Court Filings
Data license: Public court records
11 rows where doc_type = "RSP" and party = "Pohl" sorted by date descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: date, chain, date (date)
| filing_id | date ▲ | doc_type | party | description | doc_type_detail | procedural_posture | chain | outcome | phase | filename | relief_requested | full_text |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 67 | 2024-02-02 | RSP | Pohl | Objections to Kassab JNOV | Pohl's Response in Opposition to Kassab's Motions for New Trial and for JNOV, systematically opposing all 22 grounds for new trial and all JNOV arguments. Argues: all grounds are recycled rejected arguments; witness tampering allegations identical to rejected mistrial motion and based on unsworn statements of self-professed perjurer/extortionist; multiple charge objections waived at charge conference; jury verdict supported by nearly two weeks of trial evidence; Kassab fails to cite trial record; incorporates 15 prior filings by reference. | Response filed February 2, 2024, opposing both the Motion for New Trial and Motion for JNOV filed January 19, 2024. Pohl incorporates by reference 15 prior filings spanning 2021-2023. Notes Kassab has not filed a proposed order as required by court procedures. | POST-1 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2024-02-02_RSP_Pohl-Objections-to-Kassab-JNOV_FILED.pdf | Denial of Kassab's Motion for New Trial and Motion for JNOV in their entirety | 2/2/2024 4:44 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 84110431 By: Bonnie Lugo Filed: 2/2/2024 4:44 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. § 281ST JUDrICIAL DISTRICT POHL’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL AND FOR JUDGMENT NOT WITHSTANDING THE VERDsICT AND TO DISREGARD JURY FINDINGS FILED BY THE KASSAsB DEFENDANTS Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Office of Michaerl A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) respond in opposition to The Kassab Defendants’ Motion for New Trial (the “Motion for New Trial”) and Motion for Judgment Not Withstanding the Verdlict and to Disregard Jury Findings (the “Motion for JNOV”) filed by Defendants Lance ChMristopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C., d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (collectively “Kassab”). I. INTRODUCTION Kassab’s Motion for New Trial and Motion for JNOV repeat Kassab’s arguments that the Court has previously considered and rejected. In these two motions, Kassab recycles arguments rejected at summary judgment, 166(g) hearings, pre-trial hearings, directed verdict, and otherwise. The Court’s judgcment and the jury verdict are supported by and consistent with ample evidence presented at trial. But Kassab would have the Court throw out a jury verdict supported by nearly two weeks’ worth of trial evidence. Because the issues that Kassab raises are without merit, the Court should deny Kassab’s Motion for New Trial and Motion for JNOV. II. STANDARDS A. Motion for New Trial “Jury trials are essential to our constitutionally provided method for resolving disputes,” and “a jury’s decision is not to be tampered with lightly, regardless of whether it favors the plaintiff or the defendant.” In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, Subsidiary, L.Pl., 290 S.W.3d 204, 211 (Tex. 2009) (citing Tex. Const. art. I, § 15, art. V, § 10); see generally Hterbert v. Herbert, 754 S.W.2d 141, 144 (Tex. 1988) (“long-establi… |
| 68 | 2024-02-02 | RSP | Pohl | Response to Mtn to Modify Judgment | Pohl's Response to Kassab's Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform Judgment, arguing all arguments are recycled and rejected, the jury properly awarded exemplary damages unanimously (Q17 answered per unanimity instructions, Q19 predicated on unanimous Q17, Kassab waived by not objecting before discharge), attorneys' fees from separate proceedings are recoverable actual losses under TUTSA's broad 'actual loss' definition and tort of another doctrine, damages are not duplicative (TUTSA expressly authorizes both actual loss and unjust enrichment), conspiracy is not preempted (it is a rule of joint liability, not an independent tort or conflicting remedy), and great-weight-and-preponderance arguments are meritless | Response filed February 2, 2024, opposing Kassab's Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform Judgment. Filed simultaneously with Pohl's response to the JNOV and New Trial motions. Incorporates prior briefing by reference. | POST-2 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2024-02-02_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-Mtn-to-Modify-Judgment_FILED.pdf | Denial of Kassab's Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform Judgment, and any other relief to which Pohl is entitled | 2/2/2024 4:20 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 84108335 By: Patricia Gonzalez Filed: 2/2/2024 4:20 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. § 281ST JUDrICIAL DISTRICT POHL’S RESPONSE TO KASSAB’S MOTION TO MODIFY, CORRECT, OR REFsORM JUDGMENT Plaintiffs Michael A. Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (collectively “Pohl”) respond in opposition to Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab’s and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm’s (collectively “Kassab”) motion to modify, correct, or reform the judgment (“Motion to Modify”). a I. Summary. The Motion to Modify primareily consists of recycled arguments that Kassab has previously made and that the Court has prefviously rejected. On that ground alone, the motion should be denied. y Substantively, CKassab re-argues in shotgun fashion that all of the damages found by the jury and awarded bay the Court are not recoverable for various erroneous reasons. As Pohl has previously brieffed at length, however, both the actual damages and exemplary damages are reasonablUe and fully supported by the verdict, the evidence, and the law. For these and other reasons that we discuss next, the Motion to Modify should be denied. II. The Jury Properly Awarded Exemplary Damages, and Pohl is Entitled to Recover Them. Kassab contends that the award of exemplary damages is unsupported and improper because the jury allegedly did not unanimously answer “Yes” in response to Question 17. See Motion to Modify, p. 4. But that is not true. On its face, the jury charge shorws that the jury unanimously answered “Yes” to Question 17 after being instructed to only answer the question “Yes” if the finding was unanimous. See Charge of the Court, p. 24. Irfi Kassab believed that the certificate of unanimity was in conflict with the answers containDed in the jury verdict, he was obligated to request that the jury be … |
| 55 | 2023-03-29 | RSP | Pohl | Response to Amended MSJ | Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to the Amended Motions for Summary Judgment Filed by the Kassab Defendants | Filed March 29, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court (Judge Weems) by Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. Responds to Kassab's Amended MSJ (filing #50). Pohl argues the Amended Motion is a disguised motion to reconsider that reiterates the same arguments and evidence denied by the 189th District Court on October 31, 2022. Pohl objects to oral hearing under 281st Court Procedure I(I). | MSJ-4 | N/A | Phase 4 | 2023-03-29_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-Amended-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Deny Kassab's Amended Motions for Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment | 3/29/2023 5:09 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 74146534 By: Julia Adkins Filed: 3/29/2023 5:09 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. § 281ST JUDrICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE AMENDED MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY THE KASsSAB DEFENDANTS Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) respond in opposition to the Amended Motions for Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment (the “Amended Motion”) filed by Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C., d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (coallectively “Kassab”). I. INTRODUCTION The Court should not entertaien motions to reconsider filed under another name, especially when such a motion fails to makef any statement about why reconsideration is warranted. Despite its name, the Amended Motiyon does not specify what prior motions it purports to amend. But, in substance, it seeks recoCnsideration of Kassab’s previous motions for summary judgment that the 189th District Courat denied. Kassab does not explain why those prior rulings were wrong, nor does he attemptf to explain whether the facts, arguments, or law have changed from the previously denied mUotions. Kassab has not demonstrated that the Court should reconsider or revisit those rulings, or that any prior ruling was erroneous. Thus, the Court should deny the Amended Motion. Pohl also objects to the hearing on Kassab’s Amended Motion. The vast majority of the Amended Motion is directly copied and pasted from Kassab’s prior motions for traditional and no- evidence summary judgment that were denied by the 189th District Court. Kassab seeks the same relief and uses the same arguments as contained in his denied motions. Thus, the Amended Motion is a motion to “reconsider” with a different title. Under this Court’s procedures, “[a]ll motions to reconsider are heard … |
| 53 | 2023-03-14 | RSP | Pohl | Response to Mtn to Rule | Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Kassab's Motion to Rule on Plaintiffs' Objections to Kassab's Deposition on Written Questions of Scott Favre | Filed March 14, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court by Pohl's counsel Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. Pohl opposes Kassab's motion seeking to overrule Pohl's objections to Kassab's deposition on written questions (DWQ) of Scott Favre. This is Kassab's second motion — the first version argued leading questions were 'cross examination' but was revised to remove that argument as directly contrary to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. | MSJ-2R | N/A | Phase 4 | 2023-03-14_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-Mtn-to-Rule_FILED.pdf | Deny Kassab's Motion to Rule and sustain Pohl's objections to the questions contained in Kassab's DWQ | 3/14/2023 9:54 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 73666907 By: Bonnie Lugo Filed: 3/14/2023 9:54 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. § 281ST JUDrICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO KASSAB’S MOTION TO RULE Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Office of Michael As. Pohl PLLC (collectively “Pohl”) respond in opposition to Defendants Lance Christopher rKassab and Lance Christopher Kassab P.C.’s (collectively, “Kassab”) Motion to Rule on Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Kassab Defendants’ Notice to Take Deposition on Written Questions lof Scott Favre (the “Motion”).1 I. MBACKGROUND The parties have been unable to osecure an oral deposition of Scott Favre (“Favre”), and the parties have been told his capabilityc to appear is limited by his ongoing cancer treatment. Favre is a former co-defendant, and Pohl alleged Favre conspired with Kassab to misappropriate Pohl’s trade secrets and propertyp, including by selling that information to Kassab.2 Although Kassab admits that he made a six-figure, up-front payment to Favre, he contends the payment was made to hire Favre as anc e i xpert to assist Kassab with bringing barratry claims against Pohl.3 Pohl alleges the payment woas made in exchange for misappropriating Pohl’s confidential information.4 1 This is the second motion Kassab filed regarding Pohl’s objections. Kassab initially tried to argue that his leading questions were proper because they constituted “cross examination.” But Kassab filed a subsequent motion that removed that argument, as it was directly contrary to the wording of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Compare Kassab Defendants’ Motion to Rule on Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Kassab Defendants’ Notice to Take Deposition on Written Questions of Scott Favre, filed Feb. 28, 2023, with Motion (filed March 2, 2023). 2 See Pohl’s First Amended Petition ¶¶ 21–23. 3 See Deposition of… |
| 52 | 2023-03-08 | RSP | Pohl | Response to Mtn to Reconsider/Rule | Plaintiffs' Response in Partial Opposition to Kassab's Motion to Reconsider or Rule | Filed March 8, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court (Judge Weems) by Pohl's counsel Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. Response to Kassab's Motion to Reconsider or Rule (filing #49), which sought reconsideration of three prior orders by Judge Dollinger. Pohl partially opposes — agreeing the court should rule on the pending RTP motion but opposing reconsideration of the abatement and discovery compulsion rulings. | MSJ-2R | N/A | Phase 4 | 2023-03-08_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-Mtn-to-Reconsider-or-Rule_FILED.pdf | Deny Kassab's Motion in part; deny Kassab's Supplemental RTP Motion on the merits; decline to reconsider prior rulings on Kassab's Motion to Abate and Motion to Compel | 3/8/2023 7:39 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 73486867 By: Lewis John-Miller Filed: 3/8/2023 7:39 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. § 281ST JUDrICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN PARTIAL OPPOSITION TO KASSAB’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER OR RULE s Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm (collectively, “Kassab”) filed the Motion to Reconsider or Rule (the “Motion”), and in it states he filed it in order to file a petition for writ of mandamus if the Motion is denied. Pohl partially opposes the relief Kassab requests in his Motion. Pohl does not oppose the Court ruling on Kassab’s pending motion to designate responsible third parties—although Pohl contends that motion should be denied when thee Court addresses it on the merits. However, Pohl does not agree that the Court should reconfsider or revisit the other two rulings mentioned in the Motion, and Kassab has not shown hyow any prior ruling was erroneous. C I. DISCUSSION Kassab asksa the Court to rule on one pending motion and to reconsider rulings on two other motions. Kassafb is not entitled to relief on the merits with respect to any of those three motions. First, the Court should rule on Kassab’s Supplemental Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties (“Kassab’s Supplemental RTP Motion”), but it should deny the relief Kassab requests. Kassab’s Supplemental RTP Motion does not fix the pleading defect that caused Judge Dollinger to deny Kassab’s first motion to designate responsible third parties. Second, Kassab provides no basis for why the Court should reconsider the denial of Kassab’s Motion to Abate Trial Setting (“Kassab’s Motion to Abate”), and the Court should not allow Kassab to delay trial. Third, the Court should not reconsider the denial of Kassab’s Motion to Compel Testimony and Documents Pursuant to the Offensive Use D… |
| 38 | 2022-09-15 | RSP | Pohl | Pohl’s response to MTA | Plaintiffs' Response to the Kassab Defendants' Motion to Abate Trial Setting — opposes abatement of four-year-old case on eve of preferential trial setting, arguing future damages do not justify abatement and unlawful acts defense has been preempted | Response filed September 15, 2022 by Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP opposing Kassab's motion to abate the trial setting in a four-year-old case with a preferential trial setting. Incorporates by reference Pohl's September 12, 2022 responses to defendants' summary judgment motions. | MTA-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-09-15_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-MTA-Trial_FILED.pdf | Deny Kassab's Motion to Abate Trial Setting and allow the case to proceed to trial during its current preferential trial setting | 9/15/2022 5:08 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 68313271 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 9/15/2022 5:08 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § v. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § 189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, § r P.C. d/b/a THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, LLP § d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW FIRM; and § s DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and MONTAGUE § PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § g Defendants. § r HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ABATEy TRIAL SETTING Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Officaes of Michael A. Pohl (collectively, “Pohl”) file this this response to Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C.’s (collectively, “Kassab”) Motion to Abeate Trial Setting (the “Motion to Abate”). Pohl requests that the Court deny Kassab’s Motion fto Abate and allow this four-year-old case to be tried during its current preferential trial settiyng—a trial setting that Kassab appears to be trying to avoid. Kassab argues Cthat this case should be abated for two reasons: (1) Pohl is still incurring damages; and (2) the outcome of a separate lawsuit—the Cheatham case—will impact Kassab’s illegality (unlafwfful acts doctrine) defense. Neither argument has merit. First, the existence of future daUmages does not justify abatement. For Pohl to recover future damages, he must satisfy the ordinary standard of showing to the jury that he will sustain those damages with reasonable probability. Second, Kassab’s unlawful acts defense has been preempted and does not apply—a defense Kassab acknowledged in another case is “no longer good law.” I. BACKGROUND1 Kassab’s campaign of lawsuits and bar grievances against Pohl can only be described as a failure. Kassab facilitated the filing of seven separate grievances with the Texas State Bar and four law… |
| 35 | 2022-09-12 | RSP | Pohl | Pohl’s response to Kassab no-evid MSJ | Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to No-Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment Filed by Kassab and Nicholson Defendants — Pohl presents extensive evidence supporting all three claims (conspiracy, conversion, TUTSA) and rebuts defendants' challenges to ownership, protection, misappropriation, and damages elements | Response to no-evidence MSJs filed by Kassab and Nicholson defendants on August 29, 2022, in the third phase of litigation. Filed September 12, 2022 at 11:26 PM. Pohl incorporates by reference the discussion and evidence from his companion Response in Opposition to the Traditional Motions filed the same day. Filed by Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. Addressed to the 189th Judicial District Court of Harris County. | MSJ-2 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-09-12_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-No-Evid-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Deny the no-evidence motions for summary judgment filed by Kassab and Nicholson and allow all issues to be tried by a jury | 9/12/2022 11:26 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 68182775 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 9/12/2022 11:26 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’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NO EVIDENCE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY THE KASSAB DEFENDANTSl AND THE NICHOLSON DEFENDANTS Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law OfMfice of Michael A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) respond in opposition to the No Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C., d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (collectively “Kassab”) and Tina Nicholson and Baker Nicholson, LLP d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm (collectively, “Nicholson”). Given the overlapping issues in the multiple summary judgment motions before the Court, Pohl also incorpcorates by reference the discussion and evidence included in his Response in Opposition to the Traditional Motions for Summary Judgment Filed by the Kassab Defendants and the Nicholson Defendants that is filed on the same day as this Response. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Pohl represented various persons and entities in claims arising from motor vehicle accidents and the British Petroleum Deepwater Horizon oil spill.1 Pohl engaged Precision Marketing Group, LLC (“Precision”) to provide public relations services, to gathker and preserve evidence, and to screen and liaise with Pohl’s clients and prospective clients.2 l While working for Pohl, Precision necessarily gained access to Pohl’s confidential and propcrietary information and property, including trade … |
| 36 | 2022-09-12 | RSP | Pohl | Pohl’s response to Kassab trad MSJ | Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Traditional Motions for Summary Judgment Filed by Kassab and Nicholson Defendants — comprehensive 38-page response opposing limitations, unlawful acts doctrine, attorney immunity, judicial proceedings privilege, release, TUTSA protection, ownership, and damages defenses | Response to traditional MSJs filed by Kassab (Aug. 29, 2022) and Nicholson (Amended, Aug. 29, 2022), four years into litigation. Filed September 12, 2022 at 11:55 PM. Incorporates arguments and evidence from companion no-evidence MSJ response filed same day. Filed by Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. Notes Court previously denied Kassab's first MSJ (limitations, res judicata, attorney immunity) on August 3, 2021. | MSJ-2 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-09-12_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-Trad-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Deny the traditional motions for summary judgment filed by Kassab and Nicholson in all respects | 9/12/2022 11:55 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 68182991 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 9/12/2022 11:55 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’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE TRADITIONAL MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY THE KASSAB DEFENDANTSl AND THE NICHOLSON DEFENDANTS Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law OfMfice of Michael A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) respond in opposition to the Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C., d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (collectively “Kassab”) and the Amended Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Tina Nicholson and Baker Nicholson, LLP d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm (collectively, “Nicholson,” and together with Kassab, the “Moving Defendants”). c I. INTRODUCTION On June 8, 2021, Kassab moved for traditional summary judgment on the grounds of limitations, res judicata, and attorney immunity. By order dated August 3, 2021, the Court denied Kassab’s motion. Although nothing has changed relative to the facts relating to the defenses of limitations and attorney immunity, Kassab reargues those issues to the Court. Nicholson likewise asserts limitations and immunity defenses. For the same reasons the Court rejected those defenses in Kassab’s original motions, the Court should reject those defenses again here. The Moving Defendants’ assertion of an “illegal acts” defense fails as both a matter of fact and a matter of law. Both Nicholson and Kassab expend countless breathless pakges and submi… |
| 17 | 2021-07-26 | RSP | Pohl | Pohl’s response to Kassab MSJ | Pohl's Response in Opposition to Kassab's Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment, addressing all three grounds (limitations, res judicata, attorney immunity) | Response brief filed in Phase 2 opposing Kassab's dispositive Traditional MSJ. Pohl argues Kassab's motion recycles the same arguments and limited evidence from the TCPA motion and interlocutory appeal, and was filed prior to responding to any discovery. Filed July 26, 2021, approximately 7 weeks after Kassab's MSJ. | MSJ-1 | N/A | Phase 2 | 2021-07-26_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-Traditional-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Deny Kassab's Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment in all respects | 7/26/2021 2:51 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 55701585 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 7/26/2021 2:51 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’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, PC’S TRADITIONAL MOTION FOlR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law OfMfice of Michael A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) respond in opposition to the Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C., d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (collectively “Kassab”). Kassab’s Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”), which Kassab filed prior to responding to any discovery, relies on the same arguments and (very limited) evidence previously presented to this Court and the First Court of Appeals in Kassab’s motion under the TCPA.c Kassab’s arguments were not persuasive then, nor is his recycled assertion of them persuasive now. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Pohl is a lawyer who represented various persons and entities in claims arising from motor vehicle accidents and the British Petroleum Deepwater Horizon oil spill.1 Pohl engaged Precision 1 Sworn Declaration of Michael A. Pohl (the “Pohl Declaration”) ¶ 3, attached as Exhibit A. Marketing Group, LLC (“Precision”) to provide public relations services, to gather and preserve evidence, and to screen and liaise with Pohl’s clients and prospective clients.2 While working for Pohl, Precision naturally gained access to Pohl’s confidential and proprietary informat… |
| 15 | 2018-12-26 | RSP | Pohl | Pohl’s response to supp. TCPA motion | Pohl's combined notice of mandatory stay, response in opposition to motion for leave to file late TCPA motion, and response in opposition to Favre/Precision's TCPA Motion to Dismiss | Filed December 26, 2018 in Cause No. 2018-58419, 189th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. Filed after Kassab's TCPA motion was denied by operation of law and Kassab noticed an interlocutory appeal on December 18, 2018. Pohl argues a mandatory stay bars consideration of the Favre/Precision TCPA motion. This response addresses both the timeliness of the Favre/Precision motion (filed after the 60-day TCPA deadline) and the merits of the TCPA dismissal arguments. | TCPA-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-12-26_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Supp-MTD-TCPA_FILED.pdf | Deny the Motion for Leave to file late TCPA motion; deny the Motion to Dismiss as untimely and on the merits; deny attorney's fees | 12/26/2018 11:52 AM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 29957412 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 12/26/2018 11:52 AM 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, § 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 § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS MICHAEL POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. POHL’S NOTICE OF MANDATORY STAY OF ALL PROCEEDINGS, RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVEl TO FILE MOTION TO DISMISS, AND RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO aDEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl (collectively, “Pohl”) provide this notice that all proceedings are staeyed, respond in opposition to the Motion for Leave to File a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defenfdants Scott Favre (“Mr. Favre”), Scott M. Favre Public Adjuster, LLC (“Favre”), and Precisioyn Marketing Group, LLC (“Precision”) (collectively, “Defendants”), and respond in oppositCion to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”). In light of the filing of an interlocutory appeal, this case is currently subject to a mandatory stay, precludinfgf the Court’s consideration of the Motion. In addition, the Motion was not timely filed andU should be denied for that reason. Finally, the Motion purports to find its basis in the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 27.001 et. seq. (“TCPA”), but the TCPA does not apply to Pohl’s claims, and even if it did, the Motion would fail. THIS CASE IS SUBJECT TO A MANDATORY STAY OF ALL PROCEEDINGS Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”) moved to dismiss the claims agai… |
| 9 | 2018-11-01 | RSP | Pohl | Pohl’s response opposing TCPA MTD | Pohl's Response in Opposition to Kassab's TCPA Motion to Dismiss | Filed November 1, 2018 in response to Kassab's October 24, 2018 TCPA Motion to Dismiss. Pohl opposes dismissal on three grounds: (1) the TCPA does not apply to his claims, (2) even if it did, the commercial speech exception bars application, and (3) Pohl has established a prima facie case. Includes alternative motion for continuance and discovery. Filed in Cause No. 2018-58419, 189th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. | TCPA-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-11-01_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-MTD-TCPA_FILED.pdf | Deny the TCPA Motion to Dismiss in all respects; award Pohl costs and fees of $33,352; alternatively, grant continuance and permit discovery under §§ 27.004(c) and 27.006(b) | 11/1/2018 7:18 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 28744115 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 11/1/2018 7:18 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 MICHAEL POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. POHL’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS CITlIZENS PARTICIPATION ACT Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law OfMfices of Michael A. Pohl (collectively, “Pohl”) respond in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C., d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (collectively, “Kassab”). Kassab’s Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) purports to find its basis in the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act, TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODEo § 27.001 et. seq. (“TCPA”), but as set forth below the TCPA does not apply to Pohl’s claims, and even if it did, the Motion would fail. c I. INTRODUCTION Kassab paid $250,000 to obtain the stolen names, addresses, and in some instances actual client files of Pohl’s former clients and potential clients so that Kassab could solicit those clients to assert barratry claims. Kassab attempted to disguise the purchase as the engagement of a putative “expert witness,” whom he agreed to indemnify in the event that Pohl asserted claims for the theft. Now that Pohl has asserted the anticipated claims, Kassab asks the Court to hold that his actions and communications in purchasing and using the stolen materials are protected by the TCPA. Despite having advocated directly inconsistent positions regarding the kTCPA in other litigati… |
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
);