Janson et al v. LegalZoom.com, Inc.
Filing
146
MOTION in limine Regarding LegalZoom's Business Model filed by Timothy W. Van Ronzelen on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/19/2011 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Van Ronzelen, Timothy)
IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
TODD JANSON, et al., on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:10-cv-04018-NKL
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING STATEMENTS OR ARGUMENTS
THAT LEGALZOOM.COM’S BUSINESS OPERATES IN OR IS APPROVED IN
OTHER STATES
Come Now, Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, and for their Motion in Limine to exclude
any evidence of statements or arguments that Legalzoom.com’s (hereinafter “Legalzoom”)
business operates or is approved in other states, states as follows:
I. Introduction
Plaintiffs have reason to believe that Legalzoom will attempt to introduce statements or
evidence that it operates in and/or is approved to conduct its business in other states throughout
the country. See, Legalzoom’s Motion for Summary Judgment, paragraph 1. It is anticipated
Legalzoom will attempt to introduce evidence or argue that because their business model is used
and in some cases accepted elsewhere in the country, it is presumably lawful for them to operate
the same way in Missouri. Obviously, the only laws that are relevant in this case are the laws of
the state of Missouri. What has or has not happened in other states or may or may not be
permitted by other states’ laws or regulatory authorities is simply not relevant to this case and
1
would only serve to confuse the jury about what basis upon which they should decide this case.
II. Argument
“Federal Rule of Evidence 402 provides that irrelevant evidence is inadmissible.” Wright
v. Ark. & Mo. R.R. Co., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 16719, *12 (8th Cir. July 29, 2009). “Evidence
is relevant if it has ‘any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the
evidence.’” Id. at *12-13 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 401). “A district court is given broad discretion
to determine the relevance of evidentiary matters.” Id. at 13.
Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides “[a]lthough relevant, evidence may
be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of
time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 403. “Confusion of the
issues warrants exclusion of relevant evidence if admission of the evidence would lead to
litigation of collateral issues.” Firemen's Fund Ins. Co. v. Thien, 63 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 1995).
Rule 403 is concerned with unfair prejudice that has an undue tendency to suggest decision on an
improper basis. Probatter Sports, LLC v. Joyner Technologies, Inc., 2007 WL 3285799
(N.D.Iowa, October 18, 2007).
Other states’ laws and regulatory approvals are not relevant in this case. In addition, the
introduction of evidence about what may have happened in other states would be improper as it
could confuse the jury and suggest to them that they should decide this case based on something
other than the laws of the state of Missouri. The introduction of the actions or inaction in other
states would lead to plaintiffs (and perhaps the Court in jury instructions) to have to explain that
those states all have different statutes dealing with the unauthorized practice of law and, thus,
2
what happened or didn’t happen in those states does not mean that what LegalZoom is doing in
Missouri is lawful. Accordingly, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue an Order to
exclude any testimony, argument, or reference about Legalzoom’s business being conducted in
other states or being approved or permitted in other states; including by other bar associations or
similar entities.
Respectfully submitted,
____/s/Timothy VanRonzelen
____
Timothy Van Ronzelen, #44382
Matthew A. Clement, #43833
Kari A. Schulte, #57739
COOK, VETTER, DOERHOFF & LANDWEHR
231 Madison
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
Telephone: 573-635-7977
Facsimile: 573-635-7414
tvanronzelen@cvdl.net
mclement@cvdl.net
kschulte@cvdl.net
and
Edward D. Robertson, Jr., # 27183
Mary Doerhoff Winter, # 38328
BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON, ROBERTSON
& GORNY
715 Swifts Highway
Jefferson City, MO 65109
Telephone: 573-659-4454
Facsimile: 573 659-4460
chiprob@earthlink.net
marywinter@earthlink.net
David T. Butsch, # 37539
James J. Simeri, #52506
BUTSCH SIMERI FIELDS LLC
231 S. Bemiston Ave., Ste. 260
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: 314-863-5700
Facsimile: 314-863-5711
butsch@bsflawfirm.com
simeri@bsflawfirm.com
Randall O. Barnes, #39884
RANDALL O. BARNES & ASSOCIATES
Steven E. Dyer, #45397
LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN DYER
3
219 East Dunklin Street, Suite A
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
Telephone: 573-634-8884
Facsimile: 573-635-6291
rbarnesjclaw@aol.com
10850 Sunset Office Drive, Ste. 300
St. Louis, MO 63127
Telephone: 314-898-6715
jdcpamba@gmail.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on August 2, 2011, I served this paper upon the following via this Court’s
ECF system:
Party
Counsel
Robert M. Thompson
James T. Wicks
Christopher C. Grenz
BRYAN CAVE LLP
One Kansas City Place
1200 Main Street, Ste. 3500
Kansas City, MO 64105
816.374.3200, 816.374.3300 (fax)
Defendant
LegalZoom.com, Inc.
John Michael Clear
Michael Biggers
James Wyrsch
BRYAN CAVE LLP
One Metropolitan Square – Ste. 3600
211 N. Broadway
St. Louis, MO 63102
314.250.2000, 314.259.2020 (fax)
___/s/ Timothy VanRonzelen
4
__
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?