Court Filings
Data license: Public court records
4 rows where doc_type = "RSP" and phase = "Phase 3" 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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… |
| 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… |
| 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… |
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
);