Court Filings
Data license: Public court records
6 rows where outcome = "N/A" and phase = "Phase 2" 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24 | 2022-02-04 | RPL | Pohl | Pohl’s reply ISO MSJ on counterclaims | Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants' Counterclaims for Civil Barratry | Pohl's reply brief supporting his MSJ on Kassab's barratry counterclaims, filed February 4, 2022. This is the final brief in the CC-1 motion chain before the court's ruling (which ultimately granted Pohl's motion). Attorney: Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. | CC-1 | N/A | Phase 2 | 2022-02-04_RPL_Pohl-Reply-ISO-MSJ-on-CC_FILED.pdf | Grant summary judgment dismissing Kassab's counterclaims for civil barratry | 2/4/2022 3:45 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 61466983 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 2/4/2022 3:45 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’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIMS Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Officae of Michael A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) file this Reply in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants’ Counterclaims for Civil Barratry. e In his Response to Plfaintiffs’ Motion (the “Response”) Kassab admits that the Assignments1 underlying hisy counterclaims were shams that altered nothing about the ownership of the claims and wereC made explicitly for the purpose of circumventing the statute of limitations and fomenting otherwise barred litigation. See Response, at 6 (“Seeing Pohl’s retaliatory suit as a means to potenftfially revive the barratry claims dismissed on limitations in Brumfield and Gandy, Kassab aUnd his clients executed 242 Limited Assignments.”); see also Declaration of Lance Kassab ¶ 12, Ex. 5 to the Response (after purported “assignment,” clients retained 60% interest in claims and Kassab retained 40% contingent fee interest). These admissions demonstrate the 1 Terms defined in Plaintiffs’ Motion carry the same meaning in this Reply. invalidity of the Assignments and therefore the Counterclaims. In addition to effectively admitting that the Assignments are shams, Kassab’s Response fails to rebut any of the other bases on which Pohl moved for summary judgment. The Court can resolve Pohl’s Motion based on a s… |
| 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… |
| 21 | 2021-10-18 | OA | Pohl | Pohl’s response and special exceptions | Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants Pohl's Verified Original Answer and Special Exceptions to Kassab's Fourth Amended Answer, Counterclaim, and Designation of Responsible Third Parties | Pohl's responsive pleading to Kassab's Fourth Amended Answer and Counterclaim filed on October 13, 2021. Filed October 18, 2021, five days after Kassab's amended pleading. Challenges Kassab's legal capacity to assert assigned barratry claims through verified denials and seeks clarification of the counterclaim through special exceptions. Attorney: Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. | PLEAD-1 | N/A | Phase 2 | 2021-10-18_OA_Pohl-Response-and-Special-Exceptions_FILED.pdf | That the Court render judgment that Kassab take nothing; dismiss Kassab's counterclaim for barratry on its merits; and grant such other and further or alternative relief (legal and equitable) to which Pohl may be entitled | 10/18/2021 5:07 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 58297712 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 10/18/2021 5:07 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–COUNTER DEFENDANTS MICHAEL POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC’S VERIFIED ORIGINAL ANSWERl AND SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS Plaintiffs–Counter Defendants MichMael Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (collectively “Pohl”), file this Verified Original Answer and Special Exceptions to Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm’s Fourth Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim, and Designation of Responsible Third Parties, filed October 13, 2021 (the “Counterclaim”), and would show as follows: I. Verified Denials Pursuant tco Rules 93(1) and 93(2) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Pohl denies that Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (collectively “Kassab”) has legal capacity to sue or recover in the capacity in which he sued. Kassab purports to assert barratry claims assigned to him by his clients. Such assignments of barratry claims (whether complete or partial) are void, and Kassab both lacks legal capacity to sue and to recover. Pohl’s Verification is attached as Exhibit A. II. Answer Pursuant to Rule 92, Pohl generally denies each and every, all and singular, of the allegations made in Kassab’s Counterclaim, and demands strict proof thereof. Pohl hereby pleads the following affirmative defenses: k i. Statute of limitations; l ii. L… |
| 20 | 2021-10-13 | OA | Kassab | 4th Amended Answer — adds RTP designations | Defendants Kassab's Fourth Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Counterclaim, and Designation of Responsible Third Parties | Kassab's fourth amended pleading filed October 13, 2021, after denial of his traditional MSJ. Adds responsible third party designations and reasserts counterclaims for civil barratry based on 242 assigned claims. Relies on Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.069 to revive otherwise time-barred counterclaims. Filed during Phase 2 of litigation. Two sets of counsel: Lance and David Kassab for defense; Murray Fogler for affirmative claims. | PLEAD-1, RTP-1 | N/A | Phase 2 | 2021-10-13_OA_Kassab-4th-Amended-Answer-CC_FILED.pdf | That Pohl recover nothing on his claims; actual and consequential damages on counterclaims; statutory damages; pre- and post-judgment interest; attorneys' fees and costs; and all other relief to which Kassab may be justly entitled | 10/13/2021 12:33 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 58144098 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 10/13/2021 12:33 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIrAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS, LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. D/B/A THE KASSAB LAW FIRM’S FOURTH AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNtTERCLAIM, AND DESIGNATION OF RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTIES TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: s COMES NOW, Defendants, Lance Christopher Kgassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm and files this theBir Fourth Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim, and Designation of Ryesponsible Third Parties, and would respectfully show the Court as follows; a RULfE 47 STATEMENT The Kassab Defendants, in teheir capacity as Counter-Plaintiffs, seek monetary relief of more than $1,000,000.00. f y PARTIES Plaintiff, Michael A. Pohl is an individual lawyer residing in Colorado and is a party herein. Plaintiff, Laawl Offices of Michael A. Pohl is a law firm set up for the practice of law in various states of ithe union, including Texas and is a party herein. Defendant, Scott Favre is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi and is a party herein. Defendant, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi and is a party herein. Defendant, Precision Marketing Group, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi and is a party herein. Defendant, F. Douglas Montague III is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi. Defendant, Montague, Pittman & Varnado, PA is a nonresident professioknal association located in Mississippi. l Defendant, Tina Nicholson is an individual residing in Texas and cis a party herein. Defendant, Baker Nicholson, LLP, d/b/a Baker Nicholson Lasw Firm is a limited liability partnership located in Texas and is a party herein. Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Lance Christophe… |
| 18 | 2021-08-02 | RPL | Kassab | Kassab’s reply ISO Traditional MSJ | Kassab's Objections to Pohl's Response and Reply in Support of Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment, with extensive evidentiary objections and rebuttal arguments on all three grounds | Reply brief filed one week after Pohl's response (July 26, 2021) to Kassab's Traditional MSJ. Filed August 1-2, 2021. Contains two major sections: (1) detailed paragraph-by-paragraph evidentiary objections to Pohl's Declaration (Exhibit A) seeking to strike key paragraphs and exhibits as conclusory, hearsay, or lacking foundation; (2) substantive reply arguments on limitations, res judicata, and attorney immunity. Kassab represents himself pro se with David Eric Kassab. | MSJ-1 | N/A | Phase 2 | 2021-08-02_RPL_Kassab-Reply-ISO-Traditional-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Sustain all evidentiary objections; strike Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of Pohl's Declaration and Exhibits 1-2; grant Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment ordering that Plaintiffs take nothing | 8/1/2021 7:39 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 55892722 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 8/2/2021 12:00 AM 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’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFCFS’ RESPONSE AND REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT “DOLLI” DOLLINGEtR: Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm file this, their Objections to Plaeintiffs’ Response and Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment uand would respectfully show the following. BJECTIONS Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm i(collectively, “Kassab”) object to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A, the sworn declaration of Michael A. Pohl, because statements contained in this declaration are concluosory, contain hearsay and contain no foundation or predicate to support personall knowledge, and thus, constitute no evidence at all. Conclusiory affidavits do not raise fact issues and are incompetent evidence as a matter of law. Ryland Group, Inc. v. Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120, 122 (Tex. 1996); Stephens v. Precision Drilling Oilfield Servs. Corp., No. 01-11-00326-CV, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 5700, at *19 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 9, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.). “A conclusory statement is one that does not provide the underlying facts to support the conclusion.” Dolcefino v. Randolph, 19 S.W.3d 906, 930 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). Moreover, an affidavit is conclusory when it expresses “a factual inference without stating the underlying facts on which the inference is based.” E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Shell Oil Cok., 259 S.W.3d 800, 809 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied). ThusC, bare conclusions are not evidence and are not probative of any facts. See Bavishi v. Sterling Air Conditioning, Inc., No. 01-10-00610-CV, 2011 Tex. App.i LEXIS 6271, at *24-… |
| 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… |
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
);