Court Filings
Data license: Public court records
1 row where doc_type = "OBJ" and phase = "Phase 1" 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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
);