Court Filings
Data license: Public court records
2 rows where doc_type = "MSJ" and outcome = "N/A" sorted by date descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: date (date)
| 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… |
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
);