Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-03003/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-03003-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

MICHAEL RODMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAFEWAY INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 11-cv-03003-JST 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Re: ECF No. 226

Currently before the Court is Defendant Safeway, Inc.’s motion for reconsideration, ECF 

No. 226-2, which asks the Court to amend its December 10, 2014 order granting Plaintiff Michael 

Rodman’s motion for partial summary judgment. ECF No. 223. The Court previously granted 

Safeway leave to file the present motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 228.

Local Rule 7-9 provides that a party moving for leave to file a motion for reconsideration 

must show:

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in 

fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before 

entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought. 

The party also must show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence 

the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law 

at the time of the interlocutory order; or

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law 

occurring after the time of such order; or

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or 

dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court 

before such interlocutory order.

Civil L.R. 7-9(b).

Safeway argues that the Court’s order granted Plaintiff summary judgment on two issues

that were not properly before the Court, resulting in manifest error. 

Case 3:11-cv-03003-JST Document 236 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 4
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

First, Safeway objects to the Court’s finding that “Safeway is liable to Plaintiff and the 

Class for the aggregate amount of the online mark-up from April 12, 2010, through the present.” 

ECF No. 223 at 19. Safeway argues this conclusion was in error because Plaintiff’s notice of 

motion indicated that Plaintiff sought summary judgment on the issues of breach and the 

ineffectiveness of the November 11, 2011 amendment to the contract, but did not indicate that 

Plaintiff sought summary judgment on the appropriate measure of damages. See ECF No. 170-5 

at 1:10-14. Plaintiff’s motion indicated that “[t]he parties have agreed to defer any motion for 

summary judgment as to the amount of damages until after a liability determination by the Court.” 

Id. at 1, n. 2. Plaintiff argues that although its motion agreed to defer a determination of the 

amount of damages, it still sought a finding that the aggregate amount of the online markup was 

the appropriate measure of damages. 

The Court finds Safeway’s argument on this ground persuasive. As the party moving for 

summary judgment, Plaintiff was required to frame the relief sought by his motion clearly, in 

order to provide adequate notice to the opposing party and to the Court. It is true that Plaintiff’s 

motion mentioned the “aggregate” amount of the markup three times. See id. at 1 n. 2, 13:26, 

25:17. But Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment did not make any argument as to why

the aggregate amount of the markup was the appropriate measure of damages, beyond the 

conclusory statement that “Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to recover the full aggregate amount 

of the charged markup charged by Safeway.” Id. at 13:26. The Court’s order likewise did not 

discuss the appropriate measure of damages, but merely concluded that Safeway had breached its 

contract with class members. Therefore, the Court’s order should not have stated in its conclusion 

that the “aggregate amount of the online mark-up” was the appropriate measure of damages. 

Although the Court concludes that the measure of damages was not properly placed before it by 

Plaintiff’s partial summary judgment motion, Plaintiff still may seek summary judgment regarding 

the appropriate measure and amount of damages in the future. 

Second, Safeway argues that the Court’s order erroneously granted summary judgment that 

Safeway had breached its contract with all class members, including those who had registered to 

use Safeway.com prior to 2006. The Court previously certified the class to include “[a]ll persons 

Case 3:11-cv-03003-JST Document 236 Filed 02/12/15 Page 2 of 4
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

in the United States who registered to purchase groceries through Safeway.com at any time prior 

to November 15, 2011, and made one or more purchases subject to the price markup implemented 

on or about April 12, 2010.” ECF No. 163 at 32. Nonetheless, Plaintiff’s motion for partial 

summary judgment only directed the Court to the contract operative on Safeway.com beginning in 

2006. See ECF No. 170-5 at 1:18 (“Safeway.com began offering grocery delivery in certain 

geographic regions in 2006”), 2:6 (“The Special Terms did not change between 2006 and 

November 15, 2011”), and 3:10 (“From the outset when Safeway began delivering groceries in 

2006 . . .”). 

The Court finds Safeway’s argument on this ground persuasive as well. Plaintiff’s motion 

repeatedly pointed to a version of the contract posted by Safeway in 2006. Although Plaintiff 

subsequently submitted versions of the contract that Plaintiff alleges were posted by Safeway prior 

to 2006, see generally ECF No. 196, those versions of the contract were not placed before the 

Court by Plaintiff’s initial motion for summary judgment and Defendant thus did not have 

sufficient notice that Plaintiff sought summary judgment that Safeway breached the contract with 

class members who registered prior to 2006. 

Safeway also raises two additional grounds for reconsideration: 1) that the order 

erroneously applied Ninth Circuit precedent in addressing the effect of November 11, 2011 

changes to the Special Terms on class members 2) that the order included a factual error 

concerning the accuracy of a representation made in an August 29, 2012 email sent to some class 

members. The Court denies the motion for reconsideration on these grounds. 

The Court will withdraw its prior order on Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment 

located at ECF No. 223, and issue an amended order in its place. The amended order merely 

revises the Court’s prior order to cabin its scope to those issues that were properly placed before 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-03003-JST Document 236 Filed 02/12/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

the Court by Plaintiff’s motion at ECF No. 170-5. This order does not preclude the Plaintiff from 

seeking summary judgment on these issues in the future. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-03003-JST Document 236 Filed 02/12/15 Page 4 of 4