Janson et al v. LegalZoom.com, Inc.

Filing 90

MOTION for summary judgment filed by Robert M. Thompson on behalf of LegalZoom.com, Inc.. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 5/2/2011 unless otherwise directed by the court (Thompson, Robert) Modified on 4/26/2011 - Document Deleted, duplicate of 100 filed under seal. (Kanies, Renea).

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 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and applicable local rules, Defendant
LegalZoom.com, Inc. (“LegalZoom”) hereby moves the Court for an Order granting summary
judgment in its favor and against plaintiffs 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”), on all claims alleged in plaintiffs’ Amended Class Action Petition.
1.

Plaintiffs have alleged four claims against LegalZoom: Count I for Unlawful

Practice of Law; Count II for Money had and Received; Count III for money damages under the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act; and Count IV for injunctive relief under the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act.

Counts II, III, and IV depend on Count I’s allegation that

LegalZoom engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Missouri.
2.

There is no dispute in the case as to what services LegalZoom offers and how it

does so. LegalZoom’s website allows customers to select a desired document and fill out an
automated questionnaire, the answers to which are automatically populated into standardized

1
C072748/0306506/1033870.2

blank forms, which are then reviewed for formatting only, printed, and shipped to the customer
for review and execution.
3.

Summary judgment is appropriate on Count I because, under the Supreme Court

of Missouri’s decision in In re Thompson, 574 S.W.2d 365 (Mo. banc 1978), LegalZoom’s
website is not the unauthorized practice of law. LegalZoom simply uses computer rather than
paper technology in activity the Missouri Supreme Court has held for decades is not the
unauthorized practice of law.
4.

On its face, Missouri’s unauthorized practice of law statute does not apply to

LegalZoom’s website because providing automated self-help software on the internet does not
constitute “drawing or procuring” documents affecting secular rights for valuable consideration.
A holding that the statute does apply to LegalZoom’s website would implicate significant
constitutional concerns, including as freedom of speech, due process, and the right to selfrepresentation; the statute should be construed to avoid such constitutional issues. The Missouri
Supreme Court has held that conflicts between the text of the Missouri unauthorized practice
statute and the Supreme Court’s prior cases should be resolved in favor of the latter, making the
decision In re Thompson case controlling.
5.

In addition, federal law preempts application of the Missouri unauthorized

practice statute to LegalZoom’s trademark and patent products, which are governed by
regulations of the United States Patent and Trademark office.
6.

Because LegalZoom has not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in

Missouri, it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Count I. Because Counts II, III, and IV
are dependent on Count I, LegalZoom is entitled to summary judgment on those counts as well.

2
C072748/0306506/1033870.2

7.

In support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, LegalZoom incorporates its

Suggestions in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, along with the accompanying
Exhibits Appendix, which are both filed with this Motion.
WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing reasons and for all the reasons articulated in
LegalZoom’s Suggestions in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, LegalZoom
respectfully requests that the Court grant summary judgment in favor of LegalZoom and against
plaintiffs 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.
Respectfully submitted,
BRYAN CAVE LLP
By: s/ Robert M. Thompson
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]
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
C072748/0306506/1033870.2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 8, 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
C072748/0306506/1033870.2