LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

Filing 101

RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff LegalZoom.com Incto Notice (Other) 88 Objection to Rocket Lawyer's Notice for Judgment Independent of Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(f) (Heather, Fred)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

PATRICIA L. GLASER - State Bar No. 55668
[e-mail]
FRED D. HEATHER - State Bar No. 110650
[e-mail]
AARON P. ALLAN - State Bar No. 144406
[e-mail]
GLASER WEIL FINK
HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP
10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LegalZoom.com, Inc.

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

WESTERN DIVISION

12
13

LEGALZOOM.COM, INC., a Delaware
corporation,

14

Plaintiff,

15

v.

16

ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED,
a Delaware corporation,

17
18
19
20

Defendant.

CASE NO.: CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRx)
Hon. Gary A. Feess
OBJECTION TO ROCKET
LAWYER’S NOTICE FOR
JUDGMENT INDEPENDENT OF
MOTION PURSUANT TO FED. R.
CIV. PROC. 56(f)
Date:
August 18, 2014
Time:
9:30 a.m.
Courtroom: 740

21

[Evidentiary Objections filed
concurrently herewith]

22

Complaint Filed: November 20, 2012

23
24
25
26
27
28
LEGALZOOM’S OBJECTION TO ROCKET LAWYER’S NOTICE FOR JUDGMENT
903668

1

TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND ALL PARTIES AND THEIR

2

ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

3

Plaintiff LegalZoom.com, Inc., hereby objects to the filing made by defendant

4

Rocket Lawyer Incorporated entitled “NOTICE FOR JUDGMENT INDEPENDENT

5

OF MOTION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. PROC. 56(F),” ECF No. 88 (the “RL

6

Notice”).

7

There is no provision in Federal Rule 56(f) for a party, in contrast to the Court,

8

to provide a notice seeking judgment independent of a motion. Only the Court may

9

provide such a notice and thereby seek a judgment sua sponte. For that reason, the

10

RL Notice is wholly improper and stands as an attempt to provide additional

11

summary judgment briefing in violation of court rules, and in violation of both the

12

letter and spirit of the parties’ “STIPULATION RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT

13

BRIEFING SCHEDULE” which was granted by this Court by an order entered July

14

18, 2014 (ECF No. 73).

15

Accordingly, LegalZoom’s decision not to respond substantively to the RL

16

Notice should not be interpreted as any waiver of any positions, or as an

17

acknowledgment of what is stated therein. For all of the reasons stated in

18

LegalZoom’s motion for partial summary judgment and its reply memorandum, there

19

is no genuine dispute as to the material facts and the Court should dismiss Counts IV,

20

V and VI of Rocket Lawyer’s Counterclaim, together with its affirmative defense

21

based on unclean hands, as a matter of law.

22

DATED: August 4, 2014

GLASER WEIL FINK
HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP

23
24
25
26
27
28

BY: /S/ FRED HEATHER
PATRICIA L. GLASER
FRED D. HEATHER
AARON P. ALLAN
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LegalZoom.com, Inc.
1
LEGALZOOM’S OBJECTION TO ROCKET LAWYER’S NOTICE FOR JUDGMENT

903668

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

3

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California; I am over the
4

age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 10250
5

Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90067.
6

On August 4, 2014, I electronically filed the following document(s) using the
7

CM/ECF system.
8
9
10

OBJECTION TO ROCKET LAWYER’S NOTICE FOR JUDGMENT
INDEPENDENT OF MOTION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. PROC. 56(F)

11

Participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and will be served by the
12

CM/ECF system.
13

I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at
14

whose direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury that the
15

above is true and correct.
16

Executed on August 4, 2014 at Los Angeles, California.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

903668

/s/ Fred Heather
Fred Heather