Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-07194/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-07194-2/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 GRANTING LEGALZOOM'S 

MOTION TO DISMISS; AFFORDING 

PLAINTIFF LEGALFORCE LEAVE TO 

AMEND

Before the Court is defendant LegalZoom.com, Inc.'s ("LegalZoom") motion, filed 

February 20, 2018, "to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint." The motion has 

been fully briefed. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in 

opposition to the motion, the Court hereby rules as follows.1

LegalZoom argues that each claim asserted against it by plaintiff LegalForce, Inc. 

("LegalForce") is subject to dismissal. 2 The Court considers in turn each of LegalForce's 

claims, which are the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action.

3

 

1By order filed April 2, 2018, the Court took the matter under submission.

2

The motion also seeks dismissal of claims asserted by Raj V. Abhyanker 

("Abhyanker"), who, at that time, was a named plaintiff; after the motion had been briefed, 

however, plaintiffs filed a notice dismissing Abhyanker's claims. (See Notice, filed March 

22, 2018.) The motion also seeks dismissal of claims asserted by plaintiff LegalForce 

RAPC Worldwide, P.C. ("LegalForce RAPC"); by separate order filed concurrently 

herewith, the Court has granted LegalZoom's motion to compel LegalForce RAPC to 

arbitrate each of its claims against LegalZoom. Consequently, to the extent the instant 

motion is brought against Abhyanker and LegalForce RAPC, the motion is moot.

3Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed the Second Cause of Action (see Notice, filed 

March 5, 2018), and the Sixth and Seventh Causes of Action are not brought on behalf of 

LegalForce (see FAC ¶¶ 174, 186).

Case 3:17-cv-07194-MMC Document 103 Filed 04/10/18 Page 1 of 4
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

A. First Cause of Action (Declaratory Relief)

In the First Cause of Action, titled "Declaratory Judgment," LegalForce seeks a 

declaration as to the type of conduct in which "licensed attorney[s]," "licensed law firm[s]," 

"legal technology C corporation[s]," and "foreign law firm[s] organized as an Alternative 

Business Structure" are permitted to engage in connection with the submission of 

trademark applications to the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). 

(See First Amended Complaint ("FAC") ¶ 100.)

LegalZoom argues LegalForce has failed to identify a controversy between 

LegalZoom and LegalForce upon which LegalForce can base a claim for declaratory 

relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) (providing, "[i]n the case of actual controversy within its 

jurisdiction," court may "declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party 

seeking such declaration"). The Court agrees.

In particular, given that neither LegalZoom nor LegalForce is alleged to be any of 

the above-listed entities, LegalForce fails to allege it "suffered an injury in fact" that is 

"likely to be redressed" by issuance of a declaration addressing the rights of any such 

entity. See Center for Biological Diversity v. Mattis, 868 F.3d 803, 816 (9th Cir. 2017) 

(setting forth elements necessary to establish standing to seek declaratory relief).

Accordingly, to the extent such claim is alleged against LegalForce,4the First 

Cause of Action is subject to dismissal.

B. Third Cause of Action (Lanham Act)

In the Third Cause of Action, titled "Federal False & Misleading Advertising and 

Unfair Competition in Violation of the Lanham Act," LegalForce alleges LegalZoom has 

made false and/or misleading statements in its advertisements. (See FAC ¶¶ 129-37.)

According to LegalForce, LegalZoom, which, LegalForce alleges, is not a "law firm" (see

 

4

The First Cause of Action is also asserted against the USPTO. As the question of 

whether LegalForce has sufficiently alleged a controversy between itself and the USPTO 

is addressed in a motion to dismiss filed by the USPTO, which motion is scheduled for 

hearing on May 11, 2018, the Court does not address that question herein.

Case 3:17-cv-07194-MMC Document 103 Filed 04/10/18 Page 2 of 4
3

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

FAC ¶ 23), "prepar[es] and fil[es] trademarks" (see FAC ¶ 35) and, in advertising such 

services, makes "false comparisons to attorney led services" (see FAC at 34:7-8).

LegalZoom argues the Third Cause of Action fails because LegalForce fails to 

allege any facts to support a finding that it suffered any injury proximately caused by 

LegalZoom's assertedly false advertising. Again, the Court agrees.

"To invoke the Lanham Act's cause of action for false advertising, a plaintiff must 

plead (and ultimately prove) an injury to a commercial interest in sales or business 

reputation proximately caused by the defendant's misrepresentations." Lexmark Int'l v. 

Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377, 1395 (2014). The FAC includes no 

factual allegations to support a finding that LegalZoom's advertising has had any effect 

on LegalForce's commercial interests or its reputation. See id. Moreover, the FAC 

contains an allegation that LegalForce "makes no revenue from [the] preparation and 

filing [of] U.S. trademark applications" (see FAC ¶ 20), thus seemingly acknowledging 

that its revenues are not affected by LegalZoom's advertising.

Accordingly, the Third Cause of Action is subject to dismissal.5

C. Fourth Cause of Action (Business & Professions Code § 17500 et seq.

 and § 17600 et seq.)

In the Fourth Cause of Action, titled "California False & Misleading Advertising in 

Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq. and § 17600 et seq.," LegalForce 

alleges LegalZoom has made false and/or misleading statements in its advertisements. 

(See FAC ¶¶ 144-47.)

As LegalZoom correctly points out, LegalForce lacks standing to assert a claim 

under the cited provisions of the Business and Professions Code, as such claims may 

only be asserted by a plaintiff "who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or 

property as a result of a violation," see Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 4th 310, 

321 (2011) (internal quotation and citation omitted), and, as set forth above, LegalForce

 

5

LegalZoom is the only remaining defendant named in the Third, Fourth, and Fifth 

Causes of Action.

Case 3:17-cv-07194-MMC Document 103 Filed 04/10/18 Page 3 of 4
4

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

has failed to allege any facts to support a finding that it suffered such an injury.

Accordingly, the Fourth Cause of Action is subject to dismissal.

D. Fifth Cause of Action (California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.)

In the Fifth Cause of Action, titled "California Unfair Competition in Violation of Cal. 

Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.," LegalForce alleges LegalZoom's false advertising 

constitutes "unfair competition." (See FAC ¶¶ 158-59.)

For the reasons stated above with respect to the Fourth Cause of Action, the Court 

finds LegalForce lacks standing to assert this claim as well. See Kwikset, 51 Cal. 4th at 

321 (holding "private standing" to bring claim under § 17200 is "limited to any person who 

has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of unfair 

competition") (internal quotation and citation omitted).

Accordingly, the Fifth Cause of Action is subject to dismissal.

E. Leave to Amend

At LegalForce's request, the Court will afford LegalForce leave to amend to cure, if 

it can do so, the above-discussed deficiencies. The Court will set a deadline to amend 

after resolution of two other motions, specifically, a motion to amend, scheduled for 

hearing on April 27, 2018, in which LegalForce seeks leave to, inter alia, add additional 

claims, and the USPTO's motion to dismiss, which, as noted, is scheduled for hearing on 

May 11, 2018.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, LegalZoom's motion to dismiss LegalForce's claims 

against it is hereby GRANTED, and LegalForce's claims against LegalZoom are hereby 

DISMISSED, with leave to amend to be provided by the Court after resolution of the two 

motions identified above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2018

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-07194-MMC Document 103 Filed 04/10/18 Page 4 of 4