The Truth
A Story of Success vs. Failures
Over 150 locations & 50 leaders
After acquiring 150 stores nationwide, State Storage has only encountered some minor disputes related to underperformance, mainly due to integrating new leaders to help drive growth. However, these issues represent less than 3% of our operations, and over the past three years, the only significant claims have come from Gorilla Holdings, which are largely considered frivolous.
When operating at a high capacity and closing over 150 locations in under 10 years disputes are bound to occur, how they are handled outlines the full picture.
PARTNER DISPUTE: FRAUDULENT ACTIVITIES
Gorilla Holdings Vs State Storage Tampa Bay & David Heil
David Minor
Within the State Storage Group, tensions rose when a partner named David Minor began to fall behind on nearly every obligation he had agreed to. What started as minor delays quickly turned into chronic non-performance. Materials went missing, revenue fell, timelines slipped without explanation, and David’s stories shifted each time the team pressed him for answers.
As accountability tightened, David’s deflected responsibility by making accusations against the very people who had hired him. He claimed mismanagement, conspiracies, and mistreatment—none of which were supported by documents, witnesses, or facts.
When the disputes spilled into legal, his pattern became even clearer. He failed to pay, he missed deadlines, and ignored required filings. One by one, judges issued default rulings against him. Each decision underscored the same conclusion: the accusations lacked merit, and his failures to perform were solely his own doing.
By the end, State Storage Group had not only uncovered the gaps and inconsistencies in his work, but also demonstrated—through the legal process—the truth behind his claims. The defaults served as a formal acknowledgment of his inability to substantiate his accusations or defend his actions, bringing an end to a costly and disruptive chapter. In an attempt to defame State Storage, David Minor created the website www.ssgrico.com in an attempt to black mail the company and push fraudulent statements across the internet.
Fraudulant Website Created
Results in Minor Counter Sued
David Minor allegedly told one of our legacy business partners, Jayme Wait, that he could ‘hurt our position’ regarding Jordan’s claims, and his actions have contributed to complications in that matter. However, those actions led to defamation counterclaims being filed, and no default was issued.
PARTNER DISPUTE: THEFT
Upstate Holdings Vs Ang & State Storage Group / Jhog Vs Texas Built & David Heil
Jordan Hidalgo
The court and arbitration records, combined with the documented financial history of the partnerships, demonstrate that:
-
Jordan Hidalgo contributed almost no capital, carried no personal liability, and repeatedly relied on others’ guarantees and equity to complete transactions he could not fund himself.
-
His mismanagement directly caused project delays, cost overruns, and reduced asset values.
-
He attempted to enrich himself through coercion, self-awarded commissions, extortion attempts, and baseless litigation.
-
Arbitrators and the evidence overwhelmingly rejected his claims, awarding him only $2 in the 2019 arbitration and confirming that the majority partners acted properly and bore the financial burdens Jordan avoided.
Jordan’s conduct across both the ANG/SSG and Lubbock ventures reflects a sustained pattern of fraud, misrepresentation of his financial capacity, dereliction of management duties, and exploitation of partners who bore the actual financial risks.
Summary of Court Findings, Arbitration Outcomes, and Documented Misconduct of Jordan Hidalgo
​
Between 2017 and 2025, multiple disputes, arbitrations, and lawsuits involving Jordan Hidalgo (acting through Upstate Holdings and JHOG) revealed a repeated pattern of financial misrepresentation, refusal to meet contractual capital obligations, coercion, and attempts to extract disproportionate payouts despite having little or no personal capital at risk. The documented record from the Upstate vs. SSG & ANG arbitration (2019–2020) and the JHOG vs. ANG/SSG/Texas Built litigation (2020–2025) shows that Jordan consistently underfunded his obligations, mismanaged assets under his control, impaired project values, and then used litigation and threats to seek windfall compensation.
I. 2019 Arbitration: Upstate vs. SSG & ANG
Outcome: Jordan awarded $2 in damages + arbitration fees
Court finding: Jordan failed to prove his claims and was the source of the partnership’s financial shortfalls.
A. Failure to Contribute Required Capital
Jordan was obligated to fund 20% of capital calls for the construction of the Largo, FL self-storage property (12501).
Instead:
-
He repeatedly refused to contribute capital after the company exhausted member funds.
-
The shortfall was exacerbated because Jordan was the only member on the ground and directly responsible for costly construction errors.
B. Costly Construction Errors Caused by Jordan
Under Jordan’s oversight, major design mistakes caused over $150,000 in cost impairments, including:
-
Relocating a bathroom 300 feet away from existing utilities
-
Designing roof lines to pitch off-property, bypassing drainage systems and requiring redesign
These errors stalled permits and added major costs that all members had to absorb.
C. Refusal to Purchase the 6th Building at 13001
Jordan—despite being the only local representative—refused to buy the 6th building for $500,000 cash, even though:
-
The seller required fast closing
-
The acquisition would have secured, automated, and completed the entire 13001 site
His refusal left the group unable to complete the site as planned.
D. Majority “Held Hostage” Due to Jordan’s Non-Performance
Because Jordan refused to fund the projects or act on opportunities:
-
The 12501 site could not obtain a certificate of occupancy
-
The group could not acquire the key 13001 building
-
Both assets ultimately had to be sold prematurely
12501 sold for: $100,000 over appraisal
13001 sold for: $1.75M (equal to project cost, but with no T-12 income due to Jordan-imposed leverage)
E. Jordan’s $32,000 Self-Awarded Commission
Jordan was the only person ever to take a commission in any State Storage Group partnership transaction.
He:
-
Coerced the group into paying him a $32,000 commission on the 13001 sale
-
Attempted to classify this commission as a capital contribution, even though it was not new cash
F. Capital Contributions vs. Actual Cash at Risk
Across the ANG and SSG partnerships:
-
Total capital injected: $553,000
-
Jordan’s verifiable contribution: $39,050 total, of which:
-
$32,000 was the commission he paid to himself
-
Only $7,050 was genuine new cash
-
Jordan contributed 7% of total capital yet demanded outsized returns, despite:
-
Having no personal guarantees on the loans (due to prior bankruptcy)
-
Carrying virtually zero financial risk
Other members personally guaranteed millions of dollars, while Jordan’s exposure remained negligible.
G. Extortion Attempt
After refusing for two years to fund required capital calls, Jordan attempted to extort more than $225,000 from the partnership in exchange for signing off on necessary project documentation.
The arbitrator awarded him $2, effectively rejecting his claims and supporting the majority’s account of his misconduct.
II. 2020 Litigation: JHOG vs. ANG, SSG, Texas Built, and David J. Heil
A. Jordan Brings a Deal to SSG Because He Lacked Capital & Credit
In 2018, Jordan brought forward the Lubbock, Texas acquisition because:
-
He could not qualify for financing
-
He did not have the equity needed for the deal
SSG principals provided:
-
Personal guarantees for a highly leveraged SBA 7(a) loan
-
$400,000 in cross-collateralized equity from a separate SSG-owned asset
-
This asset had significant equity and value ($3.7M appraisal, $2.6M debt)
-
SSG risked its own 40% interest in another property solely to make Jordan’s Lubbock opportunity possible.
Jordan risked no collateral and no personal guarantees.
B. Jordan Insists on Reducing His Required Down Payment to Zero
Jordan negotiated:
-
A $60,000 “Repair & Maintenance” credit at closing
-
A separate entity structure allowing $100,000 to be contributed by partner Otniel Gil
The result:
-
Jordan’s personal equity requirement dropped from $160,000 to $0
-
Jordan refused to reimburse Gil, instead encouraging him to “stay in for a big payout”
C. Jordan Named Managing Member — Then Performance Declines
Under the agreement:
-
Jordan was managing member
-
He was responsible for leasing, operations, and property improvements
During his control, NOI fell from $210,000 to $186,000, alarming the majority due to:
-
Mismanagement
-
Failure to reach leasing expectations
-
Deterioration of the asset’s financial health
D. Majority Removes Jordan and Stabilizes Asset Through Texas Built LLC
To protect the PGs and stop financial decline:
-
Texas Built (formed by State Storage Southwest, ANG, and SSG) took over operations
-
A master lease was put in place to:
-
Cover all debt
-
Eliminate operating shortfalls
-
Restore cash flow stability
-
Texas Built’s intervention preserved credit and prevented loan default.
E. Purchase Option Would Have Fully Repaid All Debts
The master lease included a $3 million purchase option, which:
-
Would satisfy all liabilities
-
Would generate over $200,000 in net proceeds for State Storage Lubbock LLC
-
Ensured solvency of the company
Despite this, Jordan chose to file years of litigation, consuming company resources and blocking resolution.
F. Pattern of Behavior
The Lubbock case mirrors the Florida pattern:
-
Jordan enters with no real capital
-
Others carry debt, liability, and risk
-
The project underperforms under his management
-
Jordan threatens litigation or seeks a buyout far exceeding his contribution
-
Jordan weaponizes legal filings when challenged
Established Pattern of Fraud, Misrepresentation, and Bad Faith
Across both the Florida and Texas disputes, a consistent pattern emerges
Too Big to Fail - Olympus Pools Implodes
James Staten responded to Hidalgo’s departure to investigative journalist Shannon Behnken in an email contradicting Hidalgo’s version of the story. Staten stated that Hidalgo was “never able to ‘buy’ even a portion of Olympus,” and said that, “there has been no ‘due diligence period’ and Mr. Hidalgo has failed to perform even his most basic obligations.”
