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

Filing 145

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on September 14, 2018. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2018)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

LEGALFORCE RAPC WORLDWIDE,
P.C,

7

Plaintiff,

8
9

v.
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.,

10

Case No. 17-cv-07194-MMC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Re: Dkt. No. 144

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Before the Court is plaintiff LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C.’s (“LegalForce

13

RAPC”) “Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration,” filed September 5, 2018.

14

Having read and considered the motion, the Court rules as follows.

15

By order filed April 10, 2018, the Court granted defendant LegalZoom.com, Inc.’s

16

(“LegalZoom”) motion to compel arbitration of LegalForce RAPC’s claims as asserted

17

against LegalZoom. Specifically, the Court found LegalZoom and LegalForce RAPC,

18

acting through its employee Ryan Bethell (“Bethell”), entered into an agreement titled

19

“Terms of Service,” and that LegalForce RAPC’s claims fell within the scope of an

20

arbitration clause contained therein.

21

By the instant motion, LegalForce RAPC seeks leave to file a motion for

22

reconsideration of the Court’s finding that LegalForce RAPC entered into the Terms of

23

Service, in light of what it refers to as “Clause 15,” which clause, contained in a document

24

titled “Terms of Use,”1 reads in full as follows: “The site is made available for your

25
26
27
28

1

The Terms of Service provides that the “the Site’s general terms of use (the
‘Terms of Use’) also apply to the[ ] Terms of Service” and that the Terms of Use are
“incorporated . . . by reference” into the Terms of Service. (See Abhyanker Decl. Ex. 2 at
2.)

1

personal use on your own behalf.” (See Abhyanker Decl., filed September 5, 2018, Ex. 1

2

at 14.) LegalForce RAPC argues that the Court should interpret Clause 15 as making it

3

“legally impossible” for Bethell to act on behalf of LegalForce RAPC (see Pl.’s Mot for

4

Leave at 2:19-22), and, consequently, should find that LegalForce RAPC was not a party

5

to the Terms of Service.

6

Under the Local Rules of this District, a party seeking reconsideration of an

7

interlocutory order must show (1) "a material difference in fact or law exists from that

8

which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order" and that "in the

9

exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such
fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order"; (2) "[t]he emergence of new material

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

facts or a change in law occurring after the time of such order"; or (3) "[a] manifest failure

12

by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were

13

presented to the Court before such interlocutory order." See Civil L. R. 7-9(b).

14

In support of the instant motion, LegalForce RAPC solely relies on the third of the

15

above-quoted circumstances. LegalForce RAPC cannot show, however, that the Court

16

failed to consider any argument based on Clause 15, as no such argument was made.

17

Indeed, neither LegalForce RAPC’s opposition to the motion to compel arbitration nor any

18

declaration offered by LegalForce RAPC in support thereof contains any reference to the

19

Terms of Use, let alone to Clause 15. To the extent LegalForce RAPC may be

20

contending the Court should have sua sponte searched the Terms of Use to determine if

21

there was any argument LegalForce RAPC could have made based thereon, any such

22

contention is without merit. See Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 237 F.3d

23

1026, 1029-30 (9th Cir. 2001) (rejecting argument, made in context of motion for

24

summary judgment, that district court has “independent duty to search and sift the factual

25

record for the benefit of [the party opposing the motion]”; holding district court “need not

26

consider [evidence] unless it is brought to the district court’s attention in the opposition”).

27

Accordingly, the motion will be denied on such procedural grounds.

28

Moreover, even if the instant argument had been timely raised by LegalForce
2

1

RAPC, it would have been insufficient to defeat the motion. First, to the extent

2

LegalForce RAPC contends a user of LegalZoom’s website “cannot be the ‘agent’ of”

3

another or “act on behalf of anyone else” (see Pl.’s Mot. for Reconsideration at 6:12-13

4

(emphasis omitted)), the Court disagrees. The Terms of Use provides that “you” and

5

“your” are references to “each customer” (see Abhyanker Decl. Ex. 1 at 1), and,

6

consequently, Clause 15 does no more than state that each customer may only use

7

LegalZoom’s website for such customer’s own personal, as opposed to, e.g., commercial,

8

use. To the extent LegalForce RAPC contends the use of any term in the arbitration

9

clause is contrary to such interpretation, the Court disagrees. Lastly, to the extent
LegalForce RAPC may be arguing that a LegalZoom customer may only be an individual

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

rather than an entity, such interpretation is foreclosed by the Terms of Use, which

12

provides that references therein to “you,” i.e., the “customer,” include the customer’s

13

“subsidiaries” and “predecessors in interest” (see id. Ex. 1 at 6), language clearly

14

indicating “customer” encompasses a corporation or other entity.

15
16
17

Accordingly, for all of the above reasons, LegalForce RAPC’s motion for leave to
file a motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: September 14, 2018
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3