CA Civil: Opposing counsel refuses to "Meet & Confer" before continued CMC, claiming it's only required before the initial CMC. Is she right?
I am a self-represented (pro per) Cross-Complainant in a California Superior Court civil lawsuit. We have a continued Case Management Conference (CMC) coming up on July 1.
The Context: The initial CMC was in late April. The Cross-Defendant failed to appear entirely, so the judge continued the CMC to July 1. Since then, the attorney for 1^(st) party has jumped in. She claims the Cross-Defendant (2^(nd) party) is actually going to represent himself (pro per), but that she is appearing for him at this upcoming CMC because he will be out of town.
I emailed her to schedule the mandatory Meet and Confer ahead of the July 1 date. She flatly refused. Here is her exact email response:
" I will be appearing at the July 1, 2026 continued Case Management Conference on behalf of X and on behalf of XX for that hearing only, as he will be out of town.
Your interpretation of Rule 3.724 is not correct. That rule requires the parties to meet and confer no later than 30 calendar days before the initial Case Management Conference unless the court orders otherwise. We already completed a meet and confer regarding case management issues in this matter, and I am not aware of any order requiring an additional meet and confer before the continued July 1, 2026 CMC.
If you could further cite to law or regulation saying we must meet, please provide it. Otherwise, I do not believe any further meet and confer is required.”
My Questions for the Group:
1. Is she technically right? CRC 3.724 says "30 days before the initial CMC." But since her client completely failed to appear at the initial CMC (and has now allegedly gone pro per, while she makes a "limited appearance"), doesn't the spirit of the rule—and local court rules—require a meet and confer so we can actually manage the case?
2. How should I handle Item 19 (Meet and Confer) on my separate CM-110? Should I check "Have not met" and attach her email as proof of her refusal?
3. Can an attorney just show up "for that hearing only" for a client who is otherwise claiming to be pro per, without filing a formal Limited Scope Notice?
I appreciate any insight on how California judges usually react to an attorney taking this kind of hyper-technical "ostrich" approach to avoiding a meet-and-confer.