Janson et al v. LegalZoom.com, Inc.

Filing 158

MOTION in limine Regarding Statements or Declarations Made by the Federal Trade Commission 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
DECLARATIONS MADE BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
Come now, Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, and for their Motion in Limine to exclude
any evidence of statements or declarations made by the Federal Trade Commission (hereinafter
“FTC”), state as follows:
I. Introduction
This is a case where plaintiffs allege that the defendant Legalzoom.com (hereinafter
“Legalzoom”) violated Missouri law by engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and
deceiving Missouri customers through deceptive trade practices. Plaintiffs also have a claim for
money had and received. Without question, Missouri law controls this case.
Nevertheless, plaintiffs have reason to believe that Legalzoom will attempt to introduce
statements or declarations by the FTC which are counter to Missouri law. As evidenced in their
Motion for Summary Judgment at paragraphs 76 through 79 under the heading “Statements by
the Federal Trade Commission,” Legalzoom will attempt to introduce various statements by the

1

FTC wherein the FTC allegedly criticizes various organizations’ statements about what is and is
not the practice of law. See, Id. These statements by the FTC have no relevance in this case and
would only serve to confuse and mislead the jury into possibly thinking that the FTC is the
standard by which they must view this evidence as compared to Missouri law. The FTC’s
statements have no relevance to this case and should, therefore, be barred from being presented
to the jury.
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).

2

The opinion of the FTC or its statements about the unauthorized practice of law have no
relevance in this case and would only serve to confuse the jury about what the proper standard is.
This Court will instruct the jury on the law that governs the claims that are at issue and that law
is unquestionably Missouri law. The FTC’s opinions about that law or any other law are simply
not relevant and would only serve to confuse and suggest to the jury that they should decide this
case based on an improper basis. Accordingly, Legalzoom should be prohibited from arguing or
introducing in any fashion any statements by the FTC or anyone else about the current state of
Missouri law or other laws.

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

_