GOMES v. EXTRA SPACE STORAGE, INC.
2:13-cv-00929
D.N.J.Mar 31, 2015Background
- Gomes rented a self-storage unit under a written Agreement that included rent, disclosed late fees ($10/$15) and an $85 "pre-foreclosure" fee, and required payment of a $9/month third-party insurance premium remitted by defendant.
- Gomes defaulted for December 2011 and January 2012; defendants sent a Lien Notice (Jan. 19, 2012) demanding payment within 15 days and advertising an auction for Feb. 16, 2012 (27 days after mailing); defendants held an auction and sold his goods.
- Gomes alleges the Lien Notice overcharged him by including insurance premiums, sold his property prematurely, failed to describe the stored property adequately, and did not follow NJ statutory sale procedures; he estimates his property’s value far exceeds amounts recovered after the sale.
- Gomes filed an amended class complaint asserting claims under the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract Warranty and Notice Act (NJTCCA), the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA), and the New Jersey Self-Service Storage Facility Act (NJSSFA); defendants moved to dismiss several claims.
- The court drew inferences for Gomes at the pleading stage and resolved which claims were plausible under Rule 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Agreement clause permitting "public or private sale" and sale "in a commercially reasonable manner" violates NJSSFA / NJTCCA | Gomes: Clause conflicts with NJSSFA (which requires public sale and prescriptive procedure); therefore violates NJTCCA as infringement of clearly established state law rights | Extra Space: Clauses show intent to follow applicable law and include savings language; not deceptive | Denied dismissal: Court finds plausible NJTCCA claim because clauses conflict with NJSSFA and lack the statutory "magic words" required to inform NJ consumers which provisions are inapplicable |
| Whether the Agreement’s bankruptcy-default clause violates Bankruptcy Code and supports NJTCCA claim | Gomes: Treating bankruptcy filing as an automatic default contradicts 11 U.S.C. § 365(e) and thus violates clearly established federal law | Extra Space: Clause is contractual and disclosed | Denied dismissal: Court finds plaintiff plausibly alleges a clause that conflicts with the Bankruptcy Code, supporting an NJTCCA claim |
| Whether the one-year contractual limitations clause violates procedural rights and therefore the NJTCCA | Gomes: Clause shortens/limits rights to bring counterclaims or raise defenses beyond one year, infringing Federal Rules and NJ Court Rules | Extra Space: Contractual limitation is permitted | Denied dismissal: Court follows Martinez-Santiago reasoning and finds a plausible NJTCCA claim that the clause improperly restricts procedural rights |
| Whether late fees and the $85 pre-foreclosure fee state an NJCFA claim for unconscionable conduct | Gomes: Fees are excessive/penal and thus unconscionable under the NJCFA | Extra Space: Fees were disclosed in Agreement and reasonable | Granted dismissal: Plaintiff failed to plead facts (comparators, reasonableness, or actual loss) with the specificity required by Rule 9(b) and plausibility standards |
| Whether Lien Notice violated NJSSFA timing, redemption rights, and property-description requirements | Gomes: Notice demanded payment within 15 days and advertised an earlier sale date, deprived tenant of statutory redemption period, and failed to describe stored property sufficiently | Extra Space: A storage unit is a locked container so itemized description unnecessary; notice complied | Denied dismissal (as to timing/redemption and description): Court finds plausible NJSSFA-based NJTCCA claims that notice divested redemption rights prematurely and failed to describe property sufficiently |
| Whether NJTCCA is unconstitutionally vague as applied | Extra Space: "Clearly established legal right" is ambiguous and statute lacks mens rea | Gomes: Relies on specific statutes and rules that plainly establish rights | Denied: Court holds NJTCCA is not vague as applied where plaintiff bases claims on clear statutory or procedural rights (NJSSFA, Bankruptcy Code, Federal/NJ procedural rules) |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir.) (pleading inferences at motion to dismiss)
- Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir.) (facial plausibility standard under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility and disregard of legal conclusions)
- Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir.) (Rule 9(b) heightened pleading for fraud-based NJCFA claims)
- Green v. Morgan Properties, 215 N.J. 431 (N.J. 2013) (context for assessing whether contractual fees are disproportionate)
- San Filippo v. Bongiovanni, 961 F.2d 1125 (3d Cir.) (civil statutes face lesser vagueness burden; challenger must show vagueness as applied)
- McGarvey v. Penske Auto Group, Inc., [citation="486 F. App'x 276"] (3d Cir.) (analysis of what constitutes a "clearly established legal right" under the NJTCCA)