LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

Filing 88

NOTICE for Judgment Independent of Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(F) filed by Defendant Rocket Lawyer Incorporated. (Jones, Michael)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

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]
Brian W. Cook (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109-2802
Tel.: [phone]
Fax.: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC., a Delaware Case No. 2:12-cv-09942-GAF-AGR
corporation,
NOTICE FOR JUDGMENT
INDEPENDENT OF MOTION
Plaintiff,
PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. PROC.
56(F)
v.
ROCKET LAWYER
INCORPORATED, a Delaware
corporation,
Defendant.

25
26
27
28

ACTIVE/74741235.1

Date:
Time:
Judge:
Courtroom:

August 18,2014
9:30 a.m.
Judge Gary A. Feess
740
255 East Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Action Filed: November 20, 2012

1

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

2

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

3

56(f), Rocket Lawyer Incorporated (“Rocket Lawyer”) hereby seeks judgment in its

4

favor on its Counterclaims, Counts IV, V and VI, based on the evidence submitted

5

to the Court as part of its opposition to LegalZoom.com, Inc.’s (“LegalZoom”)

6

motion for partial summary judgment. See ECF Nos. 69 and 82 (and unredacted

7

versions filed under seal).

8
9

Under Rule 56(f), after giving notice and a reasonable time to respond, the
court may grant summary judgment for a nonmovant or consider summary judgment

10

on its own after identifying for the parties material facts that may not be genuinely

11

in dispute. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(f).

12

Rocket Lawyer has alleged that LegalZoom has violated the Lanham Act and

13

California Business and Professions Code sections 17500 (false advertising) and

14

17200 (unfair competition) by using LegalSpring.com, a review website for online

15

legal services, as a marketing platform. LegalSpring.com has held itself out to be a

16

neutral review website to assist consumers, and thus, consumers have been deceived

17

by LegalZoom’s marketing on this website.

18

Based on the information recently produced by LegalZoom, the evidence

19

submitted by Rocket Lawyer in opposition to LegalZoom’s motion for summary

20

judgment demonstrates that there can be no dispute that LegalZoom:

21
22
23
24

 has control over content on LegalSpring.com, see e.g., Statement of Genuine
Issues, ECF No. 82-1 at¶¶38-42, 44;
 has removed negative reviews from verified consumers from
LegalSpring.com, id.;

25

 has replaced negative reviews with positive reviews, id.;

26

 has falsified its high four star rating by manipulating the balance of positive

27
28

and negative reviews on LegalSpring.com, id. at 64;
 has approved falsifying the dates and times for positive reviews it has

ACTIVE/74741235.1

1

1

requested be added to LegalSpring.com for the appearance of authenticity, id.

2

at ¶¶ 36, 37, see also ¶41;
 was directly operating LegalSpring.com from about 2012 to 2013, id. at ¶ 56;

3

and

4

 added the disclaimer disclosing some affiliation with LegalSpring.com in

5
6

April 2012, when it was directly operating the website, id. at ¶ 55.1

7

Such conduct was done with full knowledge of the importance of customer

8

reviews to consumers. Indeed, consumers have actually relied on LegalSpring.com

9

in making purchasing decisions since LegalSpring.com shows hundreds of

10

consumers who have found the reviews helpful and because LegalZoom admits that

11

it has paid LegalSpring.com for business provided to LegalZoom. See id. at ¶¶ 48-

12

49; Declaration of Dorian Quispe, ECF No. 69-3 at ¶ 5.
The evidence submitted sufficiently supports that LegalZoom’s reputation as

13
14

conveyed by LegalSpring.com is literally false, that such reputation is material to

15

consumers’ purchasing decision, and that LegalZoom succeeded in deceiving

16

consumers based on the well-established presumption of deception and harm where

17

an advertiser intends to deceive consumers. With these undisputed facts, Rocket

18

Lawyer has met its burden for judgment on its false advertising and unfair

19

competition counterclaims. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B); Southland Sod Farms

20

v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 1997) (Lanham Act elements);

21

(elements of California False Advertising under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500);

22

CytoSport, Inc. v. Vital Pharm., Inc., 894 F. Supp. 2d 1285, 1295 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

23

(In the Ninth Circuit, claims of unfair competition and false advertising under [the

24

FAL and UCL] are substantially congruent to claims made under the Lanham Act).

25
26
27
28

1

Rocket Lawyer also refers the Court to all the evidence submitted with its
Opposition., ECF No. 82 and unredacted underseal documents and exhibits.

ACTIVE/74741235.1

2

1

Thus, Rocket Lawyer respectfully requests judgment independent of the

2

motion and/or invites the court to consider summary judgment on its own after

3

identifying the material facts not genuinely in dispute.

4

Dated: July 30, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

5
By: /s/Michael T. Jones
Forrest A. Hainline III
[e-mail]
Michael T. Jones (SBN 290660)
[e-mail]
Hong-An Vu (SBN 266268)
[e-mail]
Brian W. Cook (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
Three Embarcadero Center
24th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Tel.: [phone]
Fax.: [phone]

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Attorneys for Defendant
ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ACTIVE/74741235.1

3