Court Filings
Data license: Public court records
3 rows where doc_type = "RSP" and party = "Kassab" 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 57 | 2023-08-14 | RSP | Kassab | Response to Pohl Barratry MSJ | Kassab Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Rule 166(g) Motion on Barratry Liability and Specific Affirmative Defenses | Filed August 14, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court, Harris County, Cause No. 2018-58419. Kassab responds to Pohl's Rule 166(g) pretrial motion seeking to exclude evidence of barratry and eliminate ten of Kassab's affirmative defenses. Kassab argues barratry evidence is central to both Pohl's claims and Kassab's defenses, and that Rule 166(g) is procedurally improper for this purpose. | MSJ-3 | N/A | Phase 4 | 2023-08-14_RSP_Kassab-Response-to-Pohl-Partial-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Deny Plaintiffs' Rule 166(g) Motion on Barratry Liability and Specific Affirmative Defenses Asserted by the Kassab Defendants | 8/13/2023 12:21 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 78474030 By: Bonnie Lugo Filed: 8/14/2023 12:00 AM 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 THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S RULE 166(g) tMOTION Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”) files this Reseponse to Plaintiffs’ Michael Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl PLLC’s (“Pohul”) Rule 166(g) Motion on Barratry Liability and Specific Affirmative Defenses Asserted by the Kassab Defendants (“the Motion”), and in support thereof, woulda show the following. SUMMARY Pohl asks the Court to rulee that the issue of whether Pohl committed barratry is irrelevant and should be efxcluded from evidence. Pohl is so concerned about this issue that he has made it the subject of several motions seeking similar relief. But barratry is central not only to Kassab’s defenses; it is central to Pohl’s own claims. As a preliiminary matter, Pohl’s latest motion is procedurally defective. Rule 166(g) is noot intended as a substitute for normal summary judgment practice. Indeed, Pohl previously moved for summary judgment on Kassab’s affirmative defenses, later withdrawing his request to have his summary judgment motion heard. The new Motion improperly tries to backdoor the same relief. More substantively, Pohl’s barratry is relevant to virtually every issue in the case. Take his trade secret claim. He must prove that he is the “rightful, legal, or equitable” owner of the alleged secrets. If Pohl himself obtained the alleged secrets illegally, he cannot enjoy the benefits of the trade secret statute. Moreover, for Pohl to recover his attorneys’ fees on his trade secret claim, he must provek “willful and malicious misappropriation.” In other words, Pohl’s claim dependsC on Kassab’s state of mind. Kassab is entitled to prove that his belief about Pohl’s barratry was well- … |
| 34 | 2022-09-12 | RSP | Kassab | Kassab’s response to Pohl no-evid MSJ | Kassab's Response to Pohl's Motion for Partial Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment on Affirmative Defenses — opposes Pohl's attempt to eliminate Kassab's affirmative defenses of justification, unclean hands, illegality, unlawful acts, criminal acts, and in pari delicto, and challenges Pohl's global no-evidence motion as procedurally defective under Timpte Industries v. Gish | Phase 3 response brief filed September 12, 2022 (same day as Kassab's declaration, Filing #33). Responds to Pohl's motion seeking to eliminate Kassab's key affirmative defenses before trial. Incorporates by reference Kassab's own MSJs (June 8, 2021 and August 29, 2022, i.e. Filing #30), the Nicholson MSJ (August 19, 2022), and Nicholson's response to Pohl's motion (September 12, 2022). Addressed to Judge Scot 'Dolli' Dollinger. | MSJ-3 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-09-12_RSP_Kassab-Response-to-Pohl-No-Evid-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Deny Pohl's Motion for Partial Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment on Affirmative Defenses; alternatively, grant continuance under Rule 166a(g) to allow completion of discovery on illegality defense; grant summary judgment against Plaintiffs ordering they take nothing on their claims against Kassab | 9/12/2022 6:16 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 68179652 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 9/12/2022 6:16 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’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFSC’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL TRADITIONAL AND NO-EVIDENCE 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 (“Kassab”) file this, theeir Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Traditional and No-Evidence Suummary Judgment on Affirmative Defenses,1 and would respectfully show the following. INTRaODUCTION Pohl2 committed illegal and unethical barratry and he wants Kassab, who brought the barratry litigation aend grievances against Pohl on behalf of more than four hundred (400) of Pohl’fs illegally solicited clients, to pay for Pohl’s barratry defense costs. But Pohl’s claims are barred for several reasons, including based on several affirmative defenses. Pohl has filed the instant Motion, seeking partial traditional summiary judgment on the affirmative defenses of justification, unclean hands, illegoality, and unlawful acts. However, Pohl has not negated those defenses as a matter of law. As to the other defenses, Pohl attempts to dispose of them through a global and conclusory no-evidence challenge, which is insufficient. 1 The self-serving title of the pleading is “Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses that Seek to Relitigate Failed Barratry Claims Against Plaintiffs and No-Evidence Motion on the Remaining Affirmative Defenses.” 2 This refers collectively to Plaintiffs Michael A. Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC. Regardless, Kassab can demonstrate, either here or in incorporated summary judgment briefing, that each of the defenses applicable to him apply, and that evidence supports each of them. Accordingly, the Motion should be in a… |
| 23 | 2022-01-31 | RSP | Kassab | Kassab’s response to Pohl MSJ on CC | The Kassab Parties' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants' Counterclaims for Civil Barratry | Kassab's opposition brief responding to Pohl's Motion for Summary Judgment seeking dismissal of Kassab's barratry counterclaims. Filed January 31, 2022, approximately 55 days after Pohl's motion. This is the response in the CC-1 motion chain. Attorneys: Lance Christopher Kassab, David Eric Kassab, and Nicholas R. Pierce of The Kassab Law Firm. | CC-1 | N/A | Phase 2 | 2022-01-31_RSP_Kassab-Response-to-Pohl-MSJ-on-CC_FILED.pdf | Deny Pohl's Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants' Counterclaims | 1/31/2022 3:03 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 61310680 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 1/31/2022 3:03 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 PARTIES’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MCOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIMS Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs Lance Christophter Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm (collectively, “Kassab”), files this, their Response to Plaintiff and Counter-Defeendants Michael Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC’s Motion for Suummary Judgment on Defendants’ Counterclaims, and would respectfully show the following. SUaMMARY The Motion filed by Michael A. Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (“Pohl”) should be denied. Res jeudicata does not apply because facts have changed and the relationship betweefn the parties has been altered. Specifically, Pohl sued Kassab arising from the same transaction where the barratry occurred, and the clients assigned the barratry claims to Kassab to be brought as counterclaims in this action, thuis allowing Section 16.069 to revive the otherwise time-barred barratry cloaims. Section 16.069 plainly applies because Pohl’s claims against Kassab and the barratry counterclaims arise from the same transaction in which Precision Marketing Group, LLC (“Precision”) solicited clients for Pohl and obtained the alleged confidential information that Kassab is alleged to have obtained. The clients’ assignments of their barratry counterclaims against Pohl to Kassab are not invalid, either as a matter of law or for purported non-compliance with the Disciplinary Rules. Regardless, the law is clear that technical non-compliance with the Disciplinary Rules is insufficient to void otherwise valid contracts like the Assignments. k BACKGROUND C On October 8, 2014, Scott Walker, Kirk Ladner, and their company Precision sued Pohl and his law firm for breach of contract and fra… |
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
);