Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffmotionclass actionmotion to dismiss

plaintiffmotioncivil proceduremotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Janson v. LegalZoom.com, Inc., 727 F.Supp.2d 782

Facts

The plaintiffs, residents of Missouri, purchased legal documents from LegalZoom's website in 2008 and 2009. They alleged that LegalZoom engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Missouri and filed a class action in Cole County, Missouri. LegalZoom, based in California, removed the case to federal court and sought to dismiss it based on a forum selection clause in its Terms of Service, which required disputes to be resolved in California.

Plaintiffs are Missouri residents. The Petition alleges that Plaintiffs purchased documents from LegalZoom through its website in 2008 and 2009.

Issue

Whether the forum selection clause in LegalZoom's Terms of Service is enforceable and whether the case should be transferred to California.

LegalZoom filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule

Forum selection clauses are generally enforceable unless they are unjust, unreasonable, or violate a strong public policy of the state where the case is filed.

In general, the Eighth Circuit has confirmed that 'forum selection clauses are prima facie valid and are enforced unless they are unjust or unreasonable or invalid.'

Analysis

The court determined that the forum selection clause was invalid because enforcing it would contravene Missouri's strong public policy against the unauthorized practice of law. The court also weighed various factors under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and found that the balance did not favor transferring the case to California, as both parties would face inconveniences and the interests of justice favored keeping the case in Missouri.

The forum selection clause in this case is invalid because enforcing it would run contrary to a strong public policy.

Conclusion

The court denied LegalZoom's motion to dismiss and its alternative motion to transfer the case to California, concluding that the forum selection clause was invalid and that the balance of factors did not support a transfer.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that LegalZoom's motion [Doc. # 17] is DENIED.

Who won?

The plaintiffs prevailed because the court ruled that the forum selection clause was invalid and that the case should remain in Missouri.

The Court declines LegalZoom's request to reconsider the denial of LegalZoom's Rule 12(b)(3) motion.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Roger v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2016 WL 11588368

Gorham v. General Growth Properties, Inc., 256 F.R.D. 602

Wiesmueller v. Kosobucki, 513 F.3d 784

In re PSE & G Shareholder Litigation, 173 N.J. 258, 801 A.2d 295

Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, 17 Misc.3d 1105(A), 851 N.Y.S.2d 57 (Table), 2007 WL 2822423, 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 51832(U)