Randall Winslow v. Extra Space Storage

── Randall Winslow v. Extra Space Storage ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 25-2249 __________ RANDALL WINSLOW, Appellant v. EXTRA STORAGE SPACE; LOGAN HARMAN ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-04930) District Judge: Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) April 10, 2026 Before: KRAUSE, RESTREPO, and PORTER, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: April 24, 2026) ___________ OPINION* ___________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PER CURIAM Randall Winslow appeals pro se from the District Court’s decision granting summary judgment against him in this civil action stemming from his rental of storage units. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm that judgment. I. For many years, Winslow rented, pursuant to a written agreement, two storage units at an Extra Space Storage (“ESS”) facility in Malvern, Pennsylvania, to store “valuable family heirlooms, antiques, and documents.” Dist. Ct. Op. entered June 5, 2025, at 3 [hereinafter Dist. Ct. Op.] (quoting defendants’ statement of material undisputed facts).1 In February 2022, he visited the units and found his property damaged — damage that, according to him, resulted from large temperature fluctuations at the facility.2 In December 2023, Winslow sued ESS and the district manager of the Malvern facility (Logan Harmon) in the District Court, raising claims for negligence, breach of contract, unfair trade practices, fraud, fraud by deception, and negligent misrepresentation. After discovery, the defendants jointly moved the District Court for summary judgment, and Winslow opposed that motion. On June 5, 2025, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. This timely appeal followed. 1 The record references both “Extra Space Storage, Inc.” (mistakenly pleaded by Winslow as “Extra Storage Space”) and “Extra Space Management, Inc.” We need not decide which of these entities was the proper defendant to resolve this appeal. 2 Winslow had not obtained insurance coverage for that personal property. 2  II. Winslow brought this case pursuant to the diversity-jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), and the District Court predicated its jurisdiction on that basis. “In order to meet the strictures of the diversity statute, complete diversity is required, meaning that at the time the complaint is filed, no party can be a citizen of the same state as any opposing party.” Peace Church Risk Retention Grp. v. Johnson Controls Fire Prot. LP, 49 F.4th 866, 870 (3d Cir. 2022).3 “The burden of demonstrating that a case falls within the jurisdiction of the federal court rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” In re Cmty. Bank of N. Va. Mortg. Lending Pracs. Litig., 911 F.3d 666, 670-71 (3d Cir. 2018). Winslow’s pleadings in the District Court did not establish that there is complete diversity of citizenship in this case. Furthermore, alt