PART I – 5 Cases where moving and storage companies were sued for some type of fraud against the Consumer and/or against other Businesses

These group of cases represent consumers in lawsuits against moving companies and/or arbitration. Lawsuits against moving companies may include damages to property, breach of contract, tariff or regulatory violations, and hostage loads.

* The Attorney General's Office filed a lawsuit against Moving Max in July 2014, alleging they "engaged in a predatory bait and switch scheme," billed customers for "bogus charges," and then "threatened to drive off and retain the customers personal belongings unless and until payment was made by cash or money order."

Under the terms of the Final Consent Judgment (entered February 13, 2015), that concluded a lawsuit filed in State Superior Court in Bergen County, the owner of Moving Max, Inc., a moving and storage company based in Fair Lawn, and the owner’s father, are permanently barred from owning or working in such businesses in New Jersey. In addition, as part of the settlement, 18 consumers who complained that their possessions were held until they paid substantially higher moving costs than agreed to, will be reimbursed for their losses.

Case Cite:
John J. Hoffman v. Moving Max, Inc., et al.
Bergen County New Jersey Case No.: BER-C-203-14 http://nj.gov/oag/newsreleases15/Moving-Max-Oziel.pdf * Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. (plaintiff) and Safeguard Self Storage, Inc. (defendant) are competitors in the self-storage business. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant embarked on a systematic scheme to hire away key employees from the plaintiff for the purpose of obtaining the plaintiff's trade secrets. The plaintiff also alleges that some of these employees, while still working for the plaintiff, used the plaintiff's computers to send trade secrets to the defendant via e-mail. The plaintiff's complaint alleges misappropriation of trade secrets, conversion, unfair competition, violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), tortious interference with a business expectancy, and seeks injunctive relief and damages. The defendant has moved to dismiss the CFAA claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), docket no. 7.[1] The Court now DENIES the defendant's motion to dismiss the CFAA claim for the reasons set forth in this order.

Case Cite:
Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. v. Safeguard Self Storage, Inc., 119 F. Supp. 2d 1121 http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/rwarner/classes/ecommerce/materials/cfaa/shurguard.pdf * Plaintiff brings this action for "Breach of Contract under False Preten[s]es" and "Fraudulent[] Charges," Compl. at 1, against National Self Service Storage, "a company engaged in the business of renting personal storage units." Mem. of Grounds & Auth. in Support of Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, With Prejudice, or in the Alternative, J. on the Pleadings in Favor of the Def. ("Def.'s Mem.") at 1. It appears that plaintiff rented a storage unit at defendant's facility, that a dispute arose as to the timely payment of rental fees, that defendant assessed late fees and other costs, and that, ultimately, defendant denied plaintiff access to the storage unit and its contents. See generally Compl. As compensation for property and income allegedly lost as a result of defendant's actions, plaintiff demands damages of $100,000.00. Id. at 1.

Case Cite:
Crabbe v. NATIONAL SELF SERVICE STORAGE, 955 F. Supp. 2d 1 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2646098566452353959&q=storage+company+fraud&hl=en&as_sdt=40006&as_ylo=2011 * A moving company that racked up at least 55 consumer complaints over two years was fined more than $100,000 and slapped with a two-year probation in a settlement with the Arizona Attorney General’s Office.
The Attorney General’s Office filed a consumer fraud lawsuit against Allstars Movers and Storage Inc. in 2014 after the business was alleged to have violated the Consumer Fraud Protection Act and a previous consent judgment. Attorney General’s Office stated the current lawsuit alleges the moving company “added unwarranted fees to its invoices,” “falsely advertised that it was licensed, bonded and/or insured” and “provided a sham claims process for damaged, destroyed and/or lost items.”
Case Press Release: https://www.azag.gov/press-release/attorney-general-tom-horne-files-lawsuits-against-arizona-moving-companies August 2015 Case Article: https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2015/08/15/allstars-movers-must-pay-restitution-to-victims/ LATEST MOVING COMPANY NEWS: http://www.movingscam.com/links/latest-news http://www.thecmsa.org/html/consumer/consumerpdfs/Important%20Information%20for%20Persons%20Moving%20Household%20Goods.pdf

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. Federal law governing interstate shipments of household goods under 49 CFR § 375.211 provides that an interstate moving company must have a program in place to provide shippers with an arbitration alternative to litigation. Arbitration is optional and not required under federal law. A moving company cannot require that a consumer shipper proceed through arbitration prior to litigation. Arbitration is available for all claims involving property loss, property damage, and disputes over charges for services.
A moving company must provide each potential consumer shipper with a written summary of the arbitration program prior to the order for service being issued. The written summary of the moving company's arbitration program must include (1) a summary of the arbitration process; (2) the associated cost for each party involved in the arbitration; and (3) the legal effects of an arbitration.
The arbitrator selected by the parties must render a decision within 60 days of the receipt of the written notification of the dispute by the parties. In regard to the applicable costs associated with the arbitration, a moving company cannot require that a consumer shipper be responsible for more than 50% of the cost.
If the arbitration alternative is chosen, then any decision made by the arbitrator may be binding if the dispute is for an amount less than $10,000. Additionally, an arbitration decision may not be appealed in a court of law.