Tony Chaney v. Extra Space Storage, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted March 22, 2023*
Decided March 23, 2023
Before
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 22-2747
TONY CHANEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
EXTRA SPACE STORAGE, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 19-cv-05858
Martha M. Pacold,
Judge.
O R D E R
Tony Chaney rented storage space through an agreement that generally relieved
the storage company of liability for losses from theft and rodents. After experiencing
such losses, and the denial of access to a toilet, Chaney sued the company, Extra Space
Storage, Inc., for damages. The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. FED. R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 22-2747 Page 2
claim. Because the agreement relieves Extra Space of liability for Chaney’s losses, and
the laws he invokes do not provide for damages regarding the toilet, we affirm.
We accept Chaney’s allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in his
favor. Taylor v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 958 F.3d 556, 562 (7th Cir. 2020). Chaney, a
disabled African American, rented a storage unit from Extra Space in Chicago, Illinois.
Because his rental contract is critical to his complaint and referred to in it, and Chaney
does not contest the validity of the copy of the contract in the record, we may consider
it. See Geinosky v. City of Chicago, 675 F.3d 743, 745 n.1 (7th Cir. 2012). Under the contract,
Chaney stipulated that Extra Space “shall not be liable … for any damage” to his
property “from any cause whatsoever, including … theft, … rodents, … or failure to act
… except for damage or loss resulting from … fraud, gross negligence or willful
violation of law.” Chaney agreed to “maintain” insurance for his property or bear “all
risk of loss.” He also agreed that Extra Space “[d]oes not provide insurance” and he
could seek insurance from his own agent or a company listed in the contract.
Chaney was dissatisfied with Extra Space. The facility, he says, was infested with
rodents; it did not aim any security monitors at his unit, which was burglarized; its
manager failed to help police investigate the burglaries; and it denied him the use of a
toilet at the facility.
He sued Extra Space in state court over these issues, and Extra Space removed
the suit to federal court under diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. After Chaney
amended his complaint twice, Extra Space moved for judgment on the pleadings, and
the district court granted the motion. As relevant to this appeal, the court concluded
that Extra Space was not liable for loss from theft or rodents unless the loss resulted
from gross negligence, fraud, or willful violations of law. But Chaney had not plausibly
alleged that those exceptions applied. Next, the court noted that Chaney accused Extra
Space of violating 215 ILCS 5/500-107, a law requiring licensure for storage facilities that
offer or sell insurance. But Extra Space did not offer or sell insurance. The court then
observed that Chaney also accused Extra Space of fraud and violating the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968. But Chaney
did not identify any predicate acts of fraud. Finally, the court considered Chaney’s
claim that Extra Space unlawfully denied him toilet access. But, the court explained,
Chaney had not adequately alleged that the toilet was a public accommodation, and he
sought damages under laws that do not supply such relief.

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 22-2747 Page 3
On appeal, Chaney contests the dismissal of his suit on the pleadings, a decision
that we review de novo. Taylor, 958 F.3d at 562. He begins by observing that Extra Space
may be liable for losses caused by its willful violations of law, and, he contends, Extra
Space violated the RICO Act by fraudulently offering contracts that do not comply with
215 ILCS 5/500-107. Under this Illinois law, a self-service storage facility “must” obtain a
“license before offering or selling insurance.” 215 ILCS 5/500-107(a). But the complaint
does not allege that Extra Space offers or sells insurance. To the contrary, the rental
contract states that Extra Space “[d]oes not provide insurance” and lists companies that
do. Thus, the contract refutes assertions of fraud. Chaney responds with vague
allegations about fraud involving administrative fees and regulations of the Securities
and Exchange Commission and the Internal Revenue Service. When alleging fraud,
plaintiffs face a higher bar. They “must state with particularity the circumstances
constituting fraud.” FED. R. C IV. P. 9(b). Chaney’s allegations were not specific enough
to meet this standard.
Next, Chaney alleges that Extra Space is responsible for the loss and damage
from the rodents and burglaries. He cites the provision of the contract that relieves
Extra Space of liability for losses from “theft,” “rodents,” and “failure to act” unless
caused by its “gross negligence.” And, he insists, Extra Space’s failure to stop rodents,
to aim security monitors at his unit (to stop burglaries), and to have a manager help him
after the burglaries, equals gross negligence. But for claims of gross negligence, Chaney
must show that Extra Space substantially departed from a common-law duty. See Alonso
v. Weiss, 932 F.3d 995, 1004 (7th Cir. 2019). Yet he does not supply authority suggesting
that, if Extra Space did not eradicate all rodents, train security monitors on his unit, or
render aid after burglaries, then it substantially departed from whatever duty it had
when renting storage space. See Vesely v. Armslist LLC, 762 F.3d 661, 665 (7th Cir. 2014)
(addressing element of duty in negligence claims). Consequently, the claim fails.
Finally, Chaney unsuccessfully restates his claim that Extra Space unlawfully
refused him access to a toilet. He invokes both the Americans with Disabilities Act,
42 U.S.C. § 12101, and Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a, which
provide equitable relief when operators of public accommodations deny such access.
Even if we assume that the toilet was publicly available, he seeks only money damages,
and neither statute provides for that relief. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a-3, 12188(a)(1); Newman v.
Piggie Park Enters., Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402 (1968). Chaney also cites the equal protection
clauses of the Illinois and U.S. constitutions, but those address government action—not
private companies like Extra Space.

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 22-2747 Page 4
We have considered Chaney’s other arguments, and none has merit.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --