Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-07194/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-07194-6/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 RAPC WORLDWIDE, 

P.C, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LEGALZOOM.COM, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-07194-MMC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION

Re: Dkt. No. 113

Before the Court is plaintiff LegalForce, Inc.'s ("LegalForce") "Administrative 

Motion," filed May 1, 2018, "to Seek Court's Clarification in the Order Denying Plaintiffs' 

Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint." Defendants have not filed a 

response thereto. Having read and considered LegalForce's Administrative Motion, the 

Court rules as follows.

The Administrative Motion is procedurally improper, as it is not "accompanied . . . 

by a declaration that explains why a stipulation could not be obtained." See Civil L.R. 7-

11(a). Moreover, the motion does not seek clarification of the Court's prior order, but, 

rather, an advisory opinion as to how the Court might rule if LegalForce, in the future,

were to file an amended pleading, a motion for leave to amend, or a new action.

Accordingly, LegalForce's Administrative Motion is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2018

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-07194-MMC Document 117 Filed 05/09/18 Page 1 of 1