Christopher Cirotto had a tough time when American Self Storage auctioned his belongings in Pickerington, Ohio. He took the matter to court, claiming breach of contract and emotional distress, among other things, but he has had an uphill legal battle. Let’s break down what happened.
The Storage Unit Saga
Cirotto rented a storage unit from American Self Storage (ASS) starting September 2019. In early 2022, he fell behind on rent payments.
When he tried to pay up on February 21, the manager told him they had cut his lock and planned to auction all his possessions. Cirotto was shocked because the storage company had a policy that required a customer to be over 90 days late before taking such action. He claimed he never got any notices about the auction, but the manager showed him copies of said claim.
TROubled Waters
The auction was planned for March 5, 2022. Three days before the auction was scheduled, Cirotto filed a complaint and asked for a temporary restraining order (TRO) in Fairfield County Court to stop the auction. The next day, the court granted the TRO, preventing the sale for two weeks.
There was some legal back-and-forth that muddied things: it turned out the storage facility was actually in Franklin County (not Fairfield), so the case moved there after a venue change request by ASS. None of that mattered: Cirotto soon learned that his items were sold weeks earlier at the originally scheduled auction, despite the TRO.
Needless to say, he was not happy.
Cirotto Complains to Court (Again)
On April 26, Christopher Cirotto filed a pro se legal complaint against the ASS store and its owner. Pro se means he represented himself. He alleged breach of contract, promissory estoppel, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), fraud, and extortion.
Cirotto believed that the facility acted improperly by cutting his lock and selling his possessions before he was over 90 days late on rent without giving him notice. Cirotto also requested a permanent restraining order or continuation of the TRO he had obtained earlier to prevent the sale of his belongings. He amended his complaint to include more defendants, including the owner of the individual store and others connected with ASS and its legal team.
Judge Weeds Out Claims
The trial court in Franklin County dismissed many of Cirotto's claims — he was kind of throwing spaghetti at the wall, after all. Not unusual for a pro se claimant.
But the trial court upheld Cirotto’s breach of contract claim — at least against ASS; the claims were dismissed against other defendants because the court found no contractual relationship between them and Cirotto.
After dismissing most claims, the court limited discovery to issues relevant to damages from the breach of contract by ASS. This decision aimed to prevent undue burden and expense associated with irrelevant discovery requests.
Debates Over Damages
ASS admitted liability for breaching their contract with Cirotto but contested how much they should pay him in damages.
After hearing testimonies about what was stored in Cirotto’s unit — like suits valued at $4,000 and leather jackets worth $1,000 — the magistrate awarded him $7,500 for personal property loss plus $525 for rental payments made after losing access to his items. He had also initially awarded $5,000 for sentimental property loss, but on ASS’s objection, reversed this due to lack of credible evidence supporting such valuation.
Overall, while the trial court recognized liability on the part of American Self Storage for breaching its contract with Cirotto, it found many other claims legally insufficient or unsupported by credible evidence.
Appeals Court Throws Cirotto a Bone
On appeal, Cirotto argued that the trial court erred by not construing his complaint favorably and denying him full discovery rights. The appellate court agreed that the trial court should not have dismissed his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against American Self Storage.
The appellate court found that even though Cirotto had fallen behind on his payments, for ASS to disposing of his belongings through an auction —especially in direct violation of a TRO — constitutes “extreme and outrageous conduct.”
The appellate court did, however, affirm the dismissals for fraud and extortion claims due to insufficient evidence. Similarly, regarding damages, the appellate court upheld everything the trial court had ruled. The case was remanded back to the trial court solely for further proceedings on the IIED claim against ASS, while leaving the rulings on all other issues in place.
In essence, while Cirotto achieved partial success in reviving his IIED claim, his broader quest for extensive damages remained largely constrained by procedural standards and evidentiary requirements. Put simply, in a case like this, especially where the litigant is representing himself, it’s very unlikely that he will get more than what the court of appeals has already granted him.
Related Resources:
- Judge Allows Suit Against Burger King Questioning if Size Matters To Proceed (FindLaw's Legally Weird)
- Emotional Distress Quiz (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
- Lessons From an 8-Year-Old's 70k Dum Dums Amazon Order (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
