Lonnie Smart’s defamation case against the city of Westlake was scheduled for a hearing in district court Friday but was quickly postponed, as lawyers for both sides seek an out-of-court settlement to present to the City Council.

Attorney Dannie P. Garrett III, who is representing Smart, said his client and the city are looking for a way “to amicably resolve the matter,” which prompted yesterday’s decision to seek a settlement.

“Once the motions that were set for today went forward, regardless of who won, it was probably going to defeat the ability to have an amicable settlement,” Garrett said.

He said that once an agreement is reached it will be presented to the City Council for a vote, possibly at its Oct. 6 meeting or in executive session. If the council rejects the agreement, the case will return to district court on Oct. 24.

Smart’s case against the city stems from an email City Councilman Wally Anderson sent to fellow council members on Oct. 26, 2012, that Smart believes contained defamatory comments.

Anderson, who is not seeking re-election this fall, wrote that when he and councilman John Cradure met with Assistant District Attorney Cynthia Killingsworth, the FBI, Homeland Security, and the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office, “it was never a question of if Lonnie was going to be arrested and charged, it was a question of whether to do it then or wait till after the State Audit was completed.”

“It was decided then to wait until after the report was completed because they felt that there would be more charges against him,” Anderson wrote. “The D.A. said during that meeting that they had enough proof from the few things that we showed them that they could arrest him right then on Malfeasance in Office. The D.A., FBI and Homeland Security, the Sheriff’s office, and the State Auditor ALL strongly suggested that we get rid of Lonnie.”

District Attorney John DeRosier said earlier this month that he has not found evidence of Smart committing malfeasance. He could not be reached for comment on Friday.

Garrett said that because Anderson is a member of a public body, Smart’s lawsuit can also be brought against the city under the concept of vicarious liability.

Michael Veron, the attorney representing Westlake and Anderson, said he is “pretty confident” that an amicable settlement between the city and Smart can be made under the terms that were discussed yesterday. He said there is “a potential” for the city to recover its attorney’s fees.

“We did share with the plaintiff what the outstanding fees and expenses are,” Veron said. “The plaintiff then has to decide whether it’s worth moving forward; it then becomes a case of not what are you going to get but what you’re going to pay the other side to make the lawsuit that you filed go away.

“The plaintiff was not just looking at losing his lawsuit and going away with nothing. He was also looking at losing his lawsuit and also having to pay (the city’s) attorney’s fees.”

Veron said he has to see if his client is willing to withdraw the claim for attorney’s fees, at which point the case will be most likely be settled.

“Everybody walks away and that’s it,” he said. “It would be dismissed by the plaintiff with prejudice. That means the lawsuit has ended, and it can’t be brought again.”

Veron said the city paid his attorney fees since it was the defendant in the case.(MGNonline)