NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUBY GLEN, LLC,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS and DOES, 1

- 10, Defendants

- Appellees. No. 16

- 56890
D.C. No. 2:16

- cv - 05505

- PA

- AS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 9, 2018 Pasadena, California Before: SCHROEDER, M. SMITH, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Ruby Glen, LLC (“Ruby Glen”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of its First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

. “We review de novo dismissals for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).”

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

OCT 15 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. N.Y. State Common Ret. Fund, Inc. , 339 F.3d 1087, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed the FAC on the gr ound that Ruby Glen’s claims are barred by the covenant not to sue contained in the Applicant
Guidebook

. As the district court found, t he covenant not to sue is not void under
California Civil Code section 1668 . Ruby G len is not without recourse

— it can

c hallenge ICANN’s actions through the Independent Review Process , which Ruby
Glen concedes “ is effectiv ely an arbitration, operated by the International Centre for Dispute Resolution of the American Arbitration Association, comprised of an
inde pendent panel of arbitrators.” Thus , the covenant not to sue does not exempt
ICA NN from liability , but instead is akin to an alternative dispute resolution agreement falling outside the scope of section 1668. See Cal. Civ. Code. § 1668 ( “All contracts w hich have for their object

. . . to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury

. . . , or violation of law . . . are against the policy of the law. ” (emphasis added) ); see also Cont’l Airlines, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. , 819 F.2d 1519 , 1527 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that an “exculpatory clause” does not violate California Civil Code section 1668 where the clause bars suit, but “[o]ther sanctions remain in place”) ; Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler

- Plymouth, Inc. , 473 U.S. 614, 628 (1985) (“By agreeing to3

arbitrate . . . , a party does not forgo [its] substantive rights . . . ; it only submits to their resolution in an arbitral, rather than a judicial, forum.”)

. The district court also properly rejected Ruby Glen’s argument that the
covenant not to sue is unconscionable. E ven assuming that the adhesive nature of
the Guidebook renders the covenant not to sue procedurally unconscionable , it is
not substantively unconscionable

. See Sanchez v. Valencia Holding C o. , 61 Cal. 4th 899, 9 10 (2015) (explaining that procedural and substantive unconscionability
“must both be present in order for a court to exercise its discretion to refuse to enforce a contract or clause under the doctrine of unconscionability” (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) ); Grand Prospect Partners, L.P. v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc. , 232 Cal. App. 4th 1332, 1347

– 48 (2015) (holding that procedural unconscionability “may be established by showing the contract is one of adhesion” )

. Because Ruby Glen may pursue its claims through the I ndependent Review Process, the covenant not to sue is not “ so one - sided as to shock the
conscience. ” See Walnut Producers of Cal. v. Diamond Foods, Inc. , 187 Cal. App. 4th 634, 647

– 48 (2010) (intern al quotation marks omitted ).4

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ruby Glen
leave to amend because any amendment would have been futile. See Carrico v. City & Cty. of San Francisco , 656 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2011). 1
AFFIRMED.

1 Ruby Glen raises several additi onal arguments that it failed to raise below. We decline to consider tho se arguments because they were raised for the first time on appeal. See Dream Palace v. Cty. of Maricopa , 384 F.3d 990, 1005 (9th Cir. 2004).