In a dramatic legal confrontation, a New Hampshire resident has filed a lawsuit against several Ohio residents and a storage facility, alleging unlawful possession and potential disposal of valuable personal and business property. On January 15, 2026, Julie Robert initiated the complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against Debra Brown, Phil McCall, and Cube Smart.
The case centers around accusations that the defendants unlawfully seized Robert’s property, valued at over $500,000. This includes rare antiques from the 16th to 19th centuries, garden items, business equipment, and tools. The plaintiff claims that her digital devices were accessed without authorization by the defendants, raising concerns about data theft and identity fraud. According to Robert’s filing, “Defendants intentionally interfered with Plaintiff’s personal property,” causing significant distress and operational disruption.
Robert asserts that her property was illegally stored at Cube Smart’s Unit 218 in Cleveland since November 13, 2025. Despite an agreement from mover Dave Thompson to release the property on December 13, 2025, it remains withheld. The plaintiff’s manager has corroborated these claims through an affidavit detailing their management of Robert’s assets.
In addition to seeking injunctive relief to prevent further unauthorized actions by the defendants regarding her property and data, Robert is demanding its return along with compensatory damages. She also seeks an order compelling Cube Smart to preserve all relevant video footage and evidence related to this matter.
The legal claims are extensive: violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), conversion under Ohio common law for wrongful seizure of property exceeding $500,000 in value; replevin for immediate return of specific items; trespass to chattels for interference with personal devices; civil conspiracy among defendants; and unjust enrichment due to their alleged benefits from using her property.
Robert’s plea emphasizes the irreplaceable nature of many items involved—particularly antique furniture—and argues that monetary compensation alone cannot address potential losses or mitigate ongoing risks posed by defendants’ actions. She requests temporary restraining orders against selling or damaging her possessions while pursuing full judicial remedies through trial proceedings.
Representing herself pro se is Julie Robert as no attorney names are listed within available documentation nor any judge other than Judge Fleming presiding over this case identified yet based on current records provided thus far bearing Case ID: 1:26-cv-00103-CEF.
Source: 126cv00103_Robert_v_Brown_Complaint_Northern_District_Ohio.pdf
