Janson et al v. LegalZoom.com, Inc.

Filing 60

AMENDED ANSWER to Amended Class-Action Petition filed by James T. Wicks on behalf of Defendant LegalZoom.com, Inc.. (Wicks, James)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
TODD JANSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 10-04018-CV-C-NKL

AMENDED ANSWER TO AMENDED CLASS-ACTION PETITION
Defendant LegalZoom.Com, Inc. (“LegalZoom”) states as follows for its amended
answer to the Amended Class-Action Petition (“Amended Petition”) filed by Plaintiffs Todd
Janson, Gerald T. Ardrey, Chad M. Ferrell, and C & J Remodeling, LLC, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all other similarly-situated consumers of LegalZoom.Com, Inc.
1.

LegalZoom lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in the first sentence of Paragraph 1 of the Amended Petition and,
therefore, denies the same. LegalZoom denies all remaining allegations, conclusions and legal
conclusions of Paragraph 1 of the Amended Petition not expressly admitted herein.
2.

LegalZoom lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 2 of the Amended Petition and, therefore, denies
the same.
3.

LegalZoom lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 3 of the Amended Petition and, therefore, denies
the same.

C072748/0306506/1016620.1

4.

LegalZoom admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 4 of the Amended

Petition.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
5.

LegalZoom denies the implication in Paragraph 5 of the Amended Petition that it

performs legal services.

It does advertise its services.

LegalZoom denies all remaining

allegations, conclusions and legal conclusions of Paragraph 5 of the Amended Petition not
expressly admitted herein.
6.

LegalZoom denies the allegation in Paragraph 6 of the Amended Petition that it

performs legal services. Responding to Paragraph 6 of the Amended Petition, LegalZoom
admits that it advertizes its services and encourages people to use its website. LegalZoom denies
all remaining allegations, conclusions and legal conclusions of Paragraph 6 of the Amended
Petition not expressly admitted herein.
7.

Responding to Paragraph 7 of the Amended Petition, LegalZoom denies that this

verbatim statement currently appears on its website and denies all remaining allegations,
conclusions and legal conclusions of Paragraph 7 of the Amended Petition.
8.

Responding to Paragraph 8 of the Amended Petition, LegalZoom denies that this

verbatim statement currently appears on its website and denies all remaining allegations,
conclusions and legal conclusions of Paragraph 8 of the Amended Petition.
9.

LegalZoom admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 9 of the Amended

Petition.
10.

LegalZoom denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 10 of the Amended

Petition. Further answering, LegalZoom states that the customer prepares the documents.
11.

Responding to Paragraph 11 of the Amended Petition, LegalZoom admits that on

May 5, 2008, the North Carolina State Bar sent LegalZoom a letter which speaks for itself.
2
C072748/0306506/1016620.1

LegalZoom denies all remaining allegations, conclusions and legal conclusions of Paragraph 11
of the Amended Petition.
12.

Responding to Paragraph 12 of the Amended Petition, LegalZoom admits that the

North Carolina State Bar issued a Letter of Caution.

LegalZoom denies all remaining

allegations, conclusions and legal conclusions of Paragraph 12 of the Amended Petition not
expressly admitted herein.
13.

LegalZoom denies the allegation in Paragraph 13 of the Amended Petition that it

prepared any documents for Plaintiffs. LegalZoom lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 13 of the Amended Petition
and, therefore, denies the same.
14.

LegalZoom denies Plaintiffs’ characterization of the documents sent to Plaintiff

Janson and states that the document speaks for themselves. LegalZoom denies all remaining
allegations, conclusions and legal conclusions of Paragraph 14 of the Amended Petition not
expressly admitted herein.
15.

LegalZoom denies the allegation in Paragraph 15 of the Amended Petition that it

prepared any documents for Plaintiffs. LegalZoom lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in the first sentence of Paragraph 15 of the
Amended Petition and, therefore, denies the same. LegalZoom admits the remaining allegations
of Paragraph 15.
16.

LegalZoom admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of the Amended

Petition.

3
C072748/0306506/1016620.1

17.

Paragraph 17 of the Amended Petition states a legal conclusion to which no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, LegalZoom denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 17 of the Amended Petition.
18.

Paragraph 18 of the Amended Petition states a legal conclusion to which no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, LegalZoom denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 18 of the Amended Petition.
19.

Paragraph 19 of the Amended Petition states a legal conclusion to which no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, LegalZoom denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 19 of the Amended Petition.
20.

Paragraph 20 of the Amended Petition states a legal conclusion to which no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, LegalZoom denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 20 of the Amended Petition.
21.

LegalZoom denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of the Amended

Petition.
CLASS-ACTION ALLEGATIONS
22.

Paragraph 22 of the Amended Petition states a legal conclusion to which no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, LegalZoom denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 22 of the Amended Petition.
23.

Paragraph 23 of the Amended Petition states a legal conclusion to which no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, LegalZoom denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 23 of the Amended Petition.
24.

Paragraph 24 of the Amended Petition states a legal conclusion to which no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, LegalZoom denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 24 of the Amended Petition.
4
C072748/0306506/1016620.1

25.

Paragraph 25 of the Amended Petition states a legal conclusion to which no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, LegalZoom denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 25 of the Amended Petition, including all of its subparts.
26.

Paragraph 26 of the Amended Petition states a legal conclusion to which no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, LegalZoom denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 26 of the Amended Petition.
27.

Paragraph 27 of the Amended Petition states a legal conclusion to which no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, LegalZoom denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 27 of the Amended Petition.
28.

Paragraph 28 of the Amended Petition states a legal conclusion to which no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, LegalZoom denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 28 of the Amended Petition.
29.

Paragraph 29 of the Amended Petition states a legal conclusion to which no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, LegalZoom denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 29 of the Amended Petition.
30.

Paragraph 30 of the Amended Petition states a legal conclusion to which no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, LegalZoom denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 30 of the Amended Petition.
31.

Paragraph 31 of the Amended Petition states a legal conclusion to which no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, LegalZoom denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 31 of the Amended Petition.

5
C072748/0306506/1016620.1

32.

Paragraph 32 of the Amended Petition states a legal conclusion to which no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, LegalZoom denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 32 of the Amended Petition.
33.

LegalZoom denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 33 of the Amended

Petition.
COUNT I – UNLAWFUL PRACTICE OF LAW
34.

Answering Paragraph 34 of the Amended Petition, LegalZoom incorporates its

answers to each of the foregoing Paragraphs 1 through 33 as though fully set forth herein.
35.

LegalZoom denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 35 of the Amended

Petition.
36.

LegalZoom admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 36 of the Amended

Petition.
37.

LegalZoom denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 37 of the Amended

Petition.
38.

Paragraph 38 of the Amended Petition states a legal conclusion to which no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, LegalZoom denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 38 of the Amended Petition.
39.

Paragraph 39 of the Amended Petition states a legal conclusion to which no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, LegalZoom denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 39 of the Amended Petition.
LegalZoom denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any of the relief requested in the
WHEREFORE clause following Paragraph 39 of the Amended Petition.

6
C072748/0306506/1016620.1

COUNT II– MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED
40.

Answering Paragraph 40 of the Amended Petition, LegalZoom incorporates its

answers to each of the foregoing Paragraphs 1 through 39 as though fully set forth herein.
41.

LegalZoom denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 41 of the Amended

Petition.
42.

LegalZoom denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 42 of the Amended

Petition.
43.

LegalZoom admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 43 of the Amended

Petition.
44.

LegalZoom denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 44 of the Amended

Petition.
LegalZoom denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any of the relief requested in the
WHEREFORE clause following Paragraph 44 of the Amended Petition.
COUNT III– MISSOURI MERCHANDISING PRACTICES ACT – MONEY DAMAGES
45.

Answering Paragraph 45 of the Amended Petition, LegalZoom incorporates its

answers to each of the foregoing Paragraphs 1 through 44 as though fully set forth herein.
46.

Paragraph 46 of the Amended Petition states a legal conclusion to which no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, LegalZoom denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 46 of the Amended Petition.
47.

Paragraph 47 of the Amended Petition states a legal conclusion to which no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, LegalZoom denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 47 of the Amended Petition.

7
C072748/0306506/1016620.1

48.

Paragraph 48 of the Amended Petition states a legal conclusion to which no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, LegalZoom denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 48 of the Amended Petition.
49.

LegalZoom denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 49 of the Amended

Petition.
50.

LegalZoom denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 50 of the Amended

Petition.
51.

Paragraph 51 of the Amended Petition states a legal conclusion to which no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, LegalZoom denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 51 of the Amended Petition.
LegalZoom denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any of the relief requested in the
WHEREFORE clause following Paragraph 51 of the Amended Petition.
COUNT IV– MISSOURI MERCHANDISING PRACTICES ACT –
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
52.

Answering Paragraph 52 of the Amended Petition, LegalZoom incorporates its

answers to each of the foregoing Paragraphs 1 through 51 as though fully set forth herein.
53.

LegalZoom denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 53 of the Amended

Petition.
54.

Paragraph 54 of the Amended Petition states a legal conclusion to which no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, LegalZoom denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 54 of the Amended Petition.
55.

Paragraph 55 of the Amended Petition states a legal conclusion to which no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, LegalZoom denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 55 of the Amended Petition.
8
C072748/0306506/1016620.1

56.

LegalZoom denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 56 of the Amended

Petition.
57.

Paragraph 57 of the Amended Petition states a legal conclusion to which no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, LegalZoom denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 57 of the Amended Petition.
58.

Paragraph 58 of the Amended Petition states a legal conclusion to which no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, LegalZoom denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 58 of the Amended Petition.
59.

Paragraph 59 of the Amended Petition states a legal conclusion to which no

response is required. To the extent a response is required, LegalZoom denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 59 of the Amended Petition.
LegalZoom denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any of the relief requested in the
WHEREFORE clause following Paragraph 59 of the Amended Petition.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Further answering the Amended Petition, and as additional defenses thereto, LegalZoom
asserts the following additional defenses, without assuming the burden of proof when such
burden would otherwise be on Plaintiffs. LegalZoom hereby incorporates all facts alleged in its
Amended Answer to the Amended Petition into their Affirmative Defenses. LegalZoom reserves
the right to further amend its Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses as additional
information becomes available.
60.

Except as expressly admitted herein, LegalZoom denies each and every allegation

in Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
61.

The Amended Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

9
C072748/0306506/1016620.1

62.

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the Amended Petition

fails to satisfy the prerequisites for a class action.
63.

All of Plaintiffs’ claims based on the existence of an alleged deceptive or unfair

practice by LegalZoom, including but not limited to the claims asserted in Counts Three and
Four of the Amended Petition, are barred because LegalZoom did not engage in any deceptive or
unfair practice.
64.

The claims of the named plaintiffs and/or certain putative members of this

collective and class action are barred by discharge in bankruptcy, estoppel, voluntary payment,
statute of limitations, and/or waiver.
65.

Plaintiffs’ claims for any injunctive or declaratory relief are barred, in whole or in

part, because Plaintiffs have not suffered irreparable harm.
66.

The Amended Petition fails to set forth facts sufficient to constitute a claim for

punitive or exemplary damages in that neither LegalZoom nor its agents, if any, acted with
malice, fraud, oppression, or any other state sufficient to sustain punitive or exemplary damages
with respect to Plaintiffs and the class Plaintiffs purportedly seek to represent.
67.

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by federal preemption to the extent LegalZoom

customers purchased forms and services related to patent, trademark, and copyright applications
and other filings. Under federal law, specifically 35 U.S.C. sections 2 and 32, the Patent and
Trademark Office has exclusive authority to establish qualifications for admitting persons to
practice before it and to suspend or exclude them from practicing before it, and Missouri may not
impose additional licensing requirements beyond those required by federal law to permit a patent
agent to practice before the Patent and Trademark Office.

10
C072748/0306506/1016620.1

68.

Plaintiffs’ claims violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution,

which guarantees the right to petition the government and access to the courts and to legal
knowledge and information, and protects the right to provide general legal information and basic
instructions on how to prepare and use legal forms.
69.

As applied to the allegations set forth in Plaintiffs’ Amended Class-Action

Petition, sections 484.010 and 484.020 RSMo. violate the Commerce Clause of the United States
Constitution, unduly and unreasonably impeding interstate commerce by attempting to regulate
transactions taking place in California between a California merchant and customers residing in
Missouri.
70.

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United

States Constitution, which requires Missouri and its Courts to give full faith and credit to
LegalZoom’s registration in California as a Legal Document Assistant pursuant to Chapter 5.5 of
the California Business and Professions Code, sections 6400 et seq.
71.

Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims are unconstitutional and should be

dismissed:
a.

Missouri law has not established a definitive standard for setting

the amount of punitive damages and, therefore, an award of punitive damages without requiring
Plaintiffs to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt or, in the alternative, by clear and
convincing evidence, violates Defendant’s due process rights under the U. S. Constitution,
Amend. XIV, and the corresponding applicable due process provisions of the Missouri
Constitution.
b.

Because it is not subject to a predetermined limit, such as maximum

multiple compensatory damages or a maximum amount, an award of punitive damages violates

11
C072748/0306506/1016620.1

Defendant’s due process rights under the U. S. Constitution, Amend. XIV, and corresponding
applicable due process provisions of the Missouri Constitution.
c.

An award of punitive damages violates Defendant’s due process and equal

protection rights guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution, Amend. XIV, and the double jeopardy
clause of the U. S. Constitution, Amend. V, as incorporated into Amend. XIV, and a jury (1) is
not provided a standard of sufficient clarity for determining the appropriateness, or the
appropriate size, of a punitive damages award; (2) is not instructed on the limits of punitive
damages imposed by the applicable principles of deterrents and punishment; (3) is not expressly
prohibited from awarding punitive damages in whole or in part, on the basis of insidiously
discriminatory characteristics, including the corporate status of the separate Defendant; (4) is
permitted to award punitive damages under a standard for determining liability for punitive
damages that is vague and arbitrary and does not define with sufficient clarity the conduct or
mental state that makes punitive damages permissible; (5) is not subject to judicial review on the
basis of objective standards; and (6) is not required to consider the character and degree of the
alleged wrong.
d.

An award of punitive damages under Missouri law for the purposes of

compensating Plaintiffs for elements of damage not otherwise recognized by Missouri law
violates Defendant’s due process rights guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution, Amend. XIV, and
by the corresponding applicable provisions of the Missouri Constitution.
e.

An award of punitive damages under state law without the same protection

that is accorded to all criminal defendants, including protection against unreasonable searches
and seizures, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, the right to confront adverse witnesses, a
speedy trial and the effective assistance of counsel violates Defendant’s rights under the U. S.

12
C072748/0306506/1016620.1

Constitution, Amend. XIV and Amends. IV, V and VI, as incorporated into Amend. XIV, and
under the corresponding applicable provisions of the Missouri Constitution.
72.

LegalZoom reserves the right to further amend this Amended Answer and

Defenses, including to assert additional defenses that may become known through discovery.
WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Amended Petition, LegalZoom prays this
Court enter judgment in its favor, that costs be assessed against Plaintiffs, and for such other
relief as the Court shall deem just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,
BRYAN CAVE LLP

By:

s/ James T. Wicks
Robert M. Thompson
MO #38156
James T. Wicks
MO #60409
One Kansas City Place
1200 Main Street, Suite 3500
Kansas City, MO 64105
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Michael G. Biggers
MO #24694
James R. Wyrsch
MO #53197
One Metropolitan Square – Suite 3600
211 North Broadway
St. Louis, MO 63102
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

ATTORNEYS FOR LEGALZOOM.COM,
INC.

13
C072748/0306506/1016620.1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November 12, 2010, the foregoing was electronically filed with
the Clerk of Court and served by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system upon all
counsel of record.
Timothy Van Ronzelen
Matthew A. Clement
Kari A. Schulte
COOK, VETTER, DOERHOFF &
LANDWEHR, PC
231 Madison
Jefferson City, MO 65101
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
David T. Butsch
James J. Simeri
Mathew R. Fields
BUTSCH SIMERI FIELDS LLC
231 South Bemiston Ave., Suite 260
Clayton, MO 63105
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Edward D. Robertson, Jr.
Mary Doerhoff Winter
BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON, ROBERTSON
& GORNY
715 Swifts Highway
Jefferson City, MO 65109
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Randall O. Barnes
RANDALL O. BARNES & ASSOCIATES
219 East Dunklin Street, Suite A.
Jefferson City, MO 65101
[e-mail]
Steven E. Dyer
10805 Sunset Office Drive, Suite 300
St. Louis, MO 63127
[e-mail]

s/ James T. Wicks
Attorney for LegalZoom.com, Inc.

14
C072748/0306506/1016620.1