2011-00115861-CU-PO

Bryan E. Winholt vs. Extra Space Storage

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Summary Adjudication

Filed By: Dziesinski, Kenneth L.

Defendant Extra Space Storage, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Adjudication of its 7th
Affirmative Defense is unopposed and is GRANTED.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as
required by with C.R.C., Rule 3.1308 and Local Rule 1.06(D). Local Rules for the
Sacramento Superior Court are available on the Court’s website at
Counsel for moving party is
ordered to notify opposing party immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be
available at the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event opposing party
appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.

Self-represented Plaintiff’s form First Amended complaint sets forth two causes of
st nd
action: the 1 for negligence and the 2 for fraud. The allegations are that the
defendants represented that their self-storage unit was adequate to store the contents
of a four bedroom house. Despite these representations, the roof leaked, and plaintiff
incurred in excess of $79,000 in compensatory damages.

th
Defendant’s Answer to the FAC includes the 7 Affirmative Defense that: “7. Plaintiff,
per the rental agreement with Defendant dated October 18, 2008, [agreed] that the
value of all of the property stored with Defendant would not exceed $5,000;
Defendant’s maximum liability therefore is capped at $5,000.”

Moving party has provided evidence of the terms of the contract between the parties.
That contract included a limitation of the value of the property to be stored to $5,000 or
less. (McNeal Dec., Exh. A, para. 12)

A limitation on the maximum possible recovery for actual loss or damage alleged and
shown by evidence imposes a limitation within which damages might be proved. The
validity of the condition is not open to doubt. Wheeler v. Oppenheimer (1956) 140 Cal.
App. 2d 497, 499; L.A. Cellular Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1998) 65 Cal. App. 4th
1013.

First, limitation of liability provisions have long been recognized as valid in California,
as long as the parties have an opportunity to “negotiate” them and they are not against
public policy. Markborough Cal. v. Superior Court (1991) 227 Cal. App. 3d 705, 714-
715.

Moving party has met its burden of proof on the limitation of liability affirmative
defense. Plaintiff having submitted no opposition has failed to identify any disputed
issue of material fact or to show that the limitation of liability here was not negotiated or
is against public policy.

The prevailing party is directed to prepare a formal order complying with C.C.P. §437c
(g) and C.R.C. Rule 3.1312.