Janson et al v. LegalZoom.com, Inc.

Filing 147

MOTION in limine Regarding Evidence of No Damage to the Class 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 ANY EVIDENCE FROM
LEGALZOOM.COM THAT THEY ARE NOT DAMAGING ANYONE AND ANY
EVIDENCE REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF LEGALZOOM.COM’S DOCUMENTS
Come now, Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, and for their Motion in Limine regarding
any evidence from Legalzoom.com that it is not Damaging Anyone and any evidence regarding
the Validity of Legalzoom.com’s Documents, state as follows:
I. Introduction
Legalzoom.com (hereinafter “Legalzoom”) may argue to the jury that its business does
not damage anyone, and therefore, they are not doing anything wrong. Similarly, Legalzoom
may wish to argue to the jury that its documents are valid and, therefore, the class of plaintiffs in
this case have not been damaged since they purchased legally proper documents. Since
Legalzoom’s business, if it is found to engage in the unauthorized practice of law, is presumed
under Missouri statute to damage Missouri consumers purchasing legal documents not prepared
by a licensed Missouri attorney, it should be prohibited from arguing that no one is damaged
from its current practices.

1

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.
This Court will instruct the jury that it must follow Missouri law in rendering its verdict
in this case. Missouri law as set forth in § 484.020 RSMo. specifically provides a consumer who
has paid money to someone, who does not have a license to provide legal services, for legal
services is entitled to three times the amount of money that was paid. Damages follow as a
matter of law from the unauthorized practice of law. Whether anyone has been hurt by
LegalZoom documents or not is simply not at issue in the case.
The validity of Legalzoom’s documents is also not relevant to this case. Legalzoom may
wish to argue to the jury that the class of plaintiffs was not damaged since the documents they
purchased from Legalzoom are valid. Whether Legalzoom prepared valid documents or invalid
documents has nothing to do with the question of whether their preparation was done in violation
of Missouri law. There is no statutory or common law requirement that a party can only engage
in the unauthorized practice of law if the party did so below any certain standard of care. In
addition, if the validity of the documents prepared by Legalzoom is injected into this case the
jury might be inclined to believe that if the documents were valid then the plaintiffs do not have
any valid case. Since such an argument would suggest to the jury that they decide the case on
something beside the facts and the law, it should be excluded under Rule 403.

2

Legalzoom should not be permitted to argue that it has not damaged anyone since
damages necessarily flow from the unauthorized practice of law. Allowing Legalzoom to argue
that the jury should, in essence, not follow the law, should not be permitted. See, U.S. v. Wiley,
503 F.2d 106, 106-107 (8th Cir. 1974). Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court enter an order
that prohibits Legalzoom from introducing any evidence or arguing that its business has not
damaged any Missouri consumers or that the documents that Legalzoom sold to plaintiffs were
valid.

Respectfully submitted,

____/s/Timothy Van Ronzelen___________ ____
Timothy Van Ronzelen, #44382
Matthew A. Clement, #43833
Kari A. Schulte, #57739
COOK, VETTER, DOERHOFF & LANDWEHR
231 Madison
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 573-635-7414
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
and

Edward D. Robertson, Jr., # 27183
Mary Doerhoff Winter, # 38328
BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON, ROBERTSON
& GORNY
715 Swifts Highway
Jefferson City, MO 65109
Telephone: [phone]

David T. Butsch, # 37539
James J. Simeri, #52506
BUTSCH SIMERI FIELDS LLC
231 S. Bemiston Ave., Ste. 260
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 314-863-5711
3

Facsimile: 573 659-4460
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Randall O. Barnes, #39884
RANDALL O. BARNES & ASSOCIATES
219 East Dunklin Street, Suite A
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 573-635-6291
[e-mail]

Steven E. Dyer, #45397
LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN DYER
10850 Sunset Office Drive, Ste. 300
St. Louis, MO 63127
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
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

__