Mike khalil superior court of new jersey p. O box 429 bergen county justice center rutherford n.J. 10 main streets 07070 hackensack new jersey 07610 mike khalil plaintiff v
Extra space storage
2795 east cottonwood suit 400
Salt lake city utah 84121 defendants
And civil action
extra space storage verified complaint
270 south river street.
Hackensack, new jersey 07601. Discussions defendants
Notice of motion and motion for punitive damages {the trial court should award punitive damages because the defendant conduct was intentionally, willfully and recklessly.}
INTRODUCTIONS Please except this memorandum of the law on behalf of the plaintiff, MIKES KHALIL, in support of this motion for punitive damages against defendant, EXTRA SPACE STORAGE, OF HACKENSACK for willful and wanton. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff, Defendant entered into contractual agreement for leasing 2 Units. June 11 unit # 472 leased, in amount of $200.00 per month and June 13,201, Unit # 4109, leased in amount of $ 96.00 per month. Direct payment was authorized for both units on monthly of 11 and 13 of each month, Visa credit card. Please see payment schedule exhibit, p-1. BAD FAITH From inception of this contract every transaction, was unlawfully based on deceptive technique of unjustly self-enriching. Defendant manipulated the contract to enhance the payment. Choose which day to process the payment not following the contract agreement. Utilized, Visa credit card as cafeteria, accumulated extra charges exclusive from the agreement without any notices as agreed on. EMPHASIS
on June was charge of $16.40,23.50, July $17.72, August $17.72,
November, $48.23 December $48.23 Feb. Feb, of $ 58.00 for only for unit 472
Pad locking unit 4109 tell present time, unit 472 had been pad locked since Feb 13 for
Refusing to pay the rent increase. Please see exhibit P-1
Important to realize, on August 20 a notice to cease and desist was served on defendant Locally, their home office. Hence force, Defendant action left Plaintiff clueless to the charges, why, and for what reasons surcharges’. Notices is absent of any of billing changes. Contrary, to their own contract agreement, 2nd page paragraph (7), [provide]; “ All items on this Agreement are subject to change upon 30 days prior written notice to the Occupant, including, without limitations rental rate increase.” In lighting this court to the defendant, unjust enrichment, please Visit http://extra-space-storage-reviews. Usacomplaints.com/3540, there are 20 pages full of complaints of similar transactions.in every one of them the lessee was denied the equal protection of the law; due process, equal barraging, and the equal protections of the law, as per (adhesion contract.)
Argument
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Under the authority of;
N.J.S.A. § 2A: 15-5.12, Standard of Conduct;
In pertinent, aggravated circumstances, the trial court should award punitive damages because the defendant conduct was intentionally, willfully and recklessly by clear and convincing evidence. Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, embracement at the hands of defendant conduct. Denied access, padlocked without probable cause. The unequal bargaining, coercing, arm-twisting surcharging, whether, a rent increase or penalty. As matter of law judicial intervention is warrant to void the entrapments by the defendant. Foreseeable, for the plaintiff would be harmed by those acts and omissions, in light of Self-Service Storage Facility, N.J.S.A.§ 2a: 44-187. Pertinent in part; the owner of a storage facility has a lien against the property for nonpayment by lessee. Plaintiff must vacate the extra storages for defendant willful and wanton throughout this contract for the past 8 month every month extra charges, was imposed without explanations contrary to the lease agreement. Defendant conduct is a Gross negligence. Unjust enrichment callano v. Oakwood Park Homes Corp., 91 N.J. Super, 105,108 (App. Div. 1966), Goldsmith v. Camden County Surrogate’s Office, 408 N.J. Super. 376,382 (App. Div. 2009); the doctrine of unjust enrichment rests on the equitable principle that a person shall not be allowed to enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another. When a person receives a benefit and it would be inequitable to permit that person to retain the benefit without paying fair compensation or consideration for it, the doctrine of unjust enrichment permits courts of equity to fashion a remedy. Unconscionable business practices, in violation of the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -20.
Thus, punitive damages should be awarded to the plaintiff as follow and equitable. (1). $758.00 in moving expenses from extra space storage to another location in Fair Lawn. (2). Full refund for unit 4109, in amount of $697.88.
(3). Legal research, document preparations (4 X 60.00= $240.00.)
(4). Court cost$ 45.00 Based on fundamental and principles of justices, fairness doctrine of equitable relive, Judgment for the plaintiff, in amount of $1740.00 should be a warded. CONCLUSIONS Extra space storage, breached its fiduciary duties, unexplained rent increase, late fee charges lacking reasonable notices, or probable cause padlocking units, denying access while receiving full rent on time. This actual malice accompanied by a willful and wantons, unlawfully, just enriching. Judgment for the plaintiff in amount of $1740.00 should be granted.
RESPECTFULLY SUMMATED
Mike khalil
p.O. Box 429
RUTHERFORD N.J. 07070
201-873-9778
Feb 20.
0 comments