No. 21-303

Vignaraj Munsami Pillay v. Public Storage Inc.

Lower Court: Florida
Docketed: 2021-08-30
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Relisted (2)
Tags: breach-of-contract civil-procedure civil-rights corporate-liability due-process evidence exculpatory-clause motion-to-dismiss negligence property-damage standing tenant-rights
Key Terms:
Privacy
Latest Conference: 2022-01-07 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Can a motion to dismiss a complaint using citations out of context from distinguishable cases,polished and crafted , and completely unrelated to this case override the evidence, facts and the reality of the complaint ?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

No question identified. : Questions | (i)Can a motion to dismiss a complaint using citations out of context from distinguishable cases,polished and crafted , and completely unrelated to this case override the evidence, facts and the reality of the complaint ? | (ii)Can a fraudelant claim relieve a huge Corporation from gross negligence ? Paragrah # 77# | (iii)-Does the exculpatory clause legitimize a Coprporaion to have a gateway to continuous burglary and vandalism within its premises ? (iv)Does the exculpatory clause relieve a Corporation from liability for the damages caused by the structually deteriorated unit ceiling during 16 years ? | (v)Does the exculpatory clause legitimize the owners fraud ? Paragraf # 76#. | (vi)Does simply denying a cause of action relieve a Corporation from breach of contract ? As detailed in paragrafs # 67,68,and 69. : (vii)Does the exculpatory clause relieve a Corporation from breach of convenant of good faith? Paragraf # 70 # ( viii) — Does the 4" District court of appeal contradict its order of 04/23//2019, given to the ' Corporation ? Paragrafs # 48 to 53. : (ix)In analysis” by the affirmed Authors of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, they categorically ‘ affirm that the breakins occurred between 2005 and 2012, Naturally , to make such a categorical | statement they have the police reports, the video surveillance cameras and even witnesses to support | their claim, can they provide them to see who the real perpetrators are ? _ (x)-Why has Public Storage refused to inform the Petitioner of the incidents from 2012 to 2015,since | there were many of them as reported in the Hollywood police report.? ‘ (xi)Can the exculpatory clause void the statute of limitation based on the discovery of facts , a . witness and a Police report with the complaint filed on 02/23/2018, perfectly within the statutory : period.? Paragraf #734. ‘ (xii)why has public storage consistently refused to provide the video surveillance cameras which would certainly identify if the criminals were an internal or outside group. Paragraf # 33 #. 06/03/2020 ‘ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Docket Entries

2022-01-10
Rehearing DENIED.
2021-12-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/7/2022.
2021-11-22
2021-11-01
Petition DENIED.
2021-10-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/29/2021.
2021-09-29
Brief of respondent Public Storage Inc. in opposition filed.
2020-06-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 29, 2021)

Attorneys

Public Storage Inc.
David Lanier LuckLewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Respondent
David Lanier LuckLewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Respondent
Vignaraj Pillay
Vignaraj Munsami Pillay — Petitioner
Vignaraj Munsami Pillay — Petitioner