Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02087/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02087-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN DELEON, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated 

and the general public,

Plaintiff,

v.

ELITE SELF STORAGE 

MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-02087-MCE-EFB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff John DeLeon (“Plaintiff”) filed the pending Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining Defendants Elite Self Storage 

Management, LLC, Mandot LLC, doing business as 1st American Self Storage, Budget 

Self Storage, LLC, dba Tiger Self Storage, Repwest Insurance Company, Great 

American Assurance Company, Brandon Joseph Luthye, and Tina Luthye (collectively 

“Defendants”) from engaging in the business practice of denying self-service storage 

tenants access to all storage facilities operated or managed by Defendant, Elite Self 

Storage Management, LLC (hereinafter “Elite”), for failure to pay fees and charges due 

at any self-service storage facility operated or managed by Elite. Plaintiff asks that the 

requested injunction remain effective for the duration of this litigation. 

Case 2:15-cv-02087-MCE-EFB Document 48 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s Motion on two grounds: (1) Plaintiff has already 

removed his personal property from Defendants’ premises, and (2) because the parties 

have no intention of resuming a business relationship for storing Plaintiff’s personal 

property, there is no longer any actionable “case or controversy.” ECF No. 29.

The Court agrees that there is no live “case or controversy,” as Article III of the 

United States Constitution requires. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED as moot. 

BACKGROUND1

On March 23, 2015, Plaintiff went to Tiger Self Storage to rent a storage unit for 

his family’s personal property. On May 5, 2015, Plaintiff went to 1st American Self 

Storage to rent an additional storage unit. Both Tiger Self Storage and 1st American 

Self Storage are owned and operated by Elite. 

On August 2, 2015, Plaintiff attempted to access his storage unit at the 1st 

American Self Storage facility and was denied access. After contacting 1st American 

Self Storage to inquire as to his denied access, Plaintiff was informed that he would not 

have access to either of his storage units until he made his rental balance current. On 

September 16, 2015, after partial payment and further negotiation, Plaintiff regained

access to his storage units. On October 2, 2015, Plaintiff removed his personal property 

from the storage units. 

ANALYSIS 

Plaintiff contends that a preliminary injunction is necessary to protect him from 

unlawful fees and being refused lawful access to his self-service storage units and the

personal property stored therein.

 1 The following statement of facts is based on the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-1, 

Ex. A). 

Case 2:15-cv-02087-MCE-EFB Document 48 Filed 02/16/16 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Defendants counter that the following facts are undisputed: (1) Defendants 

granted Plaintiff access to his personal belongings, (2) Plaintiff regained possession of 

his personal belongings, and (3) Defendants are no longer in possession of any of 

Plaintiff’s personal belongings. Defendants further contend that in order for Defendants 

to be physically capable of engaging in the same alleged conduct—that is, denying

Plaintiff access to his storage unit—Plaintiff would first need to rent another storage unit 

from Defendants. Based on the parties’ history of dealings, threats of litigation, and filing 

a lawsuit, there is no reasonable expectation that Plaintiff will ever give Defendants 

access to his property again. Because there is no reasonable expectation that 

Defendants will ever again have possession of Plaintiff’s personal property, Plaintiff’s 

request for a preliminary injunction should be denied as moot. 

“[F]ederal courts are without power to decide questions that cannot affect the 

rights of litigants in the case before them.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 

(1971). “The inability of the federal judiciary ‘to review moot cases derives from the 

requirement of Art[icle] III of the Constitution under which the exercise of judicial power 

depends upon the existence of a case or controversy.’” DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 

312, 316 (1974) (quoting Liner v. Jafco, Inc., 375 U.S. 301, 306 n.3 (1964)). A claim is 

moot “‘when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally 

cognizable interest in the outcome.’” Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 721, 726 

(2013) (quoting Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982) (per curiam)). Further, “[a] 

case becomes moot when the interim relief or events have deprived the court of the 

ability to redress the party’s injuries.” United States v. Alder Creek Water Co., 823 F.2d 

343, 345 (9th Cir. 1987). 

“There is a line of decisions . . . standing for the proposition that the ‘voluntary 

cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not deprive the tribunal of power to hear and 

determine the case, i.e., does not make the case moot.’” DeFunis, 416 U.S. at 318 

(quoting United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632 (1953)). However, “[t]he 

case may nevertheless be moot if the defendant can demonstrate that ‘there is no 

Case 2:15-cv-02087-MCE-EFB Document 48 Filed 02/16/16 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated[;]’ [t]he burden is a heavy one.” 

W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. at 633. 

Plaintiff no longer has any belongings stored on Defendants’ property, and there 

is no indication that Plaintiff’s commercial relationship with Defendants will resume. 

Consequently, there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged wrong will be 

repeated as to Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff emphasizes injuries that might result to the 

proposed class absent a preliminary injunction, the Court has not certified any class. 

Because Plaintiff’s claim is moot prior to class certification, Plaintiff does not have 

standing to vindicate the alleged class-wide injury. See Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. 

Symcyzk, 133 S. Ct. 1523, 1532 (2013) (explaining that because Plaintiff “ha[d] no 

personal interest in representing putative, unnamed claimants, nor any other continuing 

interest that would preserve her suit from mootness[, her] suit was . . . appropriately 

dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction”).

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 11) is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-02087-MCE-EFB Document 48 Filed 02/16/16 Page 4 of 4