LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

Filing 69

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff LegalZoom.com Inc. Motion set for hearing on 8/18/2014 at 09:30 AM before Judge Gary A. Feess. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Statement of Uncontroverted Facts & Conclusions of Law, # 2 Declaration of Travis Gigi, # 3 Declaration of Dorian Quispe, # 4 Declaration of Aaron Allan, # 5 Appendix of Exhibits, # 6 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]
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,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

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

CASE NO.: CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRx)
Hon. Gary A. Feess
Courtroom: 740
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
Date:
August 18, 2014
Time:
9:30 a.m.
Courtroom: 740
Complaint Filed: November 20, 2012

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
894559

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1

The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Motion”) brought by Plaintiff

2
3

LegalZoom.com, Inc. (“LegalZoom”) came on for hearing before the Honorable

4

Gary A. Feess on August 18, 2014.
Having read and considered the Motion filed by LegalZoom, including all

5
6

evidence and argument submitted in support thereof; the Opposition to the Motion

7

filed by Rocket Lawyer Incorporated, including all evidence and argument submitted

8

in support thereof; and having considered all other pertinent evidence before the

9

Court:

10
11
12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that LegalZoom’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment is GRANTED, based upon the following:
[ ] Counts IV, V and VI of the Counterclaim being asserted by Defendant

13

Rocket Lawyer Incorporated fail because Legalspring.com’s website is not actionable

14

as false advertising or unfair competition.

15

[ ] Defendant Rocket Lawyer Incorporated does not have an affirmative

16

defense based on the doctrine of unclean hands because there is no linkage between

17

the alleged inequitable conduct and the claims being pursued by LegalZoom.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22
23

DATED:

By:
Hon. Gary A. Feess
U.S. District Court Judge

24
25
26
27
28
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
894559