In the anonymous blogger lawsuit filed by Alan Kluger's developer client, Alan has filed an explanation for why he didn't include a certificate of compliance with the "meet and confer" Local Rule 7.1.
I've said it before, but I see this case having a lot of potential:
Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Remand this case on July 27, 2011. [D.E. 10]. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand was essentially a response to Defendant’s Notice of Removal. [D.E. 1]. Defendant’s counsel, Robert Kain (“Mr. Kain”), personally hand-delivered the Notice of Removal to the undersigned, who advised Mr. Kain at that time that Plaintiffs would be seeking remand to state court. Mr. Kain did not agree to the remand, as further evidenced by Defendant’s Opposition to Motion to Remand. [D.E. 13].Oh boy.
Undersigned counsel did not include a certification of good faith compliance with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) in the Motion to Remand because the motion was in essence a response to the Notice of Removal and because it was obvious that Defendant opposed the remand. Undersigned counsel has since attempted to resolve the issues raised in Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand with Defendant, and Defendant remains unwilling to agree to the Motion to Remand or Plaintiffs’ Request for Attorneys’ Fees [D.E. 30] that was filed in connection therewith. Plaintiffs will include certifications of good faith conferences in all forthcoming motions that are subject to such certification if and as this case proceeds in this Court.
(Get that -- "if and as" this case proceeds before Judge Cooke; if "and as" -- hint hint!)
Ok, so no certificate was included because it was obvious that opposing counsel would not agree to the relief requested, and because Alan's motion was essentially a responsive pleading.
Is that an exception?