Opinion ID: 1441495
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Ex Parte Hearing

Text: At the ex parte hearing, Mr. Lockhart testified about the defamatory statements of some of his previous supervisors in the police department and the impact on him of Ms. Cade's negligence. In addition, he submitted his own affidavit to show his pecuniary losses, a memorandum from Edward Meyer of the Department of Commerce, and a report from Alan Banov, Esquire, regarding Ms. Cade's handling of the case. Mr. Meyer's memo stated that the Department of Commerce had declined to hire Mr. Lockhart because of his suitability [ sic ] based upon reference checks with his former supervisors. Specifically, the memo noted that Inspector Richie indicated ... that Mr. Lockhart had left his position under negative circumstances. [He] also indicated that Mr. Lockhart performed minimally and did not have analytical skills. Captain Proctor also was extremely negative regarding Mr. Lockhart's ability, attitude, and performance. Mr. Banov, an attorney specializing in employment law, provided an eleven-page critique of Ms. Cade's handling of the case, pointing out defects in the complaint, the motion to dismiss, the joint pre-trial statement, and the motion for reconsideration. In addition, Mr. Banov said that [b]ased on my readings and experience, I would guess that Mr. Lockhart would probably have received at least $20,000 [in damages], but no more than $250,000. The most reasonable guess is that the range would be between $35,000 and $200,000. At the close of the hearing, the court said to Mr. Lockhart's counsel: . . . [A]ll I have is the self-serving statements of Mr. Lockhart.... I haven't heard any evidence that I would credit, other than his own self-serving statements . . . . Are you going to call someone from the police department to establish that he was not the subject of an investigation?      All right, then, you don't have any witnesses. How are you going to establish that he would have prevailed, proof of the defense? ... He is the plaintiff. And, of course, he is going to say that he was defamed. But I think that I am entitled to take ... his statements with a large grain of salt.       . . . This was the hearing. I find that you had full notice of the hearing. You had ample opportunity to prepare. You had ample notice to bring witnesses to the hearing. This is a case [in] which you have to prove that, even assuming that the lawyer didn't file the papers on time, that had she filed it, she would have prevailed. And I am unable to ... reach that conclusion. Since Ms. Cade filed an answer to the complaint, the fact that a default has been entered doesn't exclude the requirement that you must prove the substance of the complaint, and more than damages. I find that you have not produced sufficient evidence to do anything like that, and the request for damages and default for malpractice is denied.