271 F.R.D. 506
W.D. Mo.2010Background
- Plaintiffs sue LegalZoom for unauthorized practice of law and law business under §484.020 RSMo and for Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MPA) violations, plus money had and received from fees.
- Plaintiffs allege LegalZoom offers customized legal services via a website, using an online questionnaire to generate documents.
- Plaintiffs cite specific fees paid: Janson $121.95 for a will; Ardrey and Ferrell $249 for articles of organization for C & J Remodeling.
- Defendant contends its staff only reviews data for completeness and avoids providing legal advice, with a branching intake mechanism guiding document preparation.
- Plaintiffs propose a Missouri class: all Missouri residents charged and paid LegalZoom fees for legal document preparation from December 17, 2004 to present.
- Court grants Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Class.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposed class meets Rule 23(a). | Common issue is whether LegalZoom’s online document preparation violates Missouri law. | Diversity of products may require individualized inquiry undermining commonality. | Class satisfies Rule 23(a) requirements (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy). |
| Whether the class satisfies Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority. | Common questions predominate; centralized website conduct; large number of plaintiffs favors class. | Argues diverse products and individualized causation for MPA. | Predominance and superiority satisfied; class treatment warranted. |
| Whether the proposed class definition is adequate and administratively feasible. | Definition based on objective criteria; not reliant on reliance evidence. | Definition may sweep members with no MPA claims requiring individualized fact-finding. | Class definition deemed adequate and administratively feasible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Paxton v. Union Nat’l Bank, 688 F.2d 552 (8th Cir.1982) (numerosity and commonality considerations for Rule 23)
- Blades v. Monsanto Co., 400 F.3d 562 (8th Cir.2005) (limited preliminary inquiry allowed; merits narrowed for class certification)
- General Tel. Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (standard guiding preliminary inquiry into class certification)
- Gunnells v. Healthplan Servs., Inc., 348 F.3d 417 (4th Cir.2003) (liberal construction of Rule 23; no merits resolution at certification)
- In re Control Data Corp. Sec. Litig., 116 F.R.D. 216 (D.Minn.1986) (limits on merits consideration during certification; see later opinion)
- In re Control Data Corp. Sec. Litig., 933 F.2d 616 (8th Cir.1991) (reaffirmed if applicable; guidance on class certification standards)
- Bradford v. AGCO Corp., 187 F.R.D. 600 (W.D. Mo.1999) (numerosity guidance for class actions in Missouri context)
- Zmuda v. Chesterfield Valley Power Sports, Inc., 267 S.W.3d 712 (Mo.Ct.App.2008) (unauthorized practice of law as MPA violation; reliance not required for MPA claim)
- Hess v. Chase Manhattan Bank, USA N.A., 220 S.W.3d 758 (Mo.Ct.App.2007) (fraud elements not required for MPA claim; reliance not necessary)