Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02954/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02954-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

ORDER – No. 16-cv-02954-LB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

GROUSE RIVER OUTFITTERS LTD,

Plaintiff,

v.

ORACLE CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-02954-LB

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

Re: ECF No. 119

For the reasons stated on the record on November 1, 2018 and below, the court grants in part 

and denies in part the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

First, on the fraud claims, the disputes of fact (including justifiable reliance) preclude the 

court’s summary judgment as a matter of law. 

Second, the court grants the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the nonfraud claims based on the limitation of liability in the parties’ contract, the Subscription Service 

Agreement (“SSA”). The following provisions exclude punitive damages and cap damages at the 

price of one year of subscription fees:

10. Limitations of Liability.

10.1. Exclusion of Consequential Damages. In no event shall either party be 

liable to anyone for lost profits or revenue, or for incidental, consequential, 

punitive, cover, special, reliance or exemplary damages, or indirect damages of any 

type of kind no matter how caused, whether from breach of warranty, breach or 

Case 3:16-cv-02954-LB Document 172 Filed 11/21/18 Page 1 of 3
ORDER – No. 16-cv-02954-LB 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

repudiation of contract, negligence, or any other legal cause of action from or in 

connection with this agreement.

10.2. Limitations on Liability. [T]he maximum liability of either party to any 

person, firm or corporation whatsoever arising out of or in connection with any 

license, use or other employment of the Service, whether such liability arises from 

any claim based on breach or repudiation of contract, breach of warranty, 

negligence, tort, statutory duty, or otherwise shall in no case exceed the equivalent 

of 12 months in subscription fees applicable at the time of the event[.]

1

See Embotelladora Electroputa S.A. de C.V. v. Accutek Packaging Quip. Co., Inc., No. 3:16-cv00724-GPC-DHB, 2017 WL 3288492 at *3 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (granting summary judgment and 

limiting liability based on the contract’s limitation of liability to the purchase price of the defective 

water-bottling machine). In its decision enforcing the contract’s limitation-of-liability provision, 

the Embotelladora court considered the plain meaning of the provision and applied Cal. Com. 

Code § 2719, which provides that “limitation of consequential damages where the loss is 

commercial is valid unless it is proved that the limitation is unconscionable.” Id. (noting too that 

the plaintiff did not respond to the defendant’s interpretation of the clause in its opposition). The 

court follows that analysis as persuasive here. The contract provisions limit liability. See id. The 

plaintiff does not argue unconscionability, which is its burden to establish. Id. at *4 (“The burden 

of proving unconscionability under § 2719(1)(b)(3) lies with the plaintiff opposing a defendant’s 

summary adjudication motion.”) (citing Westyle v. Look Sports, Inc., 17 Cal. App. 4th 1715, 1739 

(1993)).

Instead, the plaintiff characterizes the provision as a liquidated-damages provision.

2

It is not. 

The weight of authority establishes that a provision like this one is a limitation on liability, not a 

liquidated-damages provision. See, e.g., Digital Envoy, Inc. v. Google, Inc., No. 5:04-CV-1497 

RS, 2005 WL 2999364 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2005) (“in no event shall either party’s damages 

in any lawsuit or other action brought under this agreement exceed the amounts paid by licensee 

hereunder” was a limitation on liability); Travelers Indem. Co. v. Vessel Sam Houston, 26 F.3d 

 

1 SSA, Ex. B to Gattey Decl. – ECF No. 119-1 at 54 (¶¶ 10.1–10.2). The defendant points out that the 

Professional Services Addendum to the SSA has a similar exclusion for services provided by NetSuite 

to Grouse River under the Scope of Work. Mot. – ECF No. 8 at 20 (citing SSA, Ex. B to Gattey Decl. 

– ECF No. 119-1 at 60 (¶ 5).

2 Opp. – ECF No. 137 at 9–10.

Case 3:16-cv-02954-LB Document 172 Filed 11/21/18 Page 2 of 3
ORDER – No. 16-cv-02954-LB 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

895, 899 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[i]n case of any loss or damage to or in connection with goods 

exceeding in actual value $500 the value of the goods shall be deemed to be $500 per package”

was a limitation on liability); WeBoost Media S.R.L. v. LookSmart Ltd., No. C 13–5304 SC, 2014 

WL 824297 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2014) (“[n]either party will be liable to the other party for 

more than the total amount paid or payable (plus applicable fees and costs) to [Defendant] under 

this Agreement” was a limitation of liability).

To support its argument, Grouse River cites Bayol v. Zipcar, 78 F.Supp.3d 1252, 1256 (N.D. 

Cal. 2015). 3 Bayol does not change the outcome here. Bayol was a putative class action 

challenging Zipcar’s late fees under various California consumer-protection statutes. Bayol, 78 F. 

Supp. 3d at 1254. Zipcar moved to dismiss in part on the ground that the late fees were not 

liquidated damages because the amount varied depending on how late the car was returned. Id. at 

1255–56. The district court denied the motion, holding that the fees were liquidated damages

because they were fixed and certain. Id. at 1256. That decision — addressing whether a damages 

provision based on a formula fell within the liquidated-damages statute — is not relevant to the 

analysis of the contract provisions here, which plainly limit liability and do not provide for 

liquidated damages. 

In sum, the court grants in part and denies in part the defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment. 

This disposes of ECF No. 119.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2018

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

 

3

Id. at 9–10 (citing Bayol v. Zipcar, 78 F.Supp.3d 1252, 1256 (N.D. Cal. 2015)).

Case 3:16-cv-02954-LB Document 172 Filed 11/21/18 Page 3 of 3