THE PIRATES

The initial case entitled Lacambra vs Public Storage was filed on June 3, 2008 by ROBERT in the Superior Court of California – Santa Ana (Unlimited Jurisdiction). Immediately thereafter, on July 22, 2008, another case entitled Public Storage vs Lacambra was filed by PUBLIC STORAGE in the Superior Court of California – Laguna Hills (Limited Jurisdiction). In response, ROBERT moving the court to consolidate both cases in the Unlimited Jurisdiction filed a “Motion to Transfer and Consolidate Cases” on August 4, 2008. Despite the finding that the case had common questions of law, facts and evidence the case was transferred but not consolidated. This had the effect of making the litigation more expensive as ROBERT had to engage in two separate cases against two different lawyer firms. More importantly, the limits established by the Limited Jurisdiction capped the awardable damages to $25,000, an amount that is far below what ROBERT considers is a fair and equitable.

This case will be transferred to the US Courts - Southern CA District (Federal Jurisdiction) on the basis of Public Storage being a Maryland Real Estate Investment Trust, which meets the diversity requirements when parties are located or reside out of state.

BASIC FACTS

CASE #1
Case Name: Lacambra vs. Public Storage
Case Number: 30-2008-00107467
Defendant Counsel: Scott D. Buchholz and Kyle A. Cruse (Dummit, Buchholz and Trapp) for Public Storage 
Court: Superior Court of California, Central Justice Center – Santa Ana CA (Unlimited Jurisdiction)
Presiding Judge: Hon. David R. Chaffee
Status: Case was transferred to the Limited Jurisdiction and is in pre-trial motions but will be dismissed for transfer to the US Courts (Southern CA District)

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

(from the actual complaint)

To some renters, a public-storage facility is a “treasure chest” of priceless personal possessions. Within four walls and protected from others only by lock and key are some of the most precious belongings a person owns – a memory frozen in time by pictures; an award for something proudly achieved; mementos and trinkets that can lighten the heart and papers that can never be replaced. To deceive a public into storing valuables in their premises and swindling them into losing their possessions for financial gains is as abominable as the plundering “Pirates” of the past who were erased from the seven seas by the chasing ships of civilized jurisprudence.

CASE #2
Case Name: Public Storage, a Maryland Real Estate Investment Trust vs. Robert Lacambra
Case Number: 30-2008-00086187
Defendant: Robert Lacambra, In Pro Per
Plaintiff Counsel: Kathy Poer (Todd Briscoe and Associates) for Public Storage.
Court: Superior Court of California, Harbor Justice Center – Laguna Hills CA (Limited Jurisdiction)
Presiding Judge: Hon. Michael McArtin
Department: S-9

WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?

The action filed by ROBERT alleged “Deceptive Advertising” violating the CA Business & Professions Code Sec. 17537.2. The complaint also alleged violations of Bus & Prof Code Sec 21703 and 21704. Considering that Public Storage is a national chain, many unsuspecting renters are victimized by this fraud everyday, earning the company unknown amounts of money from this sophisticated scheme.

The following is a passage from the Complaint:

How did Public Storage deceive Robert? 

Personal Storage committed “Deceptive Advertising” when they advertised a $1.00 (Exhibit B) first month rent special as a way to draw prospective renters to their facilities. Not easily apparent to prospective renters are other expenditures associated with the rental such as initiation fees, clean-up fees and a unique lock that is difficult to find anywhere else without great inconvenience and which only works at the Public Storage Facilities.
The Bus & Prof Code Sec 17537.2 guards against purveyors of products and services who entice the public to engage in business with them by advertising a service for below market price only to deceptively recover the cost by requiring the purchase of some other item(s).  That section provides the following:
(Bus & Prof Sec 17537.2)
The following, when used as part of an advertising plan or program defined in Section 17537.1, are deceptive and constitute unfair trade practices:
When, in order to utilize the incentive, the recipient is requested to pay any money to any person or entity named or referred to in the offer, or to purchase, rent, or otherwise pay that person or entity for any product or service including a deposit, whether returnable or not, whether payment is for an item, a service, shipping, handling, insurance or payment for anything. Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, when the offered incentive is a certificate or coupon redeemable for transportation, accommodations, recreation, vacation, entertainment, or like services, the offer may place a condition on the use of the incentive which requires the recipient to pay directly to the transportation company, the accommodation, recreation, vacation or entertainment facility, or similar direct provider of like services, a refundable deposit, not to exceed fifty dollars ($50), to reserve space availability or admission, only if the deposit shall be returned in United States dollars immediately upon the recipient's arrival at the location of the provider to whom the recipient paid the deposit.  If the incentive is such a certificate or coupon, and if government-imposed taxes directly related to the service being provided are not included in the incentive, the offer itself, in close proximity to the description of the incentive which is evidenced by the certificate or coupon, shall disclose those government-imposed taxes which will be the recipient's responsibility and the approximate dollar amount of those taxes.  A deposit from the recipient may be collected to cover the cost of those government-imposed taxes.