LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C. et al v. LegalZoom.Com, Inc. et al
Filing
134
ORDER DENYING AS PREMATURE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; AFFORDING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS. To facilitate the orderly resolution of the issues presented, the Court denies as premature LegalForce's Motion for Leave, and affords LegalForce leave to file, no later than June 29, 2018, opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. If LegalForce chooses to avail itself of such opportunity, LegalZoom shall file its reply no later than July 6, 2018. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on June 20, 2018. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2018)
1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
LEGALFORCE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
v.
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.,
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No. 17-cv-07194-MMC
ORDER DENYING AS PREMATURE
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT;
AFFORDING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO
FILE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO DISMISS
12
13
Before the Court is plaintiff LegalForce, Inc.'s ("LegalForce") "Motion for Leave to
14
File Third Amended Complaint" ("Motion for Leave"), filed May 18, 2018. Defendant
15
LegalZoom.com, Inc. ("LegalZoom") has filed opposition, to which LegalForce has
16
replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to
17
the motion, the Court hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for July 20, 2018, and
18
rules as follows.
19
By order filed April 10, 2018, the Court dismissed with leave to amend each of the
20
four claims alleged by LegalForce in the then-operative complaint, the First Amended
21
Complaint ("FAC"). On May 17, 2018, LegalForce filed a Second Amended Complaint
22
("SAC"), in which it amended three of the four claims that had been alleged in the FAC,
23
and, on May 31, 2018, LegalZoom filed a Motion to Dismiss the SAC. In the interim,
24
LegalForce filed its Motion for Leave, by which it seeks leave to file a Third Amended
25
Complaint ("Proposed TAC") comprising the three claims alleged in the SAC along with
26
six claims not previously asserted in the above-titled action. Thereafter, on June 14,
27
2018, LegalForce, in response to the Motion to Dismiss, filed a "Statement of Non-
28
Opposition."
In its Statement of Non-Opposition, LegalForce proposes a procedure for resolving
1
2
the parties' respective motions. In particular, LegalForce asserts, the Proposed TAC
3
"encompasses all the facts and claims alleged in the [SAC]," and, consequently, "[f]or the
4
sake of judicial economy, [it] would like to focus only on the [Proposed TAC]." (See Pl.'s
5
Statement at 2.) The Court, however, finds LegalForce's preferred procedure will not
6
serve the interests of judicial economy, as it will unnecessarily prolong the pleading
7
stage.
8
9
Accordingly, to facilitate the orderly resolution of the issues presented, the Court
hereby DENIES as premature LegalForce's Motion for Leave, and hereby affords
LegalForce leave to file, no later than June 29, 2018, opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
If LegalForce chooses to avail itself of such opportunity, LegalZoom shall file its reply no
12
later than July 6, 2018.
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
Dated: June 20, 2018
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?