Janson et al v. LegalZoom.com, Inc.

Filing 199

SUGGESTIONS in support re 197 MOTION for order Approving Class Action Settlement filed by Robert M. Thompson on behalf of Defendant LegalZoom.com, Inc.. (Related document(s) 197 ) (Thompson, Robert)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
TODD JANSON, GERALD T. ARDREY, CHAD M.
FERRELL, and C & J REMODELING LLC, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 2:10-cv-04018-NKL
v.
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.,
Defendant.

DEFENDANT LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.’S
SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
Plaintiffs and Defendant LegalZoom.com, Inc. (“LegalZoom”) have agreed to a proposed
class action settlement in this case encompassing all Missouri residents who were charged and
paid fees to LegalZoom for the preparation of certain legal documents from December 18, 2004
to May 20, 2011. The parties have jointly moved for preliminary approval of the settlement.
LegalZoom files these Suggestions in Support of the parties’ Joint Motion.
The law favors settlement, particularly in class actions and other complex cases where
substantial resources can be conserved by avoiding the time, cost, and rigor of prolonged
litigation. See Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d
1371, 1383 (8th Cir. 1990); Cohn v. Nelson, 375 F. Supp. 2d 844, 852 (E.D. Mo. 2005); In re
Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost Recovery Fees Litig., 2004 WL 3671053, *8 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 20, 2004).
Courts generally adopt “an initial presumption of fairness when a proposed class
settlement, which was negotiated at arm’s length by counsel for the class, is presented for court
approval.” 4 Newberg on Class Actions § 11:41, at 90; see also Little Rock School Dist., 921

C072748/0306506/1051142.2

F.2d at 1391 (class action settlement agreements “are presumptively valid.”); Petrovic v. Amoco
Co., 200 F.3d 1140, 1148 (8th Cir. 1999) (a “strong public policy favors agreements, and courts
should approach them with a presumption in their favor.”).
When there have been arm’s-length negotiations between the parties, “judges should not
substitute their own judgment as to optimal settlement terms for the judgments of the litigants
and their counsel.” Petrovic, 200 F.3d at 1148-49 (internal quotation marks omitted). A class
action settlement is “a private contract negotiated between the parties,” and a court should
“intrude on that private consensual agreement merely to ensure that the agreement is not the
product of fraud or collusion and that, taken as a whole, it is fair, adequate, and reasonable to all
concerned.” In re Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost Recovery Fees Litig., 396 F.3d 922, 934 (8th Cir.
2005) (citation omitted)).
Judge Gaitan restated the factors a court should weigh in deciding whether to grant
preliminary approval to a class action settlement:
The Court finds that the proposed Settlement Agreement meets the
criteria for preliminary approval because this Court’s ‘preliminary
evaluation of the proposed settlement does not disclose grounds to
doubt its fairness or other obvious deficiencies, such as unduly
preferential treatment of class representatives or of segments of the
class, or excessive compensation for attorneys, and appears to fall
within the range of possible approval.’ Manual for Complex
Litigation, Third (Federal Judicial Center 1995), at § 30.41.
Specifically, the Court finds the proposed Settlement Agreement
was reached after arm’s-length negotiations between experienced
attorneys familiar with the legal and factual issues of this case; that
all Class Members are treated fairly under the Settlement
Agreement; and that the provisions in the proposed Settlement
Agreement regarding payment of Class Counsels’ attorneys’ fees
and costs are reasonable. The Court also finds upon preliminary
evaluation that the proposed Settlement Agreement substantially
fulfills the purposes and objectives of this consumer class action,
and provides substantial relief to the Class Members, without the
cost, risk or delays of further litigation at the trial and appellate
levels.
2
C072748/0306506/1051142.2

Blando v. Nextel West Corp., No. 02-0921-FJG, Doc. 41, at 2 (W.D. Mo. filed Oct. 9, 2003).
As in Blando, the settlement here was reached after arm’s-length negotiations between
experienced attorneys familiar with the case’s legal and factual issues. Although LegalZoom
believes it has substantial defenses to plaintiffs’ claims and would have prevailed at trial,
LegalZoom has agreed to settle the case to avoid the risk and uncertainty attendant upon trial.
LegalZoom has also agreed not to oppose Class Counsel’s request for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs,
and Expenses or for Service Awards for named plaintiffs. The settlement provides substantial
relief to Class Members. In Blando’s terms, the settlement is therefore well “within the range of
possible approval.”
Accordingly, LegalZoom respectfully requests that the Court grant the parties’ Joint
Motion for Preliminary Approval of the settlement they have reached.
Respectfully submitted,
BRYAN CAVE LLP
By: s/ Robert M. Thompson
Robert M. Thompson
MO #38156
James T. Wicks
MO #60409
Christopher C. Grenz
MO #62914
One Kansas City Place
1200 Main Street, Suite 3500
Kansas City, MO 64105
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
John Michael Clear
MO #25834
Michael G. Biggers
MO #24694
One Metropolitan Square – Suite 3600
211 North Broadway
St. Louis, MO 63102
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for LegalZoom.com, Inc.

3
C072748/0306506/1051142.2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 28, 2011, I electronically filed the above and foregoing
with the clerk of court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notice of electronic filing to
all counsel of record.

s/ Robert M. Thompson

4
C072748/0306506/1051142.2