Context source · CXF-S-E679FD9B1BC7
e679fd9b1bc73dd661af…6 pages · 451 KBDISTILLATES
Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.
David Keithly asserted on March 14 call that the telephone conversation itself constituted the meet and confer required by court rules
Your response was that "this is the meet and confer call"
Gabe Wright contends the March 14 call was not a proper conference because it was merely an announcement without advance notice, did not allow for thorough discussion, and co-counsel could not participate
The telephone call on March 14th to announce your intent to file an Anti-SLAPP Motion was not a conference of counsel or a thorough discussion of the substance of the contemplated motion and any potential resolution. Further, my co-counsel was out of the country and unable to participate in such a call at that time
Wright asserts that having meet and confer discussion after motion already filed is procedurally meaningless, comparing it to 'closing the barn door after the horse is out'
With respect to your anti-SLAPP Motion, Judge Montenegro's Chambers Rules are clear that the meet and confer conference must take place seven days prior to the filing of the motion. Unless you are going to withdraw your motion in order to allow the parties to have a thorough meet and confer as required by Judge Montenegro, having that discussion now is nothing more than closing the barn door after the horse is out.
Wright announces intent to file Motion for More Definitive Statement seeking clarification on whether complaint filing was 'error' versus 'unauthorized' as represented by opposing counsel
We do want to have a thorough meet and confer with you in accordance with Section III(A) of Judge Montenegro's Chambers Rules to discuss our intention to bring a FRCP 12(e) Motion for a More Definitive Statement in response to your Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice and in response to your Anti-SLAPP Motion. Specifically, we will be seeking a more definitive statement of what is meant by Atlantic Wave alleging as a core issue in its Motions that the filing of its Complaint was an "error" - particularly where you and Mr. Sadigh have represented to us that it was "unauthorized" and not "an error."
Wright states deadline to complete Rule 26(f) conference is April 24, 2024 and proposes conducting it on April 10 or thereafter after responding to pending motions
As for the parties' Rule 26 Conference, the deadline to complete this Conference is April 24, 2024. We are presently responding to two motions filed on your part. We will be prepared to proceed with a Rule 26 Conference on April 10th or thereafter.
Partner at Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP representing Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt in Atlantic Wave litigation
Gabe Wright | Partner Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP | MORE THAN A CENTURY OF CLIENT SERVICE Tel: (619) 810-4390
Partner at Mortenson Taggart Adams LLP representing Atlantic Wave and plaintiffs in litigation against Cyberlux
David M. Keithly Partner MORTENSON TAGGART ADAMS LLP tel: (949) 774-2107
Federal judge presiding over Atlantic Wave v. Cyberlux case with specific Chambers Rules governing motion practice
Section III(A) of Judge Montenegro's Chambers Rules require a conference of counsel prior to filing of noticed motions
Co-counsel at Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP working with Gabe Wright on Cyberlux defense
Trevor Locko <TLocko@hahnlaw.com>
Counsel at Thompson Coburn copied on meet and confer correspondence
Gray, Edward W. Jr. < EGray@thompsoncoburn.com>
Plaintiff entity in litigation against Cyberlux Corporation represented by Mortenson Taggart Adams LLP
Atlantic Wave, et al. v. Cyberlux, et al.
Defendant corporation in Atlantic Wave litigation represented by Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP
Cyberlux Corporation, Inc. and Mark D. Schmidt's Amended Counterclaim
Individual defendant and counterclaimant with Cyberlux Corporation in Atlantic Wave litigation
Cyberlux Corporation, Inc. and Mark D. Schmidt's Amended Counterclaim
David Keithly left voicemail for Gabe Wright generally asking him to call back, without specifying purpose regarding Anti-SLAPP motion
The genesis of that call was a telephone message you left for me on March 13th generally asking me to give you a call.
Keithly called Wright to announce intent to file Anti-SLAPP motion and stated he was calling to meet and confer, declaring 'this is the meet and confer call' when Wright requested formal conference
On the March 14th call, you stated that you intend to file an Anti-SLAPP Motion in response to Cyberlux Corporation, Inc. and Mark D. Schmidt's Amended Counterclaim and that you were calling to meet and confer on the Motion... Your response was that "this is the meet and confer call" and that you would be filing your anti-SLAPP Motion on March 21, 2024
Wright sent formal email challenging adequacy of March 14 call and requesting proper meet and confer conference on March 25 or 26, 2024
This correspondence follows our telephone conversation from March 14, 2024... To satisfy the Court's requirement that a thorough discussion occur, we are requesting that an actual conference of counsel occur on this Anti-SLAPP. We are available for such a discussion on the following dates: March 25 or March 26, beginning at 8:00 a.m. pacific time.
Conference call scheduled for 9:00 AM with dial-in number 866-321-0174 and guest code 72125609 to address Anti-SLAPP meet and confer and Rule 26 conference
Below is the information for our 9:00 a.m. call: Dial: 866-321-0174 Guest Code: 72125609
Direct statement from Keithly during March 14 call asserting the telephone conversation itself satisfied meet and confer obligations
Your response was that "this is the meet and confer call" and that you would be filing your anti-SLAPP Motion on March 21, 2024, unless we convinced you otherwise before then.
CONNECT
The canvas follows the database: source to DISTIL record, DISTIL record to knowledge object, then reviewed relationship. Position alone means nothing.
No public CONNECT relationships are attached to this source.
WEIGH
A score appears only when its components and change threshold are published.
The active Website Edition contains no applied score snapshot for this source or its connected objects. That means not assessed—not zero.