LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

Filing 28

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff LegalZoom.com Inc. Motion set for hearing on 9/30/2013 at 09:30 AM before Judge Gary A. Feess. (Attachments: # 1 Separate Statement, # 2 Exhibit A - L, # 3 Proposed Order)(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]
MARY ANN T. NGUYEN - State Bar No. 269099
[e-mail]
GLASER WEIL FINK JACOBS
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,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17

v.
ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED,
a Delaware corporation,
Defendants.

CASE NO.: CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRx)
Hon. Gary A. Feess
Courtroom: 740
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
GRANTING PLAINTIFF
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT GRANTING LEGALZOOM’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
819775

1

Plaintiff LegalZoom.com, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Summary Judgment

2

came on for hearing before this Court on September 30, 2013 at 9:30 a.m., Hon. Gary

3

A. Feess, District Judge presiding. Appearances by counsel for both parties are noted

4

for the record.

5

After considering the moving, opposition and reply briefs, all supporting

6

evidence and arguments of counsel, and all other matters presented to the Court, this

7

Court finds that:

8
9

Plaintiff has demonstrated that there are no genuine issues of material fact as to
the liability element of its false advertising claim under the Lanham Act and false

10

advertising and unfair competition claims under California Business and Professions

11

Code Sections 17500 et seq. and 17200 et seq., leaving only the computation of

12

damages to be determined at trial.

13

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

14

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

15

Or, in the alternative,

16

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to the liability

17

element of Plaintiff’s following claims: [FIRST – Lanham Act False Advertising]

18

[SECOND – California False Advertising] [THIRD – California Unfair Competition].

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24

DATED:
HON. GARY A. FEES
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT GRANTING LEGALZOOM’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
819775