Local Lawsuit Filed

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR WICOMICO COUNTY

Plaintiff *

ROBERT W. HEARN, SR.


 v. 

Defendants *
JOHN J. BARRANGER


and *

COASTAL AUTO RECOVERY, INC. *
Serve: John M. Comegys, Resident Agent *
2805 Philadelphia Ave.
Ocean City, MD 21842 * 

COMPLAINT

            Now comes Plaintiff, Robert W. Hearn, Sr., by and through undersigned legal counsel Luke A. Rommel and Rommel and Associates, LLC, and files this Complaint against Defendants, John J. Barringer and Coastal Auto Recovery, and as causes of action state as follows:

VENUE AND JURISDICTION

            1.         Plaintiff, Robert W. Hearn, Sr., is a resident of Wicomico County, Maryland.

            2.         Defendant, John J. Barringer, is a resident of the State of Delaware.

            3.         Defendant, Coastal Auto Recovery, Inc., is a Maryland corporation, with its principal office in Ocean City, Maryland. 

            4.         Venue is appropriate in this jurisdiction because the cause of action which is subject of this Complaint occurred in Wicomico County, and Defendants actively do business in Wicomico County.  The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limits of this court.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

            5.         This case, in many ways, is similar to the oft-cited, Maryland punitive damage case: Darcars Motors of Silver Spring, Inc. v. Borzym, 379 Md. 249 (2004).  Plaintiff, Robert W. Hearn, Sr., was employed by Defendants, Coastal Auto Recovery, Inc. and John J. Barranger.  Mr. Hearn’s job responsibilities, generally, included towing, repossessing and storing vehicles on behalf of third-party clients, usually lien-holders.  Defendants have been in this industry for several decades, and are very experienced and profitable in this field.

            6.         Mr. Hearn is the owner of a 2007 Ford F250.  Mr. Hearn purchased the vehicle in December of 2015, for a purchase price of $25,224.20.  Since purchasing the vehicle, Mr. Hearn has made many mechanical and cosmetic improvements and upgrades, which have likely increased the value of the truck.  In addition, for reasons known to Defendants, the vehicle has great sentimental and emotional value to Mr. Hearn.  A picture of the vehicle is below:

             7.         In June of 2016, Defendants loaned Mr. Hearn $600.00.  The loan agreement, albeit simplistically, was in the form of a signed, written contract.  It provided: “Loan $600.00 cash on 2007 F250 – 30 day no interest[,] just clean tow truck.”  Defendants paid $600.00 in cash to Mr. Hearn.

            8.         Mr. Hearn has recently been diagnosed with skin cancer, and has been actively treating at Peninsula Regional Medical Center in Salisbury.  The process has been financially challenging.  Regardless, Mr. Hearn initially made two separate efforts to repay Defendants: 1) in $100.00 installments; and 2) to come out of his paycheck, which he received from Defendants.  For unknown reasons, Defendants did not accept either of these suggested repayment options. 

            9.         Important to this litigation, on or around April 15, 2017, Mr. Hearn quit his job with Defendants, and went to work for River City Recovery, a competitor of Defendants located in Mechanicsville, Virginia. 

            10.       On Monday, May 1, 2017, at approximately 9:15 a.m., Defendants sent one of their employees to Mr. Hearn’s residence in Willards, MD, with the intention of secretly towing and taking possession of Mr. Hearn’s F-250.  Defendants did not anticipate anyone would be at the residence, as they expected Mr. Hearn to be working.  Mr. Hearn was not home, but was not working; he was receiving cancer treatments at PRMC.  Mr. Hearn’s girlfriend was at the residence, and she told Defendants’ employee that Defendants did not have permission to take the truck.  In response, Defendants’ employee simply stated “fuck you and fuck [Mr. Hearn] too,” and towed the truck away.  A picture of the truck being towed by Defendants is below:

            11.       On Sunday, May 7, 2017, Mr. Hearn asked Defendants to return the F-250.  Defendants attempted to extort Mr. Hearn by threating to “press [criminal] charges” unless Mr. Hearn “sign[ed] the title over to [Defendants].”  These threats were sent by Defendants to Mr. Hearn in the following text messages:

            12.       In this text message exchange, Defendants also acknowledge that Mr. Hearn tried making payments on the loan, but that Mr. Hearn had “no way to prove [it]” and that Defendants “told you I would get you and I did.”  In addition, Defendants sent Mr. Hearn a voicemail, which has been saved by Mr. Hearn, where Defendants say “I guess both of your balls are locked in a box now.”  This message is a crude double-entendre where Defendants are referencing both Mr. Hearn’s cancer treatments and Defendants’ extortion efforts. 

            13.       On May 9, 2017, Mr. Hearn sent a certified check in the amount of $600.00 to Defendants.  Mr. Hearn also requested, by telephone, that Defendants simply return his vehicle and the contents within the vehicle to its rightful owner.  Defendants indicated that they would not accept the check and would not return the vehicle.  This lawsuit followed. 

COUNT I – CONVERSION

            14.       Plaintiff incorporates by reference the facts and allegations of paragraphs 1-13 as if fully set forth herein.

            15.       Beginning on or around May 1, 2017, Defendants wrongfully exercised dominion and control over Mr. Hearn’s 2007 F-250 vehicle, and personal property within the vehicle, which include: a) Mr. Hearn’s Ocean City Volunteer Fire Department gear and helmet; b) a G5 fire pager; c) stereo equipment; d) commercial tool box; e) clothes, shoes and boots; f) two I-pads; g) a digital Motorola radio; h) emergency dash lights; i) two check books; j) photographs of Mr. Hearn’s late father; k) wedding rings from Mr. Hearn’s parents, both of whom are deceased. 

            16.       Defendants acted intentionally and with actual malice, and with knowledge of the wrongfulness of their acts.  Defendants’ conduct was improperly motivated by efforts to punish and extort Mr. Hearn. 

            17.       Mr. Hearn is the rightful owner of the 2007 F-250 vehicle and its contents.  He demanded that the vehicle be returned, and this demand was refused by Defendants. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Robert W. Hearn, Sr., demands judgment against Defendants, Coastal Auto Recovery, Inc. and John J. Barranger, in an amount exceeding $30,000.00, plus punitive damages exceeding $30,000.00, plus attorneys’ fees, costs, and any further relief determined to be appropriate by this Court.

JURY DEMAND

            Plaintiff demands a jury trial in the above-captioned matter.