LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C. et al v. LegalZoom.Com, Inc. et al

Filing 117

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on May 9, 2018. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2018)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LEGALFORCE RAPC WORLDWIDE,
P.C, ET AL.,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 17-cv-07194-MMC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
Re: Dkt. No. 113

LEGALZOOM.COM, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

Before the Court is plaintiff LegalForce, Inc.'s ("LegalForce") "Administrative

14

Motion," filed May 1, 2018, "to Seek Court's Clarification in the Order Denying Plaintiffs'

15

Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint." Defendants have not filed a

16

response thereto. Having read and considered LegalForce's Administrative Motion, the

17

Court rules as follows.

18

The Administrative Motion is procedurally improper, as it is not "accompanied . . .

19

by a declaration that explains why a stipulation could not be obtained." See Civil L.R. 7-

20

11(a). Moreover, the motion does not seek clarification of the Court's prior order, but,

21

rather, an advisory opinion as to how the Court might rule if LegalForce, in the future,

22

were to file an amended pleading, a motion for leave to amend, or a new action.

23

Accordingly, LegalForce's Administrative Motion is hereby DENIED.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27
28

Dated: May 9, 2018
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge