LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

Filing 29

NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7-3 filed by Defendant Rocket Lawyer Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 EXHIBITS A-B)(Hainline, Forrest)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Forrest A. Hainline III (SBN 64166)
[e-mail]
Hong-An Vu (SBN 266268)
[e-mail]
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Tel.: [phone]
Fax.: [phone]
Michael T. Jones (SBN 290660)
[e-mail]
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
135 Commonwealth Drive
Menlo Park, California 94025-1105
Tel.: [phone]
Fax.: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

WESTERN DIVISION

15
16

LEGALZOOM.COM, INC., a Delaware
corporation,

17
18
19
20

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

21

Defendant.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

LIBA/2429862.2

Case No. 2:12-cv-09942-GAF-AGR
NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE
WITH LOCAL RULE 7-3
Date:
Time:
Judge:
Courtroom:

September 30, 2013
9:30 a.m.
Judge Gary A. Feess
740
255 East Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Action Filed: November 20, 2012

1

On August 23, 2013, plaintiff and cross-defendant LegalZoom.com Inc.

2

(“LegalZoom”) filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 28, the “Motion”)

3

in the above captioned action against defendant and cross-claimant Rocket Lawyer

4

Incorporated (“Rocket Lawyer”). However, prior to filing this Motion, LegalZoom

5

failed to follow the relevant procedural rules governing motion practice in this

6

Court. Specifically, LegalZoom made no attempt to meet and confer with Rocket

7

Lawyer about the substance of the Motion as required by Local Rule 7-3, which

8

provides that “counsel contemplating the filing of any motion shall first contact

9

opposing counsel to discuss thoroughly, preferably in person, the substance of the

10

contemplated motion and any potential resolution.” C.D. Cal. R. 7-3. Because no

11

meet and confer took place, LegalZoom’s Motion does not include the requisite

12

statement attesting that the Motion was made following a meet and confer with

13

counsel. See id.

14

Local Rule 7-3 requires that a conference between counsel “take place at least

15

seven (7) days prior to the filing of the motion.” “The purpose of Local Rule 7-3 is

16

to help the parties ‘reach a resolution which eliminates the necessity for a

17

hearing . . . .’” Nat’l Org. of Assist. For Homeowners v. America’s Servs. Co., Case

18

No. 8:11-cv-00622 –JST-VBK, ECF No. 23, Order Striking Motions (C.D. Cal.

19

May 18, 2011) (Tucker, J. presiding) (hereto attached as Exhibit A). Local Rule 7-3

20

exempts the filings listed in Local Rule 16-12 from the meet and confer

21

requirements. But LegalZoom’s Motion does not fall within any of these

22

exceptions. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 16-2.

23

Had LegalZoom met and conferred with Rocket Lawyer about its Motion,

24

LegalZoom would have learned of significant weaknesses in its arguments.

25

LegalZoom would have also learned that lead trial counsel for Rocket Lawyer,

26

Mr. Forrest A. Hainline III, is unavailable on September 30, 2013, the current

27

hearing date for the Motion, because he will be in arbitration on another matter.

28

LIBA/2429862.2

1

1

Because LegalZoom did not meet and confer and did not make any attempt to

2

meet and confer about the Motion, the Court may (and should) in its discretion

3

strike the Motion for non-compliance with Local Rule 7-3. See id. (striking motion

4

to dismiss for failure to comply with Local Rule 7-3 even though defendant tried to

5

contact plaintiff to meet and confer); see also Daniels v. BAC Home Loans Servicing

6

LP, Case No. 2:10-cv-09812-PA-MAN, ECF No. 22 (C.D. Cal. Mar 23, 2011)

7

(Anderson, J. presiding) (hereto attached as Exhibit B) (denying motion and

8

admonishing plaintiff’s counsel stating “Rather than complying with Local Rule 7-

9

3’s meet and confer requirements, Plaintiffs’ counsel instead filed this unnecessary

10

and procedurally defective Motion”).

11
12

Dated: August 27, 2012

13

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Forrest A. Hainline III
Forrest A. Hainline III
[e-mail]
Hong-An Vu (SBN 266268)
[e-mail]
Michael T. Jones (SBN 290660)
[e-mail]
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

14
15
16
17

Attorneys for Defendant
ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

LIBA/2429862.2

2

PROOF OF SERVICE

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

I, the undersigned, certify and declare that I am over the age of 18 years,
employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and not a party to the
above-entitled cause. On August 27, 2013, I electronically filed the following
document(s) using the CM/ECF system:
NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7-3
I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and will
be served by the CM/ECF system.
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed in the office of a
member of the bar of this Court at whose direction this service was made and that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on August 27, 2013, at Los Angeles, California.

13
14
15
16

Kemi Oyemade
(Type or print name)

(Signature)

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

LIBA/2429862.2

1