Webster v. LegalZoom CA2/1

Filed 10/1/14 Webster v. LegalZoom CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

KATHERINE WEBSTER, B240129 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County v. Super. Ct. No. BC 438637) LEGALZOOM.COM, INC., Defendant and Respondent, RANDALL WHITING et al., Objectors and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles, William F. Highberger, Judge. Affirmed. Green & Noblin, Robert S. Green and James Robert Noblin for Objector and Appellant Randall Whiting. Law Office of Darrell Palmer and Joseph Darrell Palmer for Objectors and Appellants David Johnson and Trent Manbeck. The Martini Law Goup and Steven D. Martini for Objector and Appellant Abigail Mings. The Arns Law Firm, Robert S. Arns, Jonathan E. Davis, Steven R. Weinmann; Stebner and Associates, Kathryn A. Stebner and Sarah Colby for Plaintiff and Respondent Katherine Webster. Sidley Austin, Alycia A. Degen, Robert A. Holland, Patrick E. Kennell III and Stuart C. Edmiston for Defendant and Respondent LegalZoom,com, Inc.

_________________________

The trial court approved a class action settlement. We affirm. I. Facts This appeal stands at the confluence of two Los Angeles class actions against LegalZoom.com, Inc. One class action is Drozdyk v. LegalZoom, which later became Whiting v. LegalZoom. The other is Webster v. LegalZoom. LegalZoom, the defendant in both of these cases, is a nationwide internet company that sold self-help legal documents to the public. LegalZoom’s website advertised, “Save time and money on common legal matters!” Its self-help legal documents offered assistance with name changes, wills, trusts, incorporations, trademark registrations, divorces, and so on. Consumers could visit the LegalZoom website, select documents they wanted, and answer questions on the screen. LegalZoom employees would check answers for completeness, consistency, and spelling. Software generated the documents, which employees checked and mailed to the customer. LegalZoom charged between $35 and $299 for most documents. The first class action against LegalZoom started as Drozdyk v. LegalZoom on September 15, 2009, and changed to Whiting v. LegalZoom in 2011. The original plaintiff was Charles Drozdyk, who alleged problems using LegalZoom documents for his Bike Cafe business. Drozdyk sued under Business and Professions Code section 17200 and under a 2002 California statute called the Legal Document Assistant Act, Business and Professions Code sections 6400–6415. Katherine Webster began a different class action against LegalZoom on May 27, 2010. Webster claimed LegalZoom misrepresented its business by making customers believe anyone could use its website to create effective and reliable legal documents, without hiring an attorney. Webster’s complaint differed from Drozdyk’s. Webster originally made no claim under the Legal Document Assistant Act. Rather, she alleged negligence, elder abuse, a violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code section 1750 et seq., and a violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200. The Drozdyk and Webster cases were both assigned to the complex litigation program of the Los Angeles Superior Court, in the Central Civil West courthouse. Judge 2