Janson et al v. LegalZoom.com, Inc.

Filing 153

MOTION in limine Regarding the Attorney/Client Relationship Between the Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel 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 THE ATTORNEY CLIENT
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFFS AND PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL
Come now, Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, and for their Motion in Limine to exclude
any evidence of Regarding the Attorney Client Relationship Between the Plaintiffs and
Plaintiffs’ Counsel, state as follows:
I. Introduction
Legalzoom.com (hereinafter “Legalzoom”) through their deposition designations have
indicated that they wish to introduce evidence of the nature of the attorney client relationship
between Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel. In essence, Legalzoom wishes to contrast the fact that
the Plaintiffs never signed a fee agreement between themselves and Legalzoom when they
purchased legal documents from Legalzoom, while they did with Plaintiffs’ counsel in this
matter. Since a fee agreement is not necessary to establish a violation of Missouri law related to
the unauthorized practice of law, whether a fee agreement was signed or not between Plaintiffs
and Legalzoom is not relevant. In addition, if there is any relevance to the fee agreement, the
issue of the fee agreement between Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel should be excluded under
1

Rule 403 since the prejudicial impact of such evidence greatly outweighs any probative value.
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 a 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).
Whether the Plaintiffs signed a fee agreement with Legalzoom as compared to what they
signed with Plaintiffs’ counsel has no relevance in this case. Missouri statutes relating to the
unauthorized practice of law do not require that the party who paid another consideration for
legal services sign any agreement. There is similarly no requirement that the person paying the
funds believes that they are even entering into an attorney client relationship with the other party.
See, § 484.020 RSMo. The belief of the party paying the funds is simply not relevant to whether

2

someone has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Therefore, agreements Plaintiffs
signed with Plaintiffs’ counsel is not relevant in any way to this dispute
In addition, introducing the issue of a fee agreement or agreement of any kind between
Plaintiffs and Legalzoom or between Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel would introduce collateral
issues into the case which could mislead the jury. The jury might be inclined to believe that an
agreement is required in order to retain or get legal advice; including establishing a violation of
§484.020 RSMo. Missouri law has no such requirement. Similarly, nothing about the
relationship or agreement between Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel is relevant in any way in this
case.
Since the agreements between the Plaintiffs and their counsel has no relevance to whether
Legalzoom is violating Missouri law any evidence or argument related to their agreement with
Plaintiffs’ counsel or anything about the relationship between Plaintiffs and their counsel should
be excluded as evidence in this case.
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

__