Date: 06-12-2012

Case Style: Alex H.M. Almohandis v. John Hailman

Case Number: CJ-2010-6431

Judge: Linda G. Morrissey

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: David C. Bean

Defendant's Attorney: Meredith D. Lindaman

Description: Alex H.M. Almohandis sued John Hailman on a negligence theory claiming to have been injured and/or damaged as a result of Hailman failing to exercise due care.

The parties herein were involved in an automobile accident on December 18, 2008, near the intersection of South Yale Avenue and East 15th Street in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Plaintiff filed this suit herein seeking damages for personal injuries on October 11, 2010. Initially, Plaintiff asserted a claim for lost wages in his discovery responses. Thereafter, he retracted his lost wage claim, but at his deposition, Plaintiff then reasserted his lost wage claims. At that time, Plaintiff asserted he was making a claim for lost wages to his restaurant, Kellyville Finest Café, in the amount of $30,000.00. Since Plaintiffproduced no evidence whatsoever to support his claim for loss to the Kellyville Finest Café, this claim fails as a matter of law.

Plaintiffhas also asserted a lost wages claim for $20,000 to $52,000.00 in business allegedly ‘ost to his company, which designed and installed signs and awnings. Plaintiff claims this business was lost because he had to refer the contracts to another sign company, Osage Neon owned by Harold Hawkins, as he could no longer perform the work himself due to the accident. Both Plaintiff and Mr. Hawkins confirmed that Plaintiff received a 10% referral fee from every job Plaintiff referred to Mr. Hawkins. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to recover the 10% referral fee that he was actually paid, he is precluded by law from recovering the same because he suffered no damage, i.e. he was actually paid the money. As for the remaining claim of loss to Plaintiffs business, as will be demonstrated below, Plaintiff has simply failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims of loss other than his own speculative testimony regarding what he might have earned. Because Oklahoma law requires the amount of damages be non-speculative and proven with certainty, Plaintiffs claims fail, and Defendant should be granted summary adjudication thereon.

Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of lost wages was granted by the Court.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: