Court Filings
Data license: Public court records
5 rows where doc_type = "MSJ" sorted by date descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: date (date)
doc_type 1
- MSJ · 5 ✖
| filing_id | date ▲ | doc_type | party | description | doc_type_detail | procedural_posture | chain | outcome | phase | filename | relief_requested | full_text |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50 | 2023-02-24 | MSJ | Kassab | Amended Trad + No-Evidence MSJ (3rd attempt) | Kassab Defendants' Amended Motions for Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment (Third Attempt) | Filed February 24, 2023 before Judge Christine Weems in the 281st Judicial District Court after the case was transferred from the 189th District Court. This is Kassab's third attempt at summary judgment, reiterating and expanding arguments from prior MSJs denied by Judge Dollinger on October 31, 2022. Kassab also adopts by reference co-defendant Nicholson's traditional MSJ filed August 19, 2022. | MSJ-4 | N/A | Phase 4 | 2023-02-24_MSJ_Kassab-Amended-Trad-and-No-Evid-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Grant Kassab's traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment and order that Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC take nothing on their claims against Lance Christopher Kassab and The Kassab Law Firm | 2/24/2023 1:36 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 73091211 By: Bonnie Lugo Filed: 2/24/2023 1:36 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 281st JUDICIALk DISTRICT THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED MOTIONCS FOR TRADITIONAL AND NO-EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE CHRISTINE WEEMS: t COME NOW, Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm and file theis, their Motions for Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment, and woulud respectfully show the following. PRELUDE This lawsuit is nothing more thaan a retaliatory suit brought by Michael A. Pohl and his law firm, Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (“Pohl”) against Lance Christopher Kassab and Lancee Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”). Kassab refpresented more than 400 clients in lawsuits against Pohl due to his illegal and unethical solicitation of these clients. It is undisputed that Pohl hired and paid runners more than five million dollars to illegally obtain clients stemminig from catastrophic auto accidents and the BP Deepwater Horizon litigation. o Based upon Pohl’s illegal and unethical solicitation of clients, Kassab filed four separate lawsuits against Pohl for civil barratry and negligence. In addition, as mandated by the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.03, Kassab filed and helped his clients initiate several grievance proceedings, causing the State Bar of Texas to investigate the alleged barratry, which is prohibited by the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and the Texas Penal Code. In response, Pohl filed this lawsuit against Kassab, alleging claims of conversion, theft of trade secrets and civil conspiracy, claiming Kassab conspired with okthers to steal Pohl’s property and solicit his former clients or prospective clienCts to sue him for barratry.1 Pohl claims his defense costs to defend against the barratry li… |
| 46 | 2022-11-30 | MSJ | Pohl | Partial MSJ on Barratry Liability | Plaintiffs' Rule 166(g) Motion on Barratry Liability and Specific Affirmative Defenses Asserted by the Kassab Defendants | Pre-trial motion filed November 30, 2022 by Pohl, five days before the December 5, 2022 trial setting. Seeks legal rulings under Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(g) to narrow trial issues by: (1) finding barratry is not legally relevant to this lawsuit, and (2) striking 10+ of Kassab's affirmative defenses as barred as a matter of law. | MSJ-3 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-11-30_MSJ_Pohl-Partial-MSJ-Barratry-Liability_FILED.pdf | Find that: (1) establishing whether barratry occurred is not legally relevant to this lawsuit; (2) Kassab's affirmative defenses of unlawful acts, illegality, criminal acts, in pari delicto, justification, immunity under Rule 17.09, unclean hands, release, accord and satisfaction, estoppel, subject to a valid contract, assumption of the risk, and contribution are barred as a matter of law | 11/30/2022 8:20 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 70589892 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 11/30/2022 8:20 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et. al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiffs, § V. § HARRIS COUNTY,k TEXAS § r LANCE CHRISTOPHER § l KASSAB, et. al § § c Defendants. § 189TH JUDrICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ RULE 166(g) MOTION ON BARRATRY LIDABILITY AND SPECIFIC AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ASSERTED BY THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166(g), Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl PLLC (collectively “Pohl”) file this Motion on the issues of the relevance of barratry liability and the legal viability of specific affirmative defenses asserted by the Kassab defendants (the “Motion”). Pohl requests tahat the Court find Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab P.C.’s (collectively, “Kassab”) theories regarding establishing barratry and certain otheer legal defenses fail as a matter of law. f I. STANDARD Under Texas Rule ofy Civil Procedure 166(g), this Court can decide legal issues at pretrial “to assist in the disposition of the case without undue expense or burden to the parties . . . .” See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(g). Allowing this trial to subsume the question of whether Pohl committed barratry, in connfection with clients whose information Kassab later misappropriated, would greatly extend the length of trial, and it would needlessly complicate the issues presented to the jury. A legal determination by this Court that whether barratry did in fact occur is immaterial to Pohl’s claims—whether as a matter of denial or as a defense—would assist in disposing of this case with less undue burden and expense. Furthermore, determining whether certain defenses fail as a matter of law is a set of legal questions the Court can decide to appropriately focus the trial in this case. II. DISCUSSION To prevent “undue expense” and additional “burden to the parties,” and to ensure that trial does not proceed for longer than is necessary, th… |
| 30 | 2022-08-29 | MSJ | Kassab | Trad. + No-Evidence MSJ (2nd attempt) | Kassab's Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment — comprehensive 80+ page dispositive motion raising seven independent grounds for dismissal: Rule 17.09 immunity, judicial proceedings privilege, attorney immunity, limitations, conclusive negation of TUTSA (no secrecy and no ownership), illegal acts bar, and improper damages (American Rule) | Phase 3 dispositive motion filed alongside the Seventh Amended Answer. This is Kassab's second MSJ attempt, substantially more detailed than the first. It adopts and incorporates the Nicholson Motion filed August 19, 2022, and presents extensive evidentiary support including 60+ exhibits (depositions, declarations, contracts, financial records, correspondence). Addressed to Judge Scot 'Dolli' Dollinger. | MSJ-2 | DENIED | Phase 3 | 2022-08-29_MSJ_Kassab-Trad-and-No-Evid-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Grant traditional summary judgment dismissing all of Pohl's claims against Kassab; order that Pohl take nothing | 8/29/2022 5:07 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 67771690 By: Ashley Lopez Filed: 8/29/2022 5:07 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIALk DISTRICT THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ TRADITIONACL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT “DOLLI” DOLLINGEtR: Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm file this, their Traeditional Motion for Summary Judgment, and would respectfully show the follouwing. SUMMARY Pohl committed illegal and uneathical barratry and he wants Kassab, who brought the barratry litigation and grievances against Pohl, to pay for Pohl’s barratry defense costs. But Pohel’s claims against Kassab are barred as a matter of law because: f • Pohl’s claims are predicated on Kassab’s filing of a grievance against Pohl for whicoh Kassab has absolute and unqualified immunity pursuant to Rule 17.09 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. • Pohl’s claiims against Kassab are barred by the judicial proceedings privilegie because they arise out of communications that Kassab made in proospective (solicitation letters) and actual judicial proceedings (the barratry litigation and grievance process) and Pohl seeks defamation- like damages including loss of reputation to his law firm and defense costs incurred because of the statements that Kassab made. • Pohl’s claims against Kassab are barred by attorney immunity. Under the doctrine of attorney immunity, an attorney does not have a right of recovery, under any cause of action, against another attorney arising from conduct the second attorney engaged in as part of the discharge of his duties in representing a party. • Pohl’s claims are barred by limitations because they accrued in 2014 and Pohl did not file suit until more than three years later. • Pohl’s claims are conclusively negated. Pohl’s TUTSA claim is conclusively negated because his alleged trade secrets weere not ac… |
| 22 | 2021-12-07 | MSJ | Pohl | Pohl’s MSJ on Kassab Counterclaims | Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants' Counterclaims for Civil Barratry | Pohl's dispositive motion seeking traditional summary judgment on Kassab's counterclaims for civil barratry based on 242 assigned claims. Filed December 7, 2021, after Kassab's Fourth Amended Answer. This is the principal motion in the CC-1 chain, which was ultimately granted. Attorney: Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. | CC-1 | GRANTED | Phase 2 | 2021-12-07_MSJ_Pohl-MSJ-on-Kassab-Counterclaims_FILED.pdf | Grant summary judgment dismissing Kassab's counterclaims for civil barratry | 12/7/2021 4:11 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 59800424 By: Ozuqui Quintanilla Filed: 12/7/2021 4:11 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIMS Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Officae of Michael A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) move for summary judgment on the Defendants’ counterclaims for civil barratry. SU e MMARY OF ARGUMENT Defendants Lance Christfopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C., d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (collectiveyly “Kassab”) assert counterclaims that have already been adjudicated. Kassab’s clients previoCusly brought these very claims and lost them. Kassab’ counterclaims fail because they are barred by res judicata, they are not revived by the savings provision of the Texas Civil Practice fafnd Remedies Code and are accordingly time-barred, and because the purported assignmeUnts of the claims are invalid and unenforceable. After purchasing Pohl’s stolen client lists and contact information, Kassab solicited Pohl’s clients to bring barratry claims. When courts (including this one) found those barratry claims to be barred by limitations, Kassab obtained purported “assignments” of those claims and asserted them as counterclaims in this action, contending they had been “revived” pursuant to the savings provision of Civil Practices and Remedies Code section 16.069. The statutory requirements of section 16.069 are not met for multiple reasons, and Kassab’s effort to revitalize the stale claims fails. In addition, civil barratry… |
| 16 | 2021-06-08 | MSJ | Kassab | Kassab’s Traditional MSJ | Kassab's Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment asserting three independent grounds: statute of limitations, res judicata, and attorney immunity doctrine | Filed June 8, 2021 in Cause No. 2018-58419, 189th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. Dispositive motion filed in Phase 2, approximately 2.5 years after the original petition. Filed before Kassab responded to any discovery, relying on traditional summary judgment rule permitting filing 'at any time after the adverse party has appeared or answered.' Relies on arguments and evidence previously presented in the TCPA motion and interlocutory appeal. Case is before Judge Scot 'Dolli' Dollinger. District Clerk is now Marilyn Burgess. | MSJ-1 | DENIED | Phase 2 | 2021-06-08_MSJ_Kassab-Traditional-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Traditional summary judgment ordering that Pohl take nothing on all claims against Kassab and The Kassab Law Firm | 6/8/2021 2:44 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 54215119 By: Ozuqui Quintanilla Filed: 6/8/2021 2:44 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIALk DISTRICT LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LANCE CHRISTOPCHER KASSAB, PC’S TRADITIONAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT “DOLLI” DOLLINGEtR: Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Feirm files this, their Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment, and would respeuctfully show the following. SUMMlARY Plaintiffs Michael A. Pohl andM Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (“Pohl”) sued Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firmi (“Kassab”) and others for conversion, theft of trade secrets and civil conspiracy. The Court should grant summary judgment on Pohl’s claims against Kassabo for any one of three independent reasons: • First, Polhl’s claims are barred by limitations. Pohl testified that discoveiry in federal litigation filed in 2014 revealed that his alleged tradei secrets and confidential information had been stolen from his ofofice in Gulfport, Mississippi. Pohl testified that Kassab was involved in that alleged misappropriation that occurred in 2014, and that he knew it, but he did not file suit because he “did not want to do anything precipitous.” Because Pohl waited more than three years later to bring his claims against Kassab, the claims are barred by limitations. • Second, the claims are barred by res judicata. Pohl previously brought similar claims against alleged co-conspirators in Mississippi federal litigation, wherein Pohl contends that Kassab allegedly purchased his stolen trade secrets. Yet, Pohl never brought Kassab into that lawsuit and instead paid approximately $1 million to settle the dispute against Kassab’s alleged co- conspirators resulting in a final judgment. Pohl’s claims against Kassab… |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE filings (
filing_id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
date TEXT,
doc_type TEXT,
party TEXT,
description TEXT,
doc_type_detail TEXT,
procedural_posture TEXT,
chain TEXT,
outcome TEXT,
phase TEXT,
filename TEXT,
relief_requested TEXT,
full_text TEXT
);