Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-07194/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-07194-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEGALFORCE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-07194-MMC 

ORDER DENYING AS PREMATURE 

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; 

AFFORDING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO 

FILE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

Before the Court is plaintiff LegalForce, Inc.'s ("LegalForce") "Motion for Leave to 

File Third Amended Complaint" ("Motion for Leave"), filed May 18, 2018. Defendant 

LegalZoom.com, Inc. ("LegalZoom") has filed opposition, to which LegalForce has 

replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to 

the motion, the Court hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for July 20, 2018, and 

rules as follows.

By order filed April 10, 2018, the Court dismissed with leave to amend each of the 

four claims alleged by LegalForce in the then-operative complaint, the First Amended 

Complaint ("FAC"). On May 17, 2018, LegalForce filed a Second Amended Complaint 

("SAC"), in which it amended three of the four claims that had been alleged in the FAC, 

and, on May 31, 2018, LegalZoom filed a Motion to Dismiss the SAC. In the interim, 

LegalForce filed its Motion for Leave, by which it seeks leave to file a Third Amended 

Complaint ("Proposed TAC") comprising the three claims alleged in the SAC along with 

six claims not previously asserted in the above-titled action. Thereafter, on June 14, 

2018, LegalForce, in response to the Motion to Dismiss, filed a "Statement of NonOpposition."

Case 3:17-cv-07194-MMC Document 134 Filed 06/20/18 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

In its Statement of Non-Opposition, LegalForce proposes a procedure for resolving 

the parties' respective motions. In particular, LegalForce asserts, the Proposed TAC 

"encompasses all the facts and claims alleged in the [SAC]," and, consequently, "[f]or the 

sake of judicial economy, [it] would like to focus only on the [Proposed TAC]." (See Pl.'s 

Statement at 2.) The Court, however, finds LegalForce's preferred procedure will not 

serve the interests of judicial economy, as it will unnecessarily prolong the pleading 

stage.

Accordingly, to facilitate the orderly resolution of the issues presented, the Court 

hereby DENIES as premature LegalForce's Motion for Leave, and hereby affords 

LegalForce leave to file, no later than June 29, 2018, opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. 

If LegalForce chooses to avail itself of such opportunity, LegalZoom shall file its reply no 

later than July 6, 2018.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2018

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-07194-MMC Document 134 Filed 06/20/18 Page 2 of 2