Circuit Court of Cook County, IL
Extra Space Storage
Initial Non-unabbreviated Component of 10/28/14 of Complaint of 10/28/14
This complaint is either being filed in the barest bone minimum form in which RJM understood he could file it as completed at 16:00 p.m. on 10/29/12, should the Order of 9/6/13 in Case # 11 M1 013782 have been rescinded, so as to get it filed and served early enough to ensure the protection of the claims contained herein from any legitimate invocation of any claim of lack of timeliness in the filing and service whereof, or should it not get submitted for filing on such date, constitutes RJM's endeavor to ensure that in any such worst case scenario in re the filing whereof which might be encountered, that damages can be procured from Judge S. Jone's for his having unjustiifiably issued the order he issued on 9/6/13 in Case # 11 M1 013782. The RICO, common law fraud and/or breach of contract claims which are related to the claim postulated herein will be added hereto when necessary to get such added in order to prevent any legitimate invocation of any res judicata defense(s) which absent such additions might ever be filed in re such claim(s).
Jurisdiction And Venue
This Court, being a state court of general jurisdiction, possesses—pursuant to § 9 of Art. VI of the Illinois Constitution, subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiff’s justiciable claims of a common law, statutory law, and equitable nature, as the State Courts of the State of IL are courts of general and unlimited jurisdiction. Herb v Pitcairn (_U.S._). Any claims of a federal constitutional dimension included herein are subject to this Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to the authority postulated in among other SCOTUS opinions those of Herb supra, Claflin v Houseman (_U.S._) and Lockerty v Phillips (_U.S._) which point the Supreme Court of the State of IL had to explain to the IL App. Ct, First District in the opinion recently postulated in Blount v Stroud ( _ Ill. 3d _).
B) All Parties include in this complaint were conducting the activity in regard to which the claims herein addressed concern, in Cook County, IL, so this Court possesses personal jurisdiction over all Defendants listed herein.
Barest minimum of factual predicates necessary to sustain claims concerned until Defendants answer complaint:
1. Extra Space Storage ("ESS") is a self-storage company operating several facilities in Chicago, IL.
2. ESS regularly raises rental rates and notifies its customers of such rate increases via a postcard.
3. RJM has been renting a storage unit at the Harrison St., Chicago, IL ESS facility since ESS bought such facility from Storage USA in 2007.
4. Sometime in September or October of 2011, Robert J. More ("RJM") received notice that the rent for Unit 135 which RJM was then renting was increasing from $133 per month to $147 per month.
5. RJM informed ESS Manager Ms. Delia Williams ("MDW") that RJM would terminate his lease effective at the October rent due date unless the rate were kept no higher than $140 per month.
5. MDW informed RJM that ESS would charge RJM $140 per month for the rental of Unit #135 effective on the October 2011 rent due date.
6. When RJM's brother Thomas A. More ("TAM") called MDW to make the November 2011 rent payment for Unit #135 on RJM's behalf, MDW informed TAM that she would take $147 off of TAM's credit card.
7. TAM either was not notified that MDW had stipulated to the $140.00 per month rent as referenced herein supra or had forgotten this and TAM then remitted the sum of $147.00 per month via his credit card to ESS.
8. When RJM became aware of this development, sometime shortly after the payment referenced herein was made, RJM contacted ESS MDW to complain about this modification in the terms of agreement re the rent increase this document concerns and to explain that RJM did not in any way consent to such modification.
9. It is RJM's recollection that MDW informed RJM that some district manager whose name RJM recalls may have been "Valerie" disallowed the arrangement which MDW had induced RJM to accept as referenced herein supra, keeping the rate increase to $147.00 in place.
10. In each succeeding month from October of 2014 thru February of 2014, when RJM remitted the rent payment for Unit # 135 ("135") RJM included a statement of his position along wherewith claiming that the remission of the full rent charge (which over time continued to rise) for any given month could not possibly be construed to constitute any relinquishment of any claim which RJM has ever possessed to recover the difference between the rate ever charged for any given month and what such rate would have been had MDW honored the commitment she induced RJM to accept in October of 2011, when ESS was facing the prospect of RJM's terminating his ESS lease agreement.
11. In March of 2014 RJM moved from Unit # 135 to to Unit # 2016.
12. The rest of the facts pertinent to causes of action beyond those relating solely to the facts included herein will be provided in amendments to this complaint.
Count #1 - Violation of the State of Illinois'es Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, Common Law Fraud and/or Breach of Contract
Factual averments, #ed 1-11, supra, are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein.
Such facts state a cause of action according to which relief can be granted in the State of IL for the torts/contract breach referenced herein.
Wherefore, RJM herein demands the sum of $196.00 for the perpetration of such unjustified- injury-causing duty breach and whatever punitive damages a jury might consider it necessary to award in re whereto
Plaintiff demands trial by jury [in this case]..
I aver that all factual averments contained herein are true.
Under penalty of perjury pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 1746 and 735 ILCS 5/1-109, I aver to the veracity of all factual averments contained herein.
Robert J. More
P.O. Box 6926
Chicago, IL 60680,
email@example.com, 863 688-9880 (lv msg)
Document List of 10/28/14 (D/L 10/28/14)
1. D/L of 10/28/14 X
2. Complaint of 10/28/14 X
3. Paupers Petition/IL Sup. Ct. Rule 298 Petition