Court Filings
Data license: Public court records
5 rows where doc_type = "OBJ" and outcome = "N/A" sorted by date descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: chain, date (date)
| filing_id | date ▲ | doc_type | party | description | doc_type_detail | procedural_posture | chain | outcome | phase | filename | relief_requested | full_text |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 59 | 2023-09-15 | OBJ | Kassab | Objection to proposed final judgment | Kassab's Objections to Pohl's Proposed Final Judgment, challenging exemplary damages, recoverability of attorneys' fees as actual damages, double recovery of unjust enrichment and market value, joint and several liability based on conspiracy, and indirect misappropriation theory | Filed September 15, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court, Harris County, Cause No. 2018-58419. Filed 10 days after Pohl's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment, objecting to specific elements of the proposed judgment while reserving right to file subsequent motions challenging jury findings on other grounds. New appellate counsel Kevin Dubose (Alexander Dubose & Jefferson LLP) appears for Kassab. | JDGMT-1 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2023-09-15_OBJ_Kassab-Objection-to-Pohl-Proposed-Final-Judgment_FILED.pdf | That the Court refrain from signing Pohl's proposed final judgment and exclude: (1) exemplary damages ($3,000,000) due to non-unanimous Q17 finding, (2) attorneys' fees from barratry cases and grievances as actual damages, (3) one of the duplicative damage measures ($250,000 market value or $200,000 development costs), (4) joint and several liability based on conspiracy, and (5) all damages given Precision's exoneration breaking the indirect misappropriation chain | 9/15/2023 1:38 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 79605741 By: Patricia Gonzalez Filed: 9/15/2023 1:38 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § k § e SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 281st JUDICCIAL DISTRICT KASSAB’S OBJECTIONS TO POHL’S PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMEtNT Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”) file these Objection teo the proposed Final Judgment submitted by Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and uLaw Office of Michael A. Pohl PLLC’(“Pohl”). INTRODUCTIOaN AND OVERVIEW Kassab will file subsequent motions challenging the jury findings against him on various grounds. But this filineg will be limited to objecting to elements of recovery in Pohl’s proposed judgmenft that are legally insupportable, even with these jury findings. Specifically: • The judgment should not include exemplary damages because one of the predicate ifindings for exemplary damages was not answered by the jury unanoimously. • The judgment should not include as actual damages attorney’s fees incurred by Pohl in actions against him by former clients and rejected potential clients who were victims of Pohl’s barratry. Attorney’s fees are not an element of recoverable damages under TUTSA. • The judgment should not include actual damages for both unjust enrichment of Kassab and the fair market value of the alleged trade secret misappropriated from Pohl because they are two impermissibly overlapping versions of the same loss. Pohl should have to elect one of those remedies rather than being awarded a double recovery. C • The judgment should not include joint and several liabili i ty under a conspiracy theory because conspiracy is pre-empted under TUTiSA or subject to Chapter 33’s proportionate responsibility scheme. • The judgment should not include any actual damages for theft of trade secrets because of the jury’s findings that Precision did not misappropriate trade secrets. Because Kassab acquired Plohl’s alleged trade se… |
| 47 | 2022-11-30 | OBJ | Pohl | Objection to Kassab supp. RTP | Pohl's Objection to Kassab's Supplemental Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties | Filed November 30, 2022 in response to Kassab's Supplemental RTP Motion filed November 15, 2022. Judge Dollinger denied Kassab's original RTP Motion on October 31, 2022 (finding Pohl's objection was 'well taken') and gave Kassab 14 days to replead. Kassab filed 15 days later (one day late). Pohl argues the supplemental motion contains no new factual allegations. Pohl does not object to designation of Favre and Precision as RTPs. | RTP-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-11-30_OBJ_Pohl-Objection-to-Kassab-Supp-RTP_FILED.pdf | Deny Kassab's Supplemental RTP Motion without leave for Kassab to attempt to replead, as Kassab failed to plead sufficient facts after already being granted leave to replead | 11/30/2022 4:26 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 70583280 By: Ashley Lopez Filed: 11/30/2022 4:26 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et. al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiffs, § V. § HARRIS COUNTY,k TEXAS § e LANCE CHRISTOPHER § C l KASSAB, et. al § § c Defendants. § 189TH JUDrICIAL DISTRICT POHL’S OBJECTION TO KASSAB’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DESIGNATE RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTsIES Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl PLLC (collectively “Pohl”) file this Objection to Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm’s Supplemental Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties1 (the “Supplemental RTP Motion”) and would showa the Court as follows: Kassab’s Supplemental RTP Motion does not address the failings of the original RTP Motion. The Court denied Kassab’se first RTP Motion2 because Kassab failed to plead sufficient facts showing that the alleged resfponsible third parties were responsible for the harms underlying Pohl’s claims. Kassab was ygiven a chance to replead with sufficient new facts to demonstrate liability. However, thCe Supplemental RTP Motion contains the same factual allegations copied and pasted from the briefing before the Court when it denied the RTP Motion. Kassab tried to disguise this bfyf reordering and lightly paraphrasing or modifying the allegations. But Kassab 1 This Objection is primarily directed at Kassab’s Supplemental RTP Motion, filed Nov. 15, 2022. Kassab also filed a Second Supplemental Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties, filed Nov. 22, 2022 (“Second Supplemental RTP Motion”). Pohl does not object to the designation of Scott Favre and Precision Marketing Group, LLC as responsible third parties. However, Pohl objects to the Second Supplemental RTP Motion, on the same grounds as set forth in this briefing, to the extent that it seeks the same relief sought in the Supplemental RTP Motion or seeks to designate anyone as a responsible third party other than Scott Fav… |
| 40 | 2022-09-19 | OBJ | Kassab | Objection to Pohl’s MSJ evidence | Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Evidence — joint filing by Kassab and Nicholson Defendants challenging admissibility of Pohl's summary judgment evidence including the Pohl Declaration (paragraphs 4, 6, 10-18, 20-32) and numerous exhibits, with additional deposition testimony offered under Rule 107 | Evidentiary objections filed September 19, 2022 at 8:16 AM by Kassab and Nicholson defendants jointly, on the morning of the summary judgment hearing. Challenges admissibility of Pohl's September 12, 2022 declaration and exhibits attached to both the traditional and no-evidence MSJ responses. Attaches complete depositions of Ladner, Seymour, and Walker under Rule 107. Addressed to Judge Scot 'Dolli' Dollinger. | MSJ-3 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-09-19_OBJ_Kassab-Objection-to-Pohl-MSJ-Evidence_FILED.pdf | Sustain all objections, strike objectionable portions of Pohl Declaration and exhibits, and grant summary judgment for Kassab and Nicholson defendants | 9/19/2022 8:16 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 68367189 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 9/19/2022 8:16 AM 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 DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO C PLAINTIFFS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT “DOLLI” DOLLINGEtR: Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm (“the Kassab Defendeants”) and Tina Nicholson and Baker Nicholson, LLP (“Nicholson”) (both sets ouf Defendants collectively referred to as “Defendants”) file this, their Objections to Plaintiffs’ Summary Judgment Evidence, and would respectfully show athe following. OBJECTIONS TO POHL’S EVIDENCE IN RESPONSE TO TRADITIONAL MSJ Plaintiffs Michael A. Pohel and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (“Pohl”) attached to his summary judfgment responses as Exhibit A a declaration from Pohl dated September 12, 2022 with exhibits (“Pohl Declaration”). Defendants object to the following statements or paragraphs in the Pohl Declaration for the following reasons: i Paoragraph/Statement Objection/Basis ¶ 4 – “During the period that I Conclusory. Unsupported by factual or maintained office space in Mississippi, I legal basis. shared that space only with contractors and employees whom I employed full time and were treated for privilege and confidentiality purposes as functional employees of my law firm. ¶ 6 – “I was informed that Maxwell- Hearsay. Walker had retained Mississippi attorneys to advise it and confirm that its agreement with me as well as the public relations and marketing services it was anticipated to provide under the agreement were in compliance with Mississippi law.” e ¶ 10 – “Precision represented to me that Conclusory. Hearstay. Vague and their independent attorney or attorneys ambiguous as to whio at “Precision” made had reviewed and approved each of the alleged represtentations so this contracts I signed with them. In fact, inter… |
| 28 | 2022-05-31 | OBJ | Pohl | Pohl’s objection to RTP designation | Pohl's Objection to Kassab's Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties, arguing the designated persons did not cause or contribute to the harms underlying Pohl's tort claims and that Kassab failed to satisfy pleading requirements | Phase 3 response to Kassab's RTP motion. Pohl objects on grounds that the designated persons are not responsible for the specific harms underlying Pohl's conversion and TUTSA claims, distinguishing between harm to Pohl and general connection to events. Also argues Kassab failed to timely disclose RTP identities in discovery. Filed by Reynolds Frizzell LLP. | RTP-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-05-31_OBJ_Pohl-Objection-to-Kassab-RTP-Designation_FILED.pdf | Deny Kassab's Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties with leave for Kassab to attempt to replead | 5/31/2022 5:00 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 64998436 By: cassie combs Filed: 5/31/2022 5:00 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § r SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § 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, § D LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT POHL’S OBJECTION TO KASSAB’S MOTION TO DESIGNATE RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTIES Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Officae of Michael A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) file this Objection to Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm’s Motion to Desiegnate Responsible Third Parties (the “Motion”) and would show the Court as follows: f y I. INTRODUCTION The Court shouCld deny Kassab’s Motion because he fails to allege facts showing how the alleged responsiblea third parties are responsible for the harms underlying Pohl’s tort claims. Kassab seeks tfo designate eight different allegedly responsible third parties—Billy Shepherd (“ShepheUrd”), Scott Walker (“Walker”), Steve Seymour (“Seymour”) Kirk Ladner (“Ladner”), Dona Pohl (“Dona”), Edgar Jaimes (“Jaimes”), Ken Talley (“Talley”), and Magdalena Santana (“Santana”) (collectively, the “Alleged RTPs”). None of the Alleged RTPs “caused or contributed to causing” the harms underlying Pohl’s claims. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 33.011(6). Reading Kassab’s Motion, one might be forgiven for thinking that a responsible third party is any person who bears some (or any) connection with events related to a lawsuit and whose actions could allegedly have impacted the amount of damages suffered by a claimant. See generally Motion. But Texas has not adopted a “butterfly effect” theory okf proportionate… |
| 10 | 2018-11-05 | OBJ | Kassab | Objections to Pohl’s TCPA response evidence | Kassab's Objections to Plaintiffs' Response Evidence and Reply in Support of TCPA Motion to Dismiss | Filed November 5, 2018 as a combined objection and reply brief in further support of Kassab's TCPA Motion to Dismiss. Responds to Pohl's November 1, 2018 opposition, challenging the admissibility of Pohl's evidence and arguing the commercial speech exception does not apply. Filed in Cause No. 2018-58419, 189th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. Addressed to the Honorable Judge Bill Burke. | TCPA-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-11-05_OBJ_Kassab-Objections-to-Pohl-Response_FILED.pdf | Grant the TCPA Motion to Dismiss; strike Shepherd affidavit and all attached documents; strike Pohl's declaration paragraphs 3-9; order Plaintiffs take nothing; award reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and costs as required by the statute | 11/5/2018 8:03 AM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 28779207 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 11/5/2018 8:03 AM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIAkL DISTRICT THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTlIFFS’ RESPONSE AND REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE BILL BURKE: r Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Lance Christopher Kassab Dand Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”) file this reply asnd objections in further support of their Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to the Texas Citizens Parrticipation Act. OBJECTIONS A. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A (Affidavait of Billy Shepherd) Kassab objects to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A, the alleged affidavit of Billy Shepherd (“Shepherd”) and all exhibits attacheed thereto. Specifically, Shepherd’s affidavit fails as an affidavit on its face because itf is not based upon “personal knowledge” or state that the statements therein are “true yand correct”, thus perjury does not attach, and therefore, the alleged affidavit is nothing moCre than a statement by Pohl’s “interested” counsel. An affidavit must be based on the affianta’s personal knowledge and must state that the facts in it are true. Humphreys v. Caldwell, 88 8f S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. 1994); see TEX. R. EVID. 602 (evidence must show the witness hUas personal knowledge); Radio Station KSCS v. Jennings, 750, S.W.2d 760, 761-62 (Tex. 1988). An affidavit must contain direct and unequivocal statements that, if false, would be grounds for perjury. Burke v. Satterfield, 525 S.W.2d 950, 955 (Tex. 1975); Hall v. Stephenson, 919 S.W.2d 454, 466 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, writ denied). Additionally, Shepherd’s statement appears to attempt to prove up business records, but this attempt fails. To introduce a business record through a witness, a party must prove the following: (1) the record is a memorandum, report, other compilation of data; (2) the witness is the custodian or another quali… |
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
);