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)

Download PDF
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?