Janson et al v. LegalZoom.com, Inc.

Filing 148

MOTION in limine Regarding Evidence of Disclaimer and/or Waiver 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 OF
LEGALZOOM.COM’S DISCLAIMER AND/OR WAIVER THAT IS ON ITS WEBSITE
Come now, Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, and for their Motion in Limine to exclude
any evidence or argument of Legalzoom.com’s (hereinafter “LegalZoom”) disclaimer and/or
waiver that is contained on its website and/or in its terms and conditions, and states as follows:
I. Introduction
Throughout this litigation, Legalzoom has argued in various motions that it should be
excused from compliance with Missouri law, venue in Missouri, or allegations related to the
violation of Missouri law due to a lengthy disclaimer and/or waiver that can be found on its
website. Legalzoom recited various portions of this disclaimer and wavier in its Motion for
Summary Judgment. See, paragraphs 39 and 40 of Legalzoom’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
In addition, Legalzoom’s purported expert on the law of the unauthorized practice of law
references the disclaimer and discusses it at length in his report. See, p. 18 of the written opinion
of Powell attached as Exhibit 11 to Legalzoom’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Legalzoom clearly intends to argue to the jury that the class of plaintiffs in this case have
1

waived any right to bring this action, and that the disclaimer wherein it recites that nothing it is
doing is the unauthorized practice of law, means that they are not violating the law. The waiver
and/or disclaimer simply has no application or impact on this case and the introduction of such
evidence would be extremely confusing to the jury. As such, Legalzoom’s disclaimer and/or
waiver contained on its website or in its terms and conditions should be excluded from the trial
in this matter.
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 which is evidence 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).

2

Missouri law on this issue is well established and forecloses Legalzoom from arguing
consent or waiver. As noted by the Missouri Supreme Court in Carpenter v. Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc., 250 S.W.3d 697, 703 (Mo. 2008), the activities prohibited by the Missouri statutes
on the unauthorized practice of law are “not subject to waiver, consent, or lack of objection by
the victim.” Id. citing Eisel v. Midwest BankCentre, 230 S.W.3d 335 (Mo. 2007). Since the
defenses that are found in the various portions of Legalzoom’s disclaimer and/or waiver are not
recognized in Missouri based on the plaintiffs’ theory of this case, they have no place in this trial
and should be barred from being presented in any fashion to jury. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
respectfully request the Court enter an Order prohibiting Legalzoom from introducing any
evidence or making any arguments related to any waiver and/or disclaimer.
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: [phone]
Facsimile: 573-635-7414
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
and

3

Edward D. Robertson, Jr., # 27183
Mary Doerhoff Winter, # 38328
BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON, ROBERTSON
& GORNY
715 Swifts Highway
Jefferson City, MO 65109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 573 659-4460
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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
[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 PLAINTIFFS

4

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

5

__