STATE OF XXX DISTRICT COURT SECOND
COUNTY OF XXX JUDICIAL DISTRICT
| XXX, PRO SE Plaintiff,
v. XXX TEAM, INC. OWNER AND AGENT OF CRYSTAL VIEW CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC; XXX 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 XXX, 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 XXX IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS AGENT OF THE XXX 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 XXX 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 XXX IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS MANAGER OWNER AND AGENT OF STATE STORAGE MIDWEST LLC; STATE STORAGE XXX LLC; AND NORTH END STORAGE MN LLC AND XXX IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS MANAGER OWNER AND AGENT OF STATE STORAGE MIDWEST LLC; STATE STORAGE XXX LLC; AND NORTH END STORAGE MN LLC AND STATE STORAGE MIDWEST LLC; STATE STORAGE XXX LLC; AND NORTH END STORAGE MN LLC AND ROYAL CREDIT UNION AND NOKEY’S 24 HOUR TOWING AND WRECKING SERVICE And XXX 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 XXX IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS TRUCKER, AGENT, OWNER, OPERATOR OF NOKEY’S 24 HOUR TOWING AND WRECKING SERVICE And XXX 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 XXX 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 XXX IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS AGENT OF XXX TEAM, INC.; CRYSTAL VIEW CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC;XXX 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 XXX 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 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
|
Plaintiff, XXX, Pro Se (hereinafter referred to as “XXX”), hereby submits its opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. Plaintiff’s Complaint not only meets but exceeds the standards governing the form of a complaint contemplated by Rules 8.01, and Rule 10 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction in this matter, and the Complaint sufficiently alleges harm and damage. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion should be denied.
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 XXXX, 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 XXX office XXX 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
THIS COURT HAS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER ALL THE DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO MINN. STAT. §543.19 Subd. 1 (XXX). THEREFORE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS MUST BE DENIED
Defendant alleges that Defendants: Crystal View Holding Co II LLC, XXX, Team, Inc., Crystal View Capital Management, and Crystal View Holding Co III LLC.
Upon information and belief, Plaintiff maintains that the aforesaid Defendants are well included in the complaint. In that regard, Plaintiff alleges that:
Defendant the XXXX Team, Inc is a XXX Domestic Corporation with a XXX assigned entity number of: XXX and XXX Business ID XXX, an Owner/Agent of remaining North End Defendants, having its principal place of business of record at XXX Village Center Circle, Suite XXX and a registered address for service of process at: XXX (XXX Registered Agent Services/XXX .). (Emphasis applied). Accordingly, said Defendant transacts business within the state, and is therefore subject to the personal jurisdiction of this honorable court.
Defendant Crystal View Capital Management is a XXX Domestic Limited Liability Company, with a XXX assigned entity number of: XXX and XXX Business ID XXXX, Crystal View Capital Fund II, XXX, an Owner/Agent of other North End Defendants, having its principal place of business of record at XXX Village Center Circle, Suite XXX and a registered address for service of process at: XXX (Minnesota Registered Agent Services/, , P.A.).and a Registered Office Address for service of process at XXX. (Emphasis applied). Accordingly, said Defendant transacts business within the state, and is therefore subject to the personal jurisdiction of this honorable court.
Defendant Crystal View Holding Co II LLC d/b/a North End Self Storage MN LLC is a Foreign Limited Liability Company, with a Minnesota Secretary of State Filing Number of XXX. Having its principal places of business at XXX; Home Office Address of record: XXX Village Center Circle, Suite XXX; Manager’s address at: XXX, Principal Executive Office Address of: XXX and a registered address for service of process at: XXX Avenue, Suite 1 XXX, MN (XXX Registered Agent Services/XXX.). (Emphasis applied). Accordingly, said Defendant transacts business within the state, and is therefore subject to the personal jurisdiction of this honorable court.
Defendant Crystal View Holding Co III LLC d/b/a North End Self Storage MN LLC is a Foreign Limited Liability Company, with a XXX Secretary of State Filing Number of XXX. Having its principal places of business at XXX; Home Office Address of record: XXX; and a registered address for service of process at: XXX (Minnesota Registered Agent Services/XXX. (Emphasis applied). Accordingly, said Defendant transacts business within the state, and is therefore subject to the personal jurisdiction of this honorable court.
Defendant XXX, in his individual capacity and as Owner, President, Managing Partner and Agent of the XXX Team, Inc.; Crystal View Capital Management LLC; Crystal View Holding Co II LLC d/b/a North End Self Storage MN LLC; Crystal View Holding Co III LLC d/b/a North End Self Storage MN LLC a XXX and a XXX Limited Liability Company, is an individual having his places of business at of record of record: XXX; 10501 W. Gowan Rd .XXX; numerous additional business and residential address; and a registered address for service of process at: Services/XXX.). Accordingly, said Defendant transacts business within the state, and is therefore subject to the personal jurisdiction of this honorable court.
Defendant Bryan XXX in his individual capacity and as Managing Partner and Agent of the XXX Team, Inc, and of Crystal View Capital Management LLC; Crystal View Holding Co II LLC d/b/a North End Self Storage MN LLC; Crystal View Holding Co III LLC d/b/a North End Self Storage MN LLC. Defendant’s residential address is XXX, and a registered address for service of process at: XXX Registered Agent Services/XXX. Defendant’s registered Office Address for service of process is at XXX. Accordingly, said Defendant transacts business within the state, and is therefore subject to the personal jurisdiction of this honorable court.
PLAINTIFF SERVED AND/OR MADE ALL REASONABLE ATTEMPTS TO SERVE PROCESS ON THE DEFENDANTS
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff failed to serve process on the Defendants.
On the contrary, Plaintiff avers that he made all reasonable and legal attempts to serve all the Defendants with the documents. For instance, Plaintiff attempted to serve summons through the Office of the Sheriff. However, the Deputy XXX, testified that after diligent search, he was unable to effect service upon Defendant XXX
On or about February XXX, Plaintiff also served documents on Defendant XXX through the Office of the XXX.
Also, due to cost implications, Plaintiff sent a request for waiver of service of summons to the Gopher Defendants pursuant to Rule 4.05 of the XXX Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 4 of the XXX Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, a Defendant located in the XXX, who after being notified of an action, and asked by the Complainant located in the XXX to waive service of summons but fails to do so will be required to bear the cost of such service unless they have good cause for their refusal to accept the waiver of service.
Accordingly, Plaintiff made valid and reasonable attempts to serve the documents on the Defendants. It follows; Defendants Motion to Dismiss should be set aside.
THE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT ARE LEGALLY VIABLE CLAIMS
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state valid claims in law. On the contrary, Plaintiff avers that all the claims in the Complaint are provided in law. 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)).
- 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).
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.”
- 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).
CONCLUSION
In short, the Plaintiff’s Complaint fully complies with the pleading requirements under Minnesota law, and provides Defendants fair notice of the complaints against them and the grounds therefor. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants contrary to Defendant’s assertion. Additionally, the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged harm. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.
Dated: ENTER DATE Respectfully submitted:
XXX
Email: 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.