Court Filings
Data license: Public court records
2 rows where outcome = "DENIED" and phase = "Phase 3" 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 42 | 2022-10-31 | ORD | Court | Order: FOUR MSJs DENIED | Order Denying All Four Motions for Summary Judgment (Kassab Traditional MSJ, Kassab No-Evidence MSJ, Nicholson Amended Traditional MSJ, and Nicholson/Kassab TUTSA Preemption MSJ) | Court order signed October 31, 2022 by Judge Scot Dollinger and filed November 2, 2022, denying all four pending motions for summary judgment in a single order with no stated reasoning. | MSJ-2 | DENIED | Phase 3 | 2022-10-31_ORD_Denying-Kassab-Trad-and-No-Evid-MSJ_SIGNED.pdf | Filed 22 November 02 A10:22 Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Pgs-1 CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MFSJY POHL, MICHAEL, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff(s) § S VS. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS S FAVRE, SCOTT, § 189th JUDICIAL DISTRICT Defendant(s) § “ ORDER & SS Pending is THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ _ TRADITIONAL xipnion FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed August 29, 2022. & Motion DENIED. @ GP Pending is THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ NO-EYOENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed August 29, 2022. SS Motion DENIED. Pending is DEFENDANTS TINA NICHOL ( snp BAKER NICHOLSON, LLP D/B/A BAKER NICHOLSON LAW FIRM’S AMENDED TRAD AL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed August 29, 2022. ws Motion DENIED. © ® Pending is NICHOLSON b NDANTS AND KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ TRADITIONAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDG, TON TUTSA PREEMPTION filed August 2, 2022. Motion DENIED. -=\ ow Signed October 31, 2022. . It Hulda & Ae) Hon. SCOT DOLLINGER & Judge, 189th District Court & | |
| 30 | 2022-08-29 | MSJ | Kassab | Trad. + No-Evidence MSJ (2nd attempt) | Kassab's Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment — comprehensive 80+ page dispositive motion raising seven independent grounds for dismissal: Rule 17.09 immunity, judicial proceedings privilege, attorney immunity, limitations, conclusive negation of TUTSA (no secrecy and no ownership), illegal acts bar, and improper damages (American Rule) | Phase 3 dispositive motion filed alongside the Seventh Amended Answer. This is Kassab's second MSJ attempt, substantially more detailed than the first. It adopts and incorporates the Nicholson Motion filed August 19, 2022, and presents extensive evidentiary support including 60+ exhibits (depositions, declarations, contracts, financial records, correspondence). Addressed to Judge Scot 'Dolli' Dollinger. | MSJ-2 | DENIED | Phase 3 | 2022-08-29_MSJ_Kassab-Trad-and-No-Evid-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Grant traditional summary judgment dismissing all of Pohl's claims against Kassab; order that Pohl take nothing | 8/29/2022 5:07 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 67771690 By: Ashley Lopez Filed: 8/29/2022 5:07 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’ TRADITIONACL MOTION FOR 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 file this, their Traeditional Motion for Summary Judgment, and would respectfully show the follouwing. SUMMARY Pohl committed illegal and uneathical barratry and he wants Kassab, who brought the barratry litigation and grievances against Pohl, to pay for Pohl’s barratry defense costs. But Pohel’s claims against Kassab are barred as a matter of law because: f • Pohl’s claims are predicated on Kassab’s filing of a grievance against Pohl for whicoh Kassab has absolute and unqualified immunity pursuant to Rule 17.09 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. • Pohl’s claiims against Kassab are barred by the judicial proceedings privilegie because they arise out of communications that Kassab made in proospective (solicitation letters) and actual judicial proceedings (the barratry litigation and grievance process) and Pohl seeks defamation- like damages including loss of reputation to his law firm and defense costs incurred because of the statements that Kassab made. • Pohl’s claims against Kassab are barred by attorney immunity. Under the doctrine of attorney immunity, an attorney does not have a right of recovery, under any cause of action, against another attorney arising from conduct the second attorney engaged in as part of the discharge of his duties in representing a party. • Pohl’s claims are barred by limitations because they accrued in 2014 and Pohl did not file suit until more than three years later. • Pohl’s claims are conclusively negated. Pohl’s TUTSA claim is conclusively negated because his alleged trade secrets weere not ac… |
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
);