possession somewhere, and that the safe had been robbed, which was not true.
- Successor liability
In Minnesota, Successor liability is an equitable claim. See Korlin v. Chartwell Health Care, Inc., 128 F.Supp.2d 609, 613 (E.D.Mo.2001) (explaining that “[t]he doctrine of successor liability is derived from equitable principles, and fairness is the prime consideration in application of the doctrine”). Therefore, it “is especially appropriate” for a court to analyze the “facts of each case.” See Howard Johnson Co. v. Detroit Local Joint Executive Bd., Hotel &, Rest. Emp. & Bartenders Int’l Union, AFL–CIO, 417 U.S. 249, 256, 94 S.Ct. 2236, 41 L.Ed.2d 46 (1974).
- Tortious Interference
A cause of action for tortious interference is recognized in Minnesota. It contains has five elements: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) the alleged wrongdoer’s knowledge of the contract; (3) intentional procurement of its breach; (4) without justification; and (5) damages. See Corp. v. Rousslang, 860 N.W.2d 347, 351 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).
- Breach of Duty to Preserve Evidence
The duty to preserve evidence exists under Minnesota law. The duty not only exists after the formal commencement of litigation, but whenever a party knows or should know that litigation is reasonably foreseeable. See Miller v. Lankow, 801 N.W.2d 120 (Minn. 2011); Patton v. Newmar Corp., 538 N.W.2d 116 (Minn. 1995).
In the instant case, Defendant North End knew or should have known that it had a duty to preserve evidence from the time it took unlawful bailment, through the burglaries, law enforcement reports, and the instant case.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter an order for a default judgment in its favor and against Defendants for damages, interest, attorney’s fees, costs, and any such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
Dated: ENTER DATE Respectfully submitted:
XXX
XXX
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, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible.