4:22-cv-05470
N.D. Cal.Jun 21, 2023Background
- Plaintiff rented a CubeSmart storage unit in December 2018 and alleges the unit contained about $15,000 worth of personal property.
- While Plaintiff was out of state caring for her mother, CubeSmart placed a lien on the unit and sold the contents at auction; Plaintiff alleges she never received the statutorily required notices and was told she had “no rights.”
- Plaintiff sued in Alameda County Superior Court and added CubeSmart and the attorneys who represented CubeSmart (Jessica Pliner, Johanna Templeton, and Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP); defendants removed the case to federal court.
- Lewis Brisbois moved to strike under California’s Anti‑SLAPP statute; CubeSmart moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and to strike the punitive‑damages demand under Rule 12(f).
- The court struck and dismissed the Lewis Brisbois defendants under Anti‑SLAPP/litigation privilege, allowed claims arising from alleged violations of the California Self‑Service Storage Facilities Act (breach, covenant, conversion, IIED, punitive damages) to proceed, and dismissed several statutory discrimination claims with leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anti‑SLAPP / litigation privilege for Lewis Brisbois attorneys | Attorneys instructed CubeSmart to withhold information, condoned misconduct, committed perjury, and made a corrupt settlement offer | Communications were litigation‑related and protected petitioning activity; litigation privilege bars derivative claims | Granted Anti‑SLAPP; allegations against Lewis Brisbois struck; those defendants dismissed with prejudice |
| Claims under California Self‑Service Storage Facilities Act (breach, covenant, conversion) | CubeSmart failed to give required notices, wrongfully sold property, and withheld information, causing loss and damages | CubeSmart contends it had the right to auction the unit and complied with statute/lease | Court finds plaintiff's allegations sufficient at pleading stage to proceed on breach of contract, breach of covenant, and conversion; factual compliance is for later adjudication |
| Unruh Act, Ralph Act, Bane Act (discrimination and threats) | Plaintiff alleges race- and sex‑based discrimination and intimidation | Defendants argue allegations are conclusory, lack facts showing motive or specific threats/violence | Dismissed with leave to amend for failure to plausibly plead discriminatory motive or threats |
| Motion to strike punitive damages under Rule 12(f) | N/A (plaintiff seeks punitive damages) | Defendants seek to strike punitive damages as legally insufficient using Rule 12(f) | Denied — Rule 12(f) cannot be used to strike a damages claim on substantive grounds |
| Plaintiff's numerous procedural motions (IFP, default, discovery, recusal, motions to strike filings) | Plaintiff filed multiple motions seeking IFP status, default, to compel, recusal, and to strike counsel filings | Defendants oppose or treat filings as improper/moot; court limited further filings | All identified pro se motions denied (some as moot); court warned regarding procedural rules and suggested Legal Help Center assistance |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must be plausible)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard and plausibility framework)
- Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097 (Rule 12(b)(6) standard in Ninth Circuit)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (leave to amend and pro se pleading standards)
- Hilton v. Hallmark Cards, 599 F.3d 894 (Anti‑SLAPP burdens in Ninth Circuit)
- Silberg v. Anderson, 50 Cal.3d 205 (litigation privilege elements)
- Thayer v. Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, 207 Cal. App. 4th 141 (lawyers protected by Anti‑SLAPP for litigation‑related activities)
- Bonni v. St. Joseph Health Sys., 11 Cal.5th 995 (litigation‑related acts and communications protected under Anti‑SLAPP)
- Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi‑Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970 (Rule 12(f) cannot be used to strike damages claims)