Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04803/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04803-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Leo India Films Limited,

Plaintiff,

v. 

GoDaddy.com LLC,

Defendant.

No. CV-19-04803-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

Defendant GoDaddy.com LLC (“GoDaddy”) is an internet domain name registrar; 

Plaintiff Leo India Films Limited (“Leo”) operates einthusian.tv, a subscription website 

streaming Indian and other South Asian films. Leo registered the einthusan.tv domain 

name (“Domain”) with GoDaddy in February 2013, agreeing to GoDaddy’s Universal 

Terms of Service (“UTOS”) in the process. In July 2019, GoDaddy suspended the Domain

in response to a notice from Indian law enforcement that Leo had been accused of and was 

being investigated for piracy and copyright infringement. As a result, Leo’s subscribers

have been unable to access the Domain and Leo has been unable to transfer it to a new 

domain registrar. Leo soon brought this lawsuit, alleging contract and tort claims against 

GoDaddy based on its suspension of the Domain.

Leo alleges federal jurisdiction exists because the parties are completely diverse and 

the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). GoDaddy has moved 

to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing there is no federal 

Case 2:19-cv-04803-DLR Document 44 Filed 02/20/20 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

jurisdiction because the UTOS explicitly limits GoDaddy’s total aggregate liability to 

$10,000. (Doc. 18.) Ordinarily, a good-faith allegation that the amount in controversy 

exceeds $75,000 satisfies the jurisdictional requirement. Pachinger v. MGM Grande 

Hotel-Las Vegas, Inc., 802 F.2d 362, 363 (9th Cir. 1986). Dismissal is appropriate, 

however, if it appears to a legal certainty that the claim really is for less than the 

jurisdictional amount. Id. at 363-64. “Only three situations clearly meet the legal certainty 

standard: 1) when the terms of a contract limit the plaintiff’s possible recovery; 2) when a 

specific rule of law or measure of damages limits the amount of damages recoverable; and 

3) when independent facts show that the amount of damages was claimed merely to obtain 

federal court jurisdiction.” Id. at 364 (quoting 14A Wright, Miller, and Cooper, Federal 

Practice and Procedure, Jurisdiction, § 3702 at 48-50 (2d ed. 1985)). This case falls within 

the first of these situations—the UTOS explicitly states, “in no event shall GoDaddy’s total 

aggregate liability exceed $10,000.00 U.S. dollars.” (Doc. 20-2 at 11.) 

Leo’s counterargument is two-fold: (1) the UTOS liability limitation provision is 

substantively unconscionable1 because $10,000 is inadequate to compensate Leo for its 

losses and (2) Leo’s attorneys’ fees should be included in determining the amount in 

controversy. (Doc. 25.)

Taking these arguments in reverse order, Leo cannot rely on its attorneys’ fees to 

inch this case above the jurisdiction threshold because the UTOS explicitly limits 

GoDaddy’s “total aggregate liability” to $10,000, and the only other UTOS provision that 

references attorneys’ fees requires Leo to indemnify GoDaddy for attorneys’ fees in certain 

situations. (Doc. 20-2 at 11.) Leo therefore cannot rely on A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A)—a feeshifting statute for actions arising out of contract—because the parties’ contract controls to 

the exclusion of the statute. Rich v. Bank of Am., N.A., 666 F. App’x 635, 642 (9th Cir. 

2016).

1

“Substantive unconscionability concerns the actual terms of the contract and 

examines the relative fairness of the obligations assumed,” whereas procedural 

unconscionability concerns the fairness of the bargaining process itself. Maxwell v. 

Fidelity Fin. Services, Inc., 907 P.2d 51, 57-58 (Ariz. 1995). Leo’s argument concerns the 

fairness of the liability limitation provision, not the fairness of the bargaining process.

Case 2:19-cv-04803-DLR Document 44 Filed 02/20/20 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

Next, the UTOS liability limitation provision is not substantively unconscionable.2 

Arizona law “generally presumes, especially in commercial contexts, that private parties 

are best able to determine if particular contractual terms serve their interests.” 1800 

Ocotillo, LLC v. WLB Grp., Inc., 196 P.3d 222, 224 (Ariz. 2008). Arizona courts therefore 

“uphold limitation of liability provisions absent ‘an identifiable public policy that clearly 

outweighs any interests in their enforcement.’” Love v. W. Union Fin. Services, Inc., No. 

CV-16-00051-PHX-SRB, 2016 WL 9343081, at *4 (D. Ariz. May 6, 2016) (quoting 1800 

Ocotillo, 196 P.3d at 226). Leo identifies no public policy that clearly outweighs the 

interests in enforcement of the UTOS’s liability limitation provision. To the contrary, the 

Arizona Supreme Court has explained that “[s]uch clauses may desirably allow the parties 

to allocate as between themselves the risks of damages in excess of the agreed-upon cap, 

which could preserve incentives for one party to take due care while assigning the risk of 

greater damages to another party that might be better able to mitigate or insure against 

them.” 1800 Ocotillo, 196 P.3d at 226.

Leo instead relies on In re Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 313 F. 

Supp. 3d 1113 (N.D. Cal. 2018), a case from the Northern District of California applying 

California unconscionability law. In re Yahoo! says nothing about Arizona public policy, 

as it does not address Arizona law, and the Court could find no Arizona case relying on it. 

Leo also cites Nomo Agroindustrial Sa De CV v. Enza N. Am., Inc., 492 F. Supp 2d 1175 

(D. Ariz. 2007), a decision that dealt with the enforceability of contracts that limited 

damages for defective seeds. Nomo speaks to public policy concerns unique to the 

agricultural context, but does not persuade this Court that the UTOS liability limitation 

provision is unconscionable.

Accordingly, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action because the 

2

It is not premature to decide the unconscionability question. Although a party 

raising unconscionability must be given an opportunity to present evidence, a separate, 

formal evidentiary hearing is not required. Maxwell, 907 P.2d at 56. Arizona law requires 

only a reasonable opportunity to present evidence. Id. Leo argues that the UTOS liability 

limitation provision is substantively unconscionable because $10,000 is inadequate to 

compensate Leo for its losses. Leo put on evidence of these losses during the October 29, 

2019 hearing on the parties’ competing motions.

Case 2:19-cv-04803-DLR Document 44 Filed 02/20/20 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

UTOS liability limitation provision makes it legally certain that the amount in controversy 

is less than $75,000. The Court therefore dismisses this case and does not reach GoDaddy’s 

alternative arguments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or Leo’s request to 

preliminarily enjoin GoDaddy from withholding access to the Domain.

IT IS ORDERED that GoDaddy’s motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) 

(Doc. 18) is GRANTED. This matter is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed 

to terminate all remaining motions as moot and close this case.

Dated this 19th day of February, 2020.

Douglas L. Rayes

United States District Judge

Case 2:19-cv-04803-DLR Document 44 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 4