More motions filed in Results Property Management case
By:   //  Investigative Reports

Legal battle continues in Results Property Management case

A lawyer for Results Property Management has filed a motion to continue trial, and requesting sanctions in response to a motion filed by the plaintiff’s attorney to have him disqualified from the case.

As reported Nov. 30, an ongoing legal battle between Jason Hartman and Results Property Management principals Ken Logan and Quentin Kearney continues with Hartman’s attorney calling for the disqualification of the attorney for Results Property Management.

In a November 13 filing, Hartman’s attorney, Kenneth Caldwell, asked the court to disqualify defendants’ co-counsel David Zeiler due to “extraordinary circumstances.”

For many years, Hartman had been represented by Lee Hardee III of Kansas City, Missouri, but the case took a bizarre turn in early August when Hardee was forced to recuse himself from the case when he was notified — while arguing in court on the same case — that Ken Logan and Quentin Kearney were suing him for abuse of process. The pair are represented by Zeiler and Michael Hughes.

Hardee, who suffers from hypertension, was subsequently taken  to the hospital and admitted, reportedly due to stress.

Due to a conflict-of-interest, Hardee had to file a motion to withdraw from the case, leaving Hartman without counsel just hours before the trial was scheduled to begin.

Hartman’s new lawyer filed a motion seeking to disqualify Zeiler. In Hughes’ Nov. 19 motion, he states, “The Motion to Disqualify Counsel also misses the mark on the law. Plaintiff’s counsel must be confused in which case he is filing the instant motion. He appears to be arguing that counsel should be disqualified in the Hardee Lawsuit when discussing the standard for disqualification under the “necessary witness rule.” Nowhere does the plaintiff’s counsel suggest that either of defendants’ counsel are necessary witnesses in the instant case.”

It continues, “Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel offers no Missouri law to support his proposition that disqualification of counsel is an appropriate remedy due to Mr. Hardee’s withdrawal from this action.”

Hughes further states, “The other reasons that plaintiff’s counsel asserts for the requested continuance are disingenuous at best. The fact that he entered his appearance on September 5, 2018, but just recently received the case file appears to be a problem between him, his client, and Mr. Hardee and does not rest at the feet of the Defendants. A previously scheduled trial is something that he should have disclosed to his client and something that his client should have considered before hiring him.

” Moreover, if plaintiff’s counsel had a previously scheduled trial when he entered his appearance on September 5, 2018, why is he waiting until now to request a continuance of the trial setting? It also should be pointed out to the Court that plaintiff has at least two other lawsuits pending in Jackson County, Missouri, with different attorneys on each one.”

An eight-year case over vague invoices

Logan and Kearney have been embroiled in a legal battle with real estate expert Hartman for eight years. The dispute began over invoices for property maintenance that Hartman alleged were so vague he was unable to determine what work had been done and who had performed the work. When he didn’t receive detailed invoices, Hartman recorded a video showing the invoices and posted it to the internet.

Hughes wrote in his recent motion, “Additionally, regardless of how voluminous the case file may be, the issues in this case after nearly a decade of litigation are extremely narrow. First, were there repair and maintenance services performed on plaintiff’s property? Second, did the contract plaintiff signed obligate him to pay for these repair and maintenance services? Third, was the plaintiff responsible for paying for these repair and maintenance services? Fourth, did the defendants or their vendors perform these repair and maintenance services? Fifth, were the amounts that defendants charged plaintiff fair and reasonable? How long can it take plaintiff’s counsel to get up to speed on these issues that have a value of $2,500? As noted, by the time this case goes to trial, it will have been going on in one phase or another for nearly a decade. It is time to bring it to a conclusion by having the trial, as scheduled, on February 11, 2019. The Court should overrule the plaintiff’s Motion to Continue the Trial Setting.”

Hartman also filed a Doe lawsuit after numerous libelous posts showed up on various websites, such as Ripoff Report. A Doe lawsuit is filed when the plaintiff wants to determine who is behind a defamatory or threatening anonymous post on the internet or someone who uses a fictitious name for the purpose of scamming or defrauding. Logan and Kearney allege that lawsuit unjustly named them.

Your Reaction to This Story?
  • FUNNY 
  • SAD 
About the Author :

Comments are closed.