Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-07194/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-07194-0/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 WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT; VACATING 

HEARING

Re: Dkt. No. 54

Before the Court is plaintiffs' Motion, filed February 14, 2018, "for Leave to File 

Second Amended Complaint." Defendant LegalZoom.com, Inc. has filed opposition. 

Plaintiffs have not filed a reply. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of 

and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter suitable for determination on 

the parties' respective written submissions, VACATES the hearing scheduled for April 6, 

2018, and rules as follows.

Under the Local Rules of this District, a a party seeking leave to file an amended 

complaint "must reproduce the entire proposed pleading and may not incorporate any 

part of a prior pleading by reference." See Civil L.R. 10-1. Here, plaintiffs, in support of 

the instant motion, have not submitted a proposed Second Amended Complaint, nor 

even explained what proposed amendments they seek to make.

Accordingly, the motion is hereby DENIED, without prejudice to plaintiffs' refilng 

the motion, accompanied by a proposed Second Amended Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2018

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-07194-MMC Document 83 Filed 03/14/18 Page 1 of 1