Lacambra vs Shea Properties et al
Thurs May 18, 2008 - Meet and Confer Phone Conference
(Corner of Aliso Creek and Pacific Park, Aliso Viejo)
It hadn’t been more than 10 minutes before the public phone at the Shell Gas Station rang. I was sitting in my car under the glaring heat contemplating what to say during the conference call. I had directed Craig, Robert Cardwell’s assistant to reach me at that number. There was no mention from my part that the number was actually a pay phone. More importantly, there was no way of telling how long the call was going to be and I was conserving my Virgin Phone pre-paid minutes. The phone minutes had recently been topped-off but had been a scarce and valuable commodity. I picked up the public phone and it was silent – no voices, not even a tone. I waited to see if I could get a call back. It wasn’t even 20 seconds before I got a call on my cell phone – "darnit!" I said to myself. I was told by Craig that the number was connecting to a fax number, which required that I conduct the conference on my pre-paid phone.
On the phone were Robert Cardwell, counsel for Shea Properties and Gregory Beam, counsel for Gary J. Gough, Esq. the attorney for Shea Properties who was involved in the “neighborhood nuisance/stalker” incident. As a general rule, attorneys are immune from being prosecuted for the administration of their duties as an advocate. But I found case laws that actually allows a Plaintiff to file action against an attorney. In Pacivic vs. Santuci (2000) the court ruled that “Attorneys owe an independent duty not to defraud a non-client”. That was enough for me to add him as a Defendant.
The conference was quick and simple. During the conversation Mr. Cardwell reiterated his position that he was there to vigorously defend his client. Furthermore, he felt, as did Mr. Beam, that the suit had no merit. As a courtesy he offered to have his clients pay for the legal expense thus far if I would dismiss it with prejudice. “You are too kind, counselor”, I interjected. “But the answer is no.” No points were made that was of any significance but the call met our obligation to the court.
The "Meet and Confer" is required by court rules before a CMC or Case Management Meeting. The object is to have opposing parties communicate frequently so as to have the opportunity to confer, discuss and/or settle the dispute before the commencement of the trial.
Our next CMC is on the 6th of June – incidentally the anniversary of D-Day – the Allied Landings on Normandy in 1944.
