Court Filings
Data license: Public court records
35 rows where party = "Kassab" sorted by date descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: date, chain, date (date)
party 1
- Kassab · 35 ✖
| filing_id | date ▲ | doc_type | party | description | doc_type_detail | procedural_posture | chain | outcome | phase | filename | relief_requested | full_text |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 65 | 2024-01-19 | MJNOV | Kassab | Mtn for JNOV and Disregard Jury Findings | Kassab Defendants' Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and to Disregard Jury Findings, asserting 10 grounds for JNOV (no trade secret, no misappropriation evidence, limitations, unlawful acts doctrine, privilege to disclose, grievance immunity, judicial proceedings privilege, attorney immunity, unrecoverable damages, no causation), plus arguments that conspiracy is preempted by TUTSA and exemplary damages are improper due to non-unanimous Q17 finding | Post-judgment motion filed January 19, 2024, 28 days after entry of the Final Judgment on December 22, 2023. Kassab seeks JNOV on all claims or alternatively on exemplary damages and conspiracy claim. Filed simultaneously with Motion for New Trial. | POST-1 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2024-01-19_MJNOV_Kassab-Mtn-for-JNOV-and-Disregard-Jury-Findings_FILED.pdf | Judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of Kassab on all claims (take-nothing judgment), or alternatively: (1) JNOV on exemplary damages due to non-unanimous Q17 finding; (2) JNOV on conspiracy claim as preempted by TUTSA, eliminating joint and several liability; (3) disregard of jury findings | 1/19/2024 3:31 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 83597613 By: Rhonda Momon Filed: 1/19/2024 3:31 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al. § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al. § 281st JUDICIALk DISTRICT THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMCENT NOT WITHSTANDING THE VERDICT AND TO DISREGARD JURY FINDINGS Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Chtristopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”), files this Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and to Disregard Jurey Findings and would show as follows. u SUMMARY Pohl’s claims against Kassab are abarred as a matter of law. Therefor the Court should disregard the findings of the jury and enter a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of Kassab for aney one of the following reasons: 1. Pohl’s claims are ba rrfed as a matter of law because the information at issue is not a trade secret: • not Pohl’s trade secret because he does not own the information at issue; l • not Piohl’s (or anyone’s) trade secret because the information at issue dooes not have any independent economic value from not being generally known; • not Pohl’s (or anyone’s) trade secret because he made no reasonable measures to keep the subject information secret. 2. Pohl’s claims fail as a matter of law because there is no evidence that Kassab engaged in regular or willful misappropriation; specifically, there is no evidence that Kassab knew the information was Pohl’s trade secret or had been acquired by improper means. The jury’s finding that those associated with Precision, did not misappropriate anything precludes liability against Kassab. k 3. Pohl’s claims are barred by limitations because they accruedC, if at all, in the summer of 2014 when Precision engaged in the first acts of alleged misappropriation, or at the latest in the spring ofi 2015, when both Precision and Favre engaged in additional acts of alleged misappropriation. 4. Pohl’s claims are barred by the unlawful acts doctrine bec… |
| 66 | 2024-01-19 | MNT | Kassab | Motion for New Trial | Kassab Defendants' Motion for New Trial, filed in the alternative to the JNOV Motion, raising 22 grounds for new trial including: (1) newly discovered evidence of witness bribery/tampering (Walker 30% confession), (2-4) factual insufficiency on trade secret ownership and misappropriation, (5-6) jury charge errors on Q3 and proportionate responsibility, (7) limitations question error on Q5, (8) insufficiency on Q5 answer, (9-10) refusal to submit unlawful acts defense and immunity/privilege questions, (11) exclusion of barratry expert testimony, (12) Q6 attorney immunity question error, (13) insufficiency on Q6, (14) improper Q7(1) submission (attorney fees not TUTSA damages), (15) property owner rule error, (16) insufficiency on Q7(2)-(3), (17-18) insufficiency on willful/malicious and exemplary damages, (19) conspiracy preemption, (20) denial of responsible third party designations, (21) denial of abatement, (22) privilege/offensive use errors, and (23) dismissal of barratry counterclaims, plus insufficiency of attorney fees evidence | Post-judgment motion filed January 19, 2024, simultaneously with the JNOV Motion, within 30 days of the December 22, 2023 Final Judgment. Filed in the alternative — if Court does not grant JNOV, it should grant a new trial on any of 22 enumerated grounds. | POST-1 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2024-01-19_MNT_Kassab-Motion-for-New-Trial_FILED.pdf | New trial on all claims — vacate final judgment and order new trial. Alternatively, new trial on specific issues and/or remittitur of exemplary damages. | 1/19/2024 3:31 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 83597613 By: Rhonda Momon Filed: 1/19/2024 3:31 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al. § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al. § 281st JUDICIALk DISTRICT THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR NEWC TRIAL In the alternative to their Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and to Disregard Jury Findings (“the JNOV Motion”), Defenidants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”) file this Motion for New Trial and would respectfully show as follows. SUMMARY Pohl’s claims against Kassab are barlred as a matter of law, so the Court should grant the JNOV Motion. To the extenMt the Court does not disregard findings of the jury and enter a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of Kassab, it should grant a new trial for any one oif the following reasons: 1. Newly discovered evidence demonstrates that material witnesses engaged in poerjury and Pohl engaged in unlawful bribery and witness tamperinlg which resulted in the jury being deceived as to material issuesi. 2. Factually insufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding in Question 1 that Pohl owned a trade secret in (a) attorney-client fee contracts and (b) lists of Pohl’s actual, potential, or rejected clients. 3. The trial court erred by submitting Question 2, the misappropriation question, to the jury because it failed to sufficiently distinguish the acts of each defendant and included liability theories not supported by legally sufficient evidence. 4. Factually insufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding in Qukestion 2 that Kassab misappropriated Pohl’s alleged trade secreCt. 5. The Court improperly submitted Question 3 on Pohl’s “wrongful conduct” because it is not tied to the privilege quesition, proportionate responsibility question or anything else in the jury charge. 6. The Court erred by refusing to submit Kassab’s proposed jury question on immunity or privilege. 7. The … |
| 61 | 2023-09-20 | LTR | Kassab | Letter to judge re final judgment | Kassab's letter brief to Judge Christine Weems responding to Pohl's Reply filed the night before the hearing on entry of final judgment, addressing new arguments on exemplary damages, attorneys' fees, TUTSA preemption of conspiracy, and Precision's exoneration | Post-hearing letter brief filed September 20, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court, Harris County, Cause No. 2018-58419. Addressed to Judge Christine Weems. Pohl's Reply was filed well after working hours the evening of September 18, 2023 — the night before the September 19, 2023 hearing on entry of final judgment. This letter responds to new arguments and authorities raised in that Reply. Written by Kevin Dubose (Alexander Dubose & Jefferson LLP, Board Certified Civil Appellate Law). | JDGMT-1 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2023-09-20_LTR_Kassab-Letter-to-Judge-re-Final-Judgment_FILED.pdf | That the Court refrain from signing Pohl's proposed final judgment and sustain Kassab's objections | 9/20/2023 3:18 PM Kevin Dubose Marilyn Burgess - D18is4tr4ic Ht aCrlvearkr dH Satrrreise Ct ounty kdubose@ adjtlaw.com Houston, TEenxvaes lo7p7e0 0N8o-.4 7394726 5300 By: Bonnie Lugo (713) 523-0667 www.adjtlaw.com Filed: 9/20/2023 3:18 PM Board Certified Civil Appellate Law September 20, 2023 The Honorable Christine Weems Judge 281st District Court 201 Caroline, 14th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Re: Cause No. 2018-58419; Michael A. Pohl, and Law Otffice of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC v. Lance Christopher Kassab and Lanrcie Christopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firm s Dear Judge Weems: s Pohl’s response to Kassab’s objections to the gproposed judgment were filed well after working hours the night before the hearing orn entry of judgment. Because that response raised some new arguments and authoriBties that Kassab has not had a chance to address, we file the following letter brief to addnress some of those new matters. A. Exemplary damages are not rercoverable because Question 17 was not answered unanimously. M Pohl relies on several cases noot previously addressed, and all are distinguishable for important reasons. e • Bruce v. Oscar Renda Cofntracting, 657 S.W.3d 453, 464 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2022, pet. filed). In Bruce there was no Additional Certificate in which the jury was instructed to certify whether certain jury questions were unanimous. Id. at 463. In the present case, there was an Additionaol Certificate in which the jury failed to certify that Question 17 was unanimous. C • Stover v. ADM Milling Co., No. 05-17-00778-CV, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 10883 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 28, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.). In Stover there was an Additional Certificfate, and the jury certified that the predicate question for exemplary damages (Qunestions 15 and 16 on fraud and malice) were answered unanimously. Id. at *12. In the prUesent case, the equivalent predicate question (Question 17 on willful and malicious misappropriation) was not certified as unanimous. • Bryan v. Papalia, 542 S.W.3d 676, 692–93 (Tex. App.—Houston … |
| 59 | 2023-09-15 | OBJ | Kassab | Objection to proposed final judgment | Kassab's Objections to Pohl's Proposed Final Judgment, challenging exemplary damages, recoverability of attorneys' fees as actual damages, double recovery of unjust enrichment and market value, joint and several liability based on conspiracy, and indirect misappropriation theory | Filed September 15, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court, Harris County, Cause No. 2018-58419. Filed 10 days after Pohl's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment, objecting to specific elements of the proposed judgment while reserving right to file subsequent motions challenging jury findings on other grounds. New appellate counsel Kevin Dubose (Alexander Dubose & Jefferson LLP) appears for Kassab. | JDGMT-1 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2023-09-15_OBJ_Kassab-Objection-to-Pohl-Proposed-Final-Judgment_FILED.pdf | That the Court refrain from signing Pohl's proposed final judgment and exclude: (1) exemplary damages ($3,000,000) due to non-unanimous Q17 finding, (2) attorneys' fees from barratry cases and grievances as actual damages, (3) one of the duplicative damage measures ($250,000 market value or $200,000 development costs), (4) joint and several liability based on conspiracy, and (5) all damages given Precision's exoneration breaking the indirect misappropriation chain | 9/15/2023 1:38 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 79605741 By: Patricia Gonzalez Filed: 9/15/2023 1:38 PM 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 KASSAB’S OBJECTIONS TO POHL’S PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMEtNT Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”) file these Objection teo the proposed Final Judgment submitted by Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and uLaw Office of Michael A. Pohl PLLC’(“Pohl”). INTRODUCTIOaN AND OVERVIEW Kassab will file subsequent motions challenging the jury findings against him on various grounds. But this filineg will be limited to objecting to elements of recovery in Pohl’s proposed judgmenft that are legally insupportable, even with these jury findings. Specifically: • The judgment should not include exemplary damages because one of the predicate ifindings for exemplary damages was not answered by the jury unanoimously. • The judgment should not include as actual damages attorney’s fees incurred by Pohl in actions against him by former clients and rejected potential clients who were victims of Pohl’s barratry. Attorney’s fees are not an element of recoverable damages under TUTSA. • The judgment should not include actual damages for both unjust enrichment of Kassab and the fair market value of the alleged trade secret misappropriated from Pohl because they are two impermissibly overlapping versions of the same loss. Pohl should have to elect one of those remedies rather than being awarded a double recovery. C • The judgment should not include joint and several liabili i ty under a conspiracy theory because conspiracy is pre-empted under TUTiSA or subject to Chapter 33’s proportionate responsibility scheme. • The judgment should not include any actual damages for theft of trade secrets because of the jury’s findings that Precision did not misappropriate trade secrets. Because Kassab acquired Plohl’s alleged trade se… |
| 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- … |
| 54 | 2023-03-15 | RPL | Kassab | Reply ISO Mtn to Rule | Kassab Defendants' Reply in Support of Their Motion to Rule on Plaintiffs' Objections to Kassab's Deposition on Written Questions of Scott Favre | Filed March 15, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court before Judge Christine Weems. Kassab replies to Pohl's response (filing #53) opposing Kassab's motion to rule on objections to his DWQ of Scott Favre, arguing his questions are not leading, Pohl's own questions are leading, and Pohl's boilerplate objections are waived. | MSJ-2R | N/A | Phase 4 | 2023-03-15_RPL_Kassab-Reply-ISO-Mtn-to-Rule_FILED.pdf | Overrule Pohl's objections to Kassab's deposition on written questions of Scott Favre | 3/15/2023 5:09 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 73705718 By: Bonnie Lugo Filed: 3/15/2023 5:09 PM 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 KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ REPLYIN SUPPORT OF THIER MOTION TO RULE ON PLAINTIFFS’ OBJEtCTIONS TO THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ NOTICEi TO TAKE DEPOSITION ON WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SCOTT FAVRE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE CHRISTINE WEEMeS: Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab aund Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firm (collectively “Knassab”) file this, their Reply In Support of Their Rule on Plaintiffs’ Objectionsa to the Kassab Defendants Notice to Take Deposition on Written Questions of Scott Favre and would respectfully show the following. e KASSAB DOES N OOT f AGREE THAT HIS QUESTIONS ARE LEADING, BUT POHL’S QUESTIONS TO FAVRE WERE Plaintiffs claimo “[t]here is no dispute that Kassab asked leading questions, nor does Kassab clontend that any of Pohl’s “leading” objections were directed at non-leading quiestions.”1 Pohl’s claim is false as none of the questions propounded by Kassab are leading in the first place and Kassab made that abundantly clear to Pohl’s counsel in an email, stating “[t]he objections are all meritless.”2 After stating that all the objections were meritless, Kassab stated “[a]dditionally, your clients’ 1 Exhibit F, p. 3 2 Exhibit A. leading objections are improper” for two other reasons: leading questions are permitted on cross examination and for hostile witnesses.3 Kassab’s motion to rule simply focused on Plaintiffs’ absurd argument—meaning even if Kassab’s questions were leading, which they are not, Favre should be treated as a hostile wkitness. One need only look to the questions Pohl served Favre to Csee that Pohl has persuaded Favre to contradict his prior testimony to help Pohl with his frivolous retaliatory lawsuit against Kassab. i For instance, Favre has already testified in an affidavit and in Federal Cour… |
| 51 | 2023-03-02 | MTN | Kassab | Mtn to Designate Favre/Precision as RTP | Kassab Defendants' Motion for Leave to Designate Scott Favre, Scott M. Favre PA, LLC and Precision Marketing Group, LLC as Responsible Third Parties | Filed March 2, 2023 after Pohl inexplicably nonsuited Favre and Precision on November 21, 2022. No trial date has been set. This is a new RTP motion targeting the nonsuited former co-defendants specifically (distinct from the prior RTP motions targeting Walker, Ladner, Seymour, and others). Filed before Judge Christine Weems though the header still references the 189th Judicial District. | RTP-2 | GRANTED | Phase 4 | 2023-03-02_MTN_Kassab-Mtn-to-Designate-Favre-and-Precision-as-RTP_FILED.pdf | Grant leave to designate Scott Favre, Scott M. Favre PA, LLC, and Precision Marketing Group, LLC as responsible third parties | 3/2/2023 11:24 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 73272865 By: Joshua Herrington Filed: 3/2/2023 11:24 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 KASSAB DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO DECSIGNATE SCOTT FAVRE, SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, LLC AND PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, LLC AS RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTIES Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Cihristopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”), file this, their Motion for Leave to Designate Scott Favre, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC and Precision Marketing Group, LLC as Responsible Third Parties, and would respectfully show the following. SUMMlARY In this lawsuit, Plaintiffs MicMhael Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (“Pohl”) initially sued Scott Favre and Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC (collectively, “Favre”) and Precision Markieting Group, LLC (“Precision”) alleging Favre and Precision, along with Kassab, were all part of “a scheme pursuant to which they illegally obtained, moaintained, and used trade secrets and other confidential information and lproperty belonging to Pohl.”1 On November 21, 2022, Pohl inexplicably nionsuited Favre and Precision.2 Because Favre and Precision are alleged to have caused or contributed to causing the harm for which recovery of damages by Pohl is sought, Kassab files this motion requesting leave to designate Favre and Precision as responsible third parties and would ask that it be in all 1 Exhibit 1, Pohl’s First Amended Petition, at ¶ 2. 2 Exhibit 2, Pohl’s Nonsuit as to Favre and Precision. things granted. This motion is timely because there presently is no trial setting in this case. BACKGROUND Pohl alleges that he hired Precision – which was formallky owned by Mississippi residents Scott Walker and Kirk Ladner – “to providCe public relations services, to gather and preserve evidence, and to screen and liaise with Pohl’s clients/prospective clients.”3 However, the truth about whyi Pohl hired… |
| 50 | 2023-02-24 | MSJ | Kassab | Amended Trad + No-Evidence MSJ (3rd attempt) | Kassab Defendants' Amended Motions for Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment (Third Attempt) | Filed February 24, 2023 before Judge Christine Weems in the 281st Judicial District Court after the case was transferred from the 189th District Court. This is Kassab's third attempt at summary judgment, reiterating and expanding arguments from prior MSJs denied by Judge Dollinger on October 31, 2022. Kassab also adopts by reference co-defendant Nicholson's traditional MSJ filed August 19, 2022. | MSJ-4 | N/A | Phase 4 | 2023-02-24_MSJ_Kassab-Amended-Trad-and-No-Evid-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Grant Kassab's traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment and order that Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC take nothing on their claims against Lance Christopher Kassab and The Kassab Law Firm | 2/24/2023 1:36 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 73091211 By: Bonnie Lugo Filed: 2/24/2023 1:36 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 281st JUDICIALk DISTRICT THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED MOTIONCS FOR TRADITIONAL AND NO-EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE CHRISTINE WEEMS: t COME NOW, Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm and file theis, their Motions for Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment, and woulud respectfully show the following. PRELUDE This lawsuit is nothing more thaan a retaliatory suit brought by Michael A. Pohl and his law firm, Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (“Pohl”) against Lance Christopher Kassab and Lancee Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”). Kassab refpresented more than 400 clients in lawsuits against Pohl due to his illegal and unethical solicitation of these clients. It is undisputed that Pohl hired and paid runners more than five million dollars to illegally obtain clients stemminig from catastrophic auto accidents and the BP Deepwater Horizon litigation. o Based upon Pohl’s illegal and unethical solicitation of clients, Kassab filed four separate lawsuits against Pohl for civil barratry and negligence. In addition, as mandated by the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.03, Kassab filed and helped his clients initiate several grievance proceedings, causing the State Bar of Texas to investigate the alleged barratry, which is prohibited by the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and the Texas Penal Code. In response, Pohl filed this lawsuit against Kassab, alleging claims of conversion, theft of trade secrets and civil conspiracy, claiming Kassab conspired with okthers to steal Pohl’s property and solicit his former clients or prospective clienCts to sue him for barratry.1 Pohl claims his defense costs to defend against the barratry li… |
| 49 | 2023-02-23 | MTN | Kassab | Mtn to Reconsider or Rule | Kassab Defendants' Motion to Reconsider or Rule on Three Prior Orders by Judge Dollinger | Filed February 23, 2023 after the case was transferred from the 189th Judicial District Court (Judge Dollinger) to Judge Christine Weems's court on December 19, 2022. Kassab seeks reconsideration of three prior orders under Tex. R. App. P. 7.2(b) before challenging them via mandamus. | MSJ-2R | N/A | Phase 4 | 2023-02-23_MTN_Kassab-Mtn-to-Reconsider-or-Rule_FILED.pdf | Set the motion for hearing and, after hearing, reconsider the three orders by Judge Dollinger, vacate those orders, and grant the relief Kassab requested in each of them (abatement, RTP designation, and compelled discovery under offensive use doctrine) | 2/23/2023 2:10 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 73050165 By: Bonnie Lugo Filed: 2/23/2023 2:10 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § k § e SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICCIAL DISTRICT KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER OR RULE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE CHRISTINE WEEMS: i Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firm (collectively “Kassab”), and file this Motion to Reconsider or Rule, and would respectfully show the following. This case was transferred from the l189th Judicial District Court on December 19, 2022.1 Prior to transfer, Judge DMollinger entered orders that Kassab intends to challenge through petitions for writ of mandamus. However, under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.2(b), this Court must be given the opportunity to reconsider orders or actions of the predecessor judge that will be considered in the original proceeding. See Tex. oR. Civ. P. 7.2(b); In re Loomis Armored US, LLC, No. 01-21- 00027-CV, 2021 Tlex. App. LEXIS 1820, at *1 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 11, 2021, origi. proceeding) (mem. op.). Accordingly, Kassab files this motion requesting the Court to reconsider or rule on the following. 1 Although the order was signed on that date, it was not filed with the District Clerk until January 6, 2023. First, the Court should reconsider Judge Dollinger’s order denying Kassab’s motion to abate.2 As explained in Kassab’s motion to abate,3 this case is related to litigation that is currently pending against Pohl for civil barratry, which is the illegal and unethical solicitation of clients. See Cheatham v. Pohl, No. k01-20-00046- CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 6528 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] ACug. 30, 2022, pet. filed) (mem. op.). In this case, Pohl seeks from Kassab attorney’s fees for defending against the Cheatham case and other barratry litigatioin that Kassab brought against Pohl on behalf of his clients. Although the Cheatham case was d… |
| 48 | 2023-01-04 | MTN | Kassab | Mtn to Reconsider No-Evid MSJ | Kassab Defendants' Motion to Reconsider Traditional and No-Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment | Filed January 4, 2023 before Judge Tamika 'Tami' Craft after case transferred from Judge Dollinger (189th District Court). Kassab seeks reconsideration of the prior judge's October 31, 2022 denial of both traditional and no-evidence summary judgment motions on Pohl's claims of conversion, trade secret theft (TUTSA), and civil conspiracy. Kassab argues the denial was erroneous and cites new case law (Taylor v. Tolbert, 2022) requiring reconsideration of attorney immunity. 90 pages with extensive exhibits. | MSJ-2R | N/A | Phase 4 | 2023-01-04_MTN_Kassab-Mtn-to-Reconsider-No-Evid-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Reconsider and grant Kassab's traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment; dismiss Pohl's retaliatory lawsuit with prejudice; order Pohl take nothing on his claims against Kassab | 1/4/2023 12:12 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 71470463 By: DANIELLE JIMENEZ Filed: 1/4/2023 12:12 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’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER CTRADITIONAL AND NO-EVIDENCE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE TAMIKA “TAMI” CRAFT: t Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm file this, their Motion to Reconsideer Traditional and No-Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment and would respuectfully show the following. BACKGROUND This lawsuit is nothing more thaan a retaliatory suit brought by Michael A. Pohl and his law firm, Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (“Pohl”) against Lance Christopher Kassab and Lancee Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”). Kassab refpresented more than 400 clients in lawsuits against Pohl due to his illegal and unethical solicitation of these clients. It is undisputed that Pohl hired and paid runners more than five million dollars to illegally obtain clients stemminig from catastrophic auto accidents and the BP Deepwater Horizon litigation. o Based upon Pohl’s illegal and unethical solicitation of clients, Kassab filed four separate lawsuits against Pohl for civil barratry. In addition, as mandated by the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.03, Kassab filed and helped his clients initiate several grievance proceedings, causing the State Bar of Texas to investigate the alleged barratry, which is prohibited by the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and the Texas Penal Code. In response, Pohl filed this lawsuit against Kassab, alleging claims of conversion, theft of trade secrets and civil conspiracy, claiming Kassab conspired with others tko steal Pohl’s property and solicit his former clients or prospective clients to sueC him for barratry.1 Pohl claims his defense costs to defend against the barratr… |
| 45 | 2022-11-22 | MTN | Kassab | 2nd Supp. Motion to Designate RTP | Kassab Defendants' Second Supplemental Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties (Adding Scott Favre and Precision Marketing Group, LLC) | Filed November 22, 2022 before Judge Scot Dollinger, 189th Judicial District, Harris County, Texas. Filed 13 days before the December 5, 2022 trial date, after Pohl dismissed Favre and Precision as defendants on November 21, 2022. Kassab seeks good cause to designate newly dismissed parties as responsible third parties within 60 days of trial. | RTP-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-11-22_MTN_Kassab-2nd-Supp-Mtn-to-Designate-RTP_FILED.pdf | Grant leave to designate Favre and Precision Marketing Group, LLC as additional responsible third parties, in addition to the eight individuals from prior supplemental motion, plus all other relief in law or equity | 11/22/2022 3:51 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 70416484 By: Ashley Lopez Filed: 11/22/2022 3:51 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIAkL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS, LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LAlNCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. D/B/A THE KASSAB LAW FIRM’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DESIGNATE RcESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTIES r TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT DOLLINGER: D Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Chsristopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”), and file this, their Secornd Supplemental Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties. REQUEaSTED RELIEF 1. Kassab files this Second Supplemental Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties to add Scott Favre (Favre) aned Precision Marketing Group, LLC (Precision) as additional third parties. Favre and Precisionf were defendants in this lawsuit until Plaintiffs dismissed them on November 21, 2022, jusyt 14 days prior to trail. Thus, Favre and Precision are no longer parties to this suit. ThCus, there is good cause for designating Favre and Precision as responsible Third Parties withina 60 days of trial due to the timing of Plaintiffs nonsuit of these parties. 2. Ffavre and Precision are central to this litigation as they purchased all of the material Uand documents, which are the subject of Plaintiffs’ complaints, from Walker, Ladner and Seymour, who previously owned Precision. Favre and Precision then gave some of the material and documents to Kassab to notify Precision’s clients regarding Pohl’s illegal conduct and potential claims they may have against Pohl. Thus, Favre and Pohl are central to this litigation and are subject to potential third party liability, if there is liability at all. 3. Favre and Precision are outside of the subpoena power of this court. Although Kassab has attempted to depose Favre and Precision for more than a year, Kassab has been unsuccessful due to no fault of Kassab. Now that Plaintiffs have … |
| 44 | 2022-11-15 | MTN | Kassab | 1st Supp. Motion to Designate RTP | Kassab Defendants' Supplemental Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties (Shepherd, Walker, Seymour, Ladner, Dona Pohl, Jaimes, Talley, Santana) | Filed November 15, 2022 before Judge Scot Dollinger, 189th Judicial District, Harris County, Texas. Kassab's original RTP motion was filed May 13, 2022 (more than 60 days before the October 10, 2022 trial setting). Pohl objected May 30, 2022. Court denied the original motion on October 31, 2022 but gave Kassab an opportunity to replead. Trial reset to December 5, 2022. | RTP-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-11-15_MTN_Kassab-Supp-Mtn-to-Designate-RTP_FILED.pdf | Grant the Kassab Defendants' Amended Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties (George W. (Billy) Shepherd, Scott Walker, Steve Seymour, Kirk Ladner, Dona Pohl, Edgar Jaimes, Ken Talley, Magdalena Santana) and grant all other relief in law or equity | 11/15/2022 1:31 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 70189306 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 11/15/2022 1:31 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIAkL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS, LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LAlNCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. D/B/A THE KASSAB LAW FIRM’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DESIGNATE RESPONSIBLEc THIRD PARTIES TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT DOLLINGER: s Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”), and file this, their Amended Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties. REQUESTElD RELIEF 1. Kassab seeks to designate GMeorge W. (Billy) Shepherd (Shepherd), Scott Walker (Walker), Steve Seymour (Seymour) oand Kirk Ladner (Ladner), Dona Pohl (Dona), Edgar Jaimes (Jaimes), Ken Talley (Talley), Magdalena Santana (Santana) as responsible third parties in this litigation. Shepherd, Walker, Seymour, Ladner, Dona, Jaimes, Talley and Santana are all persons who are alleged to have caused or contributed to causing in any way the harm for which recovery of damages by Pohl is sought. Thus, they are all responsible third parties in this cause. TEX. CIV. PRAC. &c REM. CODE § 33.011(6). U FACTS 2. Pohl is a lawyer who commits barratry and has prayed on the less fortunate to earn a living. On October 18, 2014, three Mississippi residents, Scott Walker (“Walker”), Kirk Ladner (“Ladner”) and Steve Seymour (“Seymour”), and their related entities, including Precision Marketing Group, LLC (“Precision”), filed suit against Michael Pohl (“Pohl”) and others in Mississippi federal court (the “Mississippi Litigation”). There, Precision, Walker, Ladner and Seymour alleged that: (1) they had a joint venture with Pohl to sign up clients with economic loss claims stemming from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill and clients with personal injury claims; (2) that they successfully obtained these clients for Pohkl; and (3) that Pohl breached their agreement by … |
| 43 | 2022-11-14 | OA | Kassab | 8th Amended Answer (final) | Kassab Defendants' Eighth Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim (Final Pre-Trial Pleading) | Filed November 14, 2022 in Cause No. 2018-58419, 189th Judicial District, Harris County, Texas. This is Kassab's final amended answer asserting 23 affirmative defenses, responsible third-party designations (8 individuals), and a counterclaim for civil barratry based on assigned claims from 242 claimants. Filed approximately three weeks before the December 5, 2022 trial setting, after all four MSJs were denied on October 31, 2022. | PLEAD-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-11-14_OA_Kassab-8th-Amended-Answer-CC_FILED.pdf | That Pohl recover nothing on his claims; that Kassab recover on counterclaims including (i) actual and consequential damages, (ii) statutory damages, (iii) pre- and post-judgment interest, (iv) attorneys' fees and costs, and (v) all other appropriate relief | 11/14/2022 3:25 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 70152760 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 11/14/2022 3:25 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIArL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS, LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AtND LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. D/B/A THE KASSAB LAWi FIRM’S EIGHTH AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ANsD COUNTERCLAIM TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm and files this their Eighth Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim, and would respectfully show the Court as follows; a f I RULE 47 STATEMENT 1. The Kassab Deffendants, in their capacity as Counter-Plaintiffs, seek monetary relief of more than $1,000,000.00. C II l PARTIES 2. Plaiintiff, Michael A. Pohl is an individual lawyer residing in Colorado and is a paroty herein. 3. Plaintiff, Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl is a law firm set up for the practice of law in various states of the union, including Texas and is a party herein. 4. Defendant, Scott Favre is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi and is a party herein. 5. Defendant, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi and is a party herein. 6. Defendant, Precision Marketing Group, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi and is a party herein. k 7. Defendant, F. Douglas Montague III is a nonresident iCndividual residing in Mississippi. 8. Defendant, Montague, Pittman & Varnadoi, PA is a nonresident professional association located in Mississippi. 9. Defendant, Tina Nicholson is an individual residing in Texas and is a party herein. 10. Defendant, Baker Nicholson, lLLP, d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm is a limited liability partnership located inM Texas and is a party herein. 11. Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Lance Christopher Kassab is an individual residing in Texas anid is a … |
| 40 | 2022-09-19 | OBJ | Kassab | Objection to Pohl’s MSJ evidence | Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Evidence — joint filing by Kassab and Nicholson Defendants challenging admissibility of Pohl's summary judgment evidence including the Pohl Declaration (paragraphs 4, 6, 10-18, 20-32) and numerous exhibits, with additional deposition testimony offered under Rule 107 | Evidentiary objections filed September 19, 2022 at 8:16 AM by Kassab and Nicholson defendants jointly, on the morning of the summary judgment hearing. Challenges admissibility of Pohl's September 12, 2022 declaration and exhibits attached to both the traditional and no-evidence MSJ responses. Attaches complete depositions of Ladner, Seymour, and Walker under Rule 107. Addressed to Judge Scot 'Dolli' Dollinger. | MSJ-3 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-09-19_OBJ_Kassab-Objection-to-Pohl-MSJ-Evidence_FILED.pdf | Sustain all objections, strike objectionable portions of Pohl Declaration and exhibits, and grant summary judgment for Kassab and Nicholson defendants | 9/19/2022 8:16 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 68367189 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 9/19/2022 8:16 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 DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO C PLAINTIFFS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT “DOLLI” DOLLINGEtR: Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm (“the Kassab Defendeants”) and Tina Nicholson and Baker Nicholson, LLP (“Nicholson”) (both sets ouf Defendants collectively referred to as “Defendants”) file this, their Objections to Plaintiffs’ Summary Judgment Evidence, and would respectfully show athe following. OBJECTIONS TO POHL’S EVIDENCE IN RESPONSE TO TRADITIONAL MSJ Plaintiffs Michael A. Pohel and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (“Pohl”) attached to his summary judfgment responses as Exhibit A a declaration from Pohl dated September 12, 2022 with exhibits (“Pohl Declaration”). Defendants object to the following statements or paragraphs in the Pohl Declaration for the following reasons: i Paoragraph/Statement Objection/Basis ¶ 4 – “During the period that I Conclusory. Unsupported by factual or maintained office space in Mississippi, I legal basis. shared that space only with contractors and employees whom I employed full time and were treated for privilege and confidentiality purposes as functional employees of my law firm. ¶ 6 – “I was informed that Maxwell- Hearsay. Walker had retained Mississippi attorneys to advise it and confirm that its agreement with me as well as the public relations and marketing services it was anticipated to provide under the agreement were in compliance with Mississippi law.” e ¶ 10 – “Precision represented to me that Conclusory. Hearstay. Vague and their independent attorney or attorneys ambiguous as to whio at “Precision” made had reviewed and approved each of the alleged represtentations so this contracts I signed with them. In fact, inter… |
| 33 | 2022-09-12 | DECL | Kassab | Lance Kassab’s declaration | Declaration of Lance Christopher Kassab in support of Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Pohl's MSJ — sworn testimony under penalty of perjury establishing Kassab's professional background, the joint venture with Montague and Nicholson, the source of client information from Precision Marketing, the four barratry lawsuits and their outcomes, and assertion of work product and attorney-client privilege over communications | Phase 3 evidentiary filing supporting Kassab's MSJ (Filing #30) and his Response to Pohl's No-Evidence MSJ (Filing #34). This is a sworn declaration under penalty of perjury providing foundational facts for Kassab's immunity and justification defenses. Filed September 12, 2022. | MSJ-2 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-09-12_DECL_Lance-Kassab-Declaration_FILED.pdf | 9/12/2022 3:28:03 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No: 68168171 By: LOPEZ, ASHLEY V Filed: 9/12/2022 3:28:03 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § § V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ae SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th SUDIGIAL DISTRICT DECLARATION OF LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB 1. My name is Lance Christopher Kassab. My date of. ~ is March 12, 1961. My business address is 1214 Elgin Street, H on, Texas 77004. I am of sound mind and have never been conWicted of a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude anda erwise competent to make this declaration. I declare under pe y of perjury that the statements of fact made herein are within personal knowledge and true and correct. 6) 2. Iam an attorney licensed to practice:iaie in the State of Texas. I have been licensed to practice law by theState of Texas since 1995 and I am in good standing. I graduated a a school with honors and was editor-in-chief of Law Review also licensed to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States District Court of Texas, Southern, Eastern and Western Dagens. I was formerly a Briefing Attorney for the First Judicial Disc ourt of Appeals in Houston, Texas and Iam a former intern for Texas Supreme Court and the First Judicial District Court of Appeals. pp ©) 3. For more thaw twenty-five (25) years I have been in private practice handling complex legal malpractice cases. I have been involved in and/or handled appvoximately 2,300 legal malpractice cases and have been alee numerous appeals regarding numerous legal malpractice issues Th e vast majority of these cases have been on the Plaintiff's side. Ho I have also handled the defense of legal malpractice cases. I have. andled cases for clients all over Texas and in numerous other states within the Union such as California, Utah, Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, Arkansas, Colorado, Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida and Mississippi. 4. I am the owner of Lance Christopher K… | |
| 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… |
| 32 | 2022-09-06 | MTA | Kassab | Motion to Abate Trial | Kassab's Motion to Abate Trial Setting pending resolution of the related Cheatham v. Pohl barratry case, which was reversed on appeal August 30, 2022 and remanded for further proceedings | Phase 3 procedural motion filed one week after the Traditional MSJ and Seventh Amended Answer. Kassab argues trial should be abated because the still-pending Cheatham case will determine the full extent of Pohl's alleged damages and may establish Pohl's barratry, which would bar his claims entirely. Addressed to Judge Scot 'Dolli' Dollinger. Counsel for Plaintiffs (Jean Frizzell) opposed. | MTA-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-09-06_MTA_Kassab-Mtn-to-Abate-Trial_FILED.pdf | Abate the trial setting in this case pending the resolution of the Cheatham v. Pohl barratry case | 9/6/2022 8:41 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 67958716 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 9/6/2022 8:41 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’ MOTION TO ABATE TRIACL SETTING TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT “DOLLI” DOLLINGER: Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Lance Christopheir Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm files this, Motion to Abate Trial Setting, and would respectfully show the following. BACKGROUND Lance Kassab and his firm were hlired by more than 400 of Michael Pohl’s former clients to sue Pohl and othersM for barratry – the illegal solicitation of clients. Kassab v. Pohl, 612 S.W.3d 571, 575 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. denied). Kassab field four sieparate lawsuits against Pohl, two of which Pohl successfully dismissed on limitations. See Brumfield v. Williamson, 634 S.W.3d 170, 177 (Tex. App.—Houoston [1st Dist.] 2021, pet. denied) and Gandy v. Williamson, 634 S.W.3d 214 (Tlex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2021, pet. denied). Another of the cases settled, iwith Pohl paying a substantial sum of money to Kassab and his clients. The fourth case – the Cheatham case – was dismissed by the trial court but recently reversed by the Houston Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings. See Cheatham v. Pohl, No. 01-20-00046-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 6528, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 30, 2022, no pet. h.). In retaliation, Pohl filed this litigation against Kassab and others, alleging specious claims for conversion and misappropriation of trade secrets.1 Specifically, Pohl alleges that the runners he hired to commit the barratry “gained access to [Pohl’s] confidential and proprietary information and property, inckluding trade secret materials” and “work product” and “illegally misapCpropriated” that information and then allegedly “secretly sold [it] to Kassab”2 who then “solicited clients/prospective clients… |
| 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… |
| 31 | 2022-08-29 | OA | Kassab | 7th Amended Answer | Kassab's Seventh Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim — adds Judicial Immunity (#16) and Immunity under Rule 17.09 (#17) as new affirmative defenses, expands Illegality to include 'Unlawful Acts Rule' (#13), bringing total to 23 defenses. Filed same day as Traditional MSJ. | Phase 3 amended pleading superseding the Sixth Amended Answer, filed the same day as the Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing #30). Expands affirmative defenses from 21 to 23, adding Judicial Immunity (#16), Rule 17.09 disciplinary immunity (#17), and expanding #13 to include the Unlawful Acts Rule. This becomes the live answer going into the MSJ hearing. | PLEAD-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-08-29_OA_Kassab-7th-Amended-Answer-CC_FILED.pdf | That Pohl recover nothing; that Kassab recover (i) actual and consequential damages, (ii) statutory damages, (iii) pre- and post-judgment interest, (iv) attorneys' fees and costs, and (v) all other just relief | 8/29/2022 4:43 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 67770941 By: Ashley Lopez Filed: 8/29/2022 4:43 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIArL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS, LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AtND LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. D/B/A THE KASSAB LAWi FIRM’S SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ANsD COUNTERCLAIM TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm and files this their Seventh Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim, and would respectfully show the Court as follows; a f I RULE 47 STATEMENT 1. The Kassab Deffendants, in their capacity as Counter-Plaintiffs, seek monetary relief of more than $1,000,000.00. C II l PARTIES 2. Plaiintiff, Michael A. Pohl is an individual lawyer residing in Colorado and is a paroty herein. 3. Plaintiff, Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl is a law firm set up for the practice of law in various states of the union, including Texas and is a party herein. 4. Defendant, Scott Favre is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi and is a party herein. 5. Defendant, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi and is a party herein. 6. Defendant, Precision Marketing Group, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi and is a party herein. k 7. Defendant, F. Douglas Montague III is a nonresident iCndividual residing in Mississippi. 8. Defendant, Montague, Pittman & Varnadoi, PA is a nonresident professional association located in Mississippi. 9. Defendant, Tina Nicholson is an individual residing in Texas and is a party herein. 10. Defendant, Baker Nicholson, lLLP, d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm is a limited liability partnership located inM Texas and is a party herein. 11. Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Lance Christopher Kassab is an individual residing in Texas anid is a pa… |
| 29 | 2022-08-02 | OA | Kassab | 6th Amended Answer | Kassab's Sixth Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim — adds 21st affirmative defense (TUTSA preemption under § 134A.007(a)) and attorney's fees claim for bad faith TUTSA prosecution under § 134A.005; otherwise substantively identical to the Fifth Amended Answer | Phase 3 amended pleading superseding the Fifth Amended Answer. Key additions over Filing #27: (1) new affirmative defense #21 for preemption under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A.007(a), and (2) new section claiming attorney's fees under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A.005 for bad faith TUTSA claims by Pohl. All prior content maintained including 20 affirmative defenses, factual background, and barratry counterclaim. | PLEAD-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-08-02_OA_Kassab-6th-Amended-Answer-CC_FILED.pdf | That Pohl recover nothing; that Kassab recover (i) actual and consequential damages, (ii) statutory damages, (iii) pre- and post-judgment interest, (iv) attorneys' fees and costs, and (v) all other just relief | 8/2/2022 4:00 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 66899970 By: Ashley Lopez Filed: 8/2/2022 4:00 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 SIXTH AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNtTERCLAIM TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm and files this their Sixth Armended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim, and would respectfully show the Court as follows; iIl RULE 47a STATEMENT 1. The Kassab Defendantso, in their capacity as Counter-Plaintiffs, seek monetary relief of more than $1,000,000.00. y PARTIES 2. Plaintiff, Michael A. Pohl is an individual lawyer residing in Colorado and is a party herein. c i 3. oPlaintiff, Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl is a law firm set up for the practice of law in various states of the union, including Texas and is a party herein. 4. Defendant, Scott Favre is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi and is a party herein. 5. Defendant, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi and is a party herein. 6. Defendant, Precision Marketing Group, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi and is a party herein. k 7. Defendant, F. Douglas Montague III is a nonresident indilvidual residing in Mississippi. c 8. Defendant, Montague, Pittman & Varnado, PA is sa nonresident professional association located in Mississippi. 9. Defendant, Tina Nicholson is an individual residing in Texas and is a party herein. 10. Defendant, Baker Nicholson, LLP, d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm is a limited liability partnership located in Texas and is a party herein. 11. Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Laance Christopher Kassab is an individual residing in Texas and is a party herein.… |
| 26 | 2022-05-13 | MTN | Kassab | Motion to Designate RTP | Kassab's Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties seeking to add eight non-party individuals to the verdict form for proportionate responsibility allocation | Phase 3 procedural motion filed after counterclaims were dismissed and before trial, seeking to designate eight individuals as responsible third parties under Texas proportionate responsibility statute to reduce potential damages allocation against Kassab. | RTP-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-05-13_MTN_Kassab-Mtn-to-Designate-RTP_FILED.pdf | Designate George W. (Billy) Shepherd, Scott Walker, Steve Seymour, Kirk Ladner, Dona Pohl, Edgar Jaimes, Ken Talley, and Magdalena Santana as responsible third parties for proportionate responsibility allocation, and grant all other relief in law or equity | 5/13/2022 6:22 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 64509093 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 5/13/2022 6:22 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIAkL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LAlNCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. D/B/A THE KASSAB LAW FIRM’S MOTION TO DESIGNATE RESPONSIBLE THIRD PcARTIES TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT DOLLINGER: s Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”), and file this, their Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties. REQUESTED R ELIEF 1. Kassab seeks to designate Georgel W. (Billy) Shepherd (Shepherd), Scott Walker (Walker), Steve Seymour (Seymour) andM Kirk Ladner (Ladner), Dona Pohl (Dona), Edgar Jaimes (Jaimes), Ken Talley (Talley), Moagdalena Santana (Santana) as responsible third parties in this litigation. Shepherd, Walker, Seymour, Ladner, Dona, Jaimes, Talley and Santana are all persons who are alleged to have caused or contributed to causing in any way the harm for which recovery of damages by Pohl is sought. Thus, they are all responsible third parties in this cause. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 33.011(6). c II f FACTS 2.U Pohl is a lawyer who commits barratry and has prayed on the less fortunate to earn a living. On October 18, 2014, three Mississippi residents, Scott Walker (“Walker”), Kirk Ladner (“Ladner”) and Steve Seymour (“Seymour”), and their related entities, including Precision Marketing Group, LLC (“Precision”), filed suit against Michael Pohl (“Pohl”) and others in Mississippi federal court (the “Mississippi Litigation”). There, Precision, Walker, Ladner and Seymour alleged that: (1) they had a joint venture with Pohl to sign up clients with economic loss claims stemming from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill and clients with personal injury claims; (2) that they successfully obtained these clients for Pohl; and (3) that Pohl breached their agreement by not paying them wh… |
| 27 | 2022-05-13 | OA | Kassab | 5th Amended Answer | Kassab's Fifth Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim — live pleading asserting 20 affirmative defenses, general and specific denials, detailed factual background of Pohl's barratry scheme, and counterclaim for civil barratry on behalf of 242 assigned claimants | Phase 3 amended pleading filed simultaneously with the Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties. This is Kassab's fifth iteration of his answer, expanding affirmative defenses and maintaining the barratry counterclaim based on assigned claims from 242 of Pohl's former clients. | PLEAD-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-05-13_OA_Kassab-5th-Amended-Answer-CC_FILED.pdf | That Pohl recover nothing; that Kassab recover (i) actual and consequential damages, (ii) statutory damages, (iii) pre- and post-judgment interest, (iv) attorneys' fees and costs, and (v) all other just relief on counterclaims | 5/13/2022 6:22 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 64509093 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 5/13/2022 6:22 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 FIFTH AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNtTERCLAIM TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm and files this their Fifth Armended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim, and would respectfully show the Court as follows; iIl RULE 47a STATEMENT 1. The Kassab Defendantso, in their capacity as Counter-Plaintiffs, seek monetary relief of more than $1,000,000.00. y PARTIES 2. Plaintiff, Michael A. Pohl is an individual lawyer residing in Colorado and is a party herein. c i 3. oPlaintiff, Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl is a law firm set up for the practice of law in various states of the union, including Texas and is a party herein. 4. Defendant, Scott Favre is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi and is a party herein. 5. Defendant, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi and is a party herein. 6. Defendant, Precision Marketing Group, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi and is a party herein. k 7. Defendant, F. Douglas Montague III is a nonresident indilvidual residing in Mississippi. c 8. Defendant, Montague, Pittman & Varnado, PA is sa nonresident professional association located in Mississippi. 9. Defendant, Tina Nicholson is an individual residing in Texas and is a party herein. 10. Defendant, Baker Nicholson, LLP, d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm is a limited liability partnership located in Texas and is a party herein. 11. Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Laance Christopher Kassab is an individual residing in Texas and is a party her… |
| 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… |
| 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-… |
| 16 | 2021-06-08 | MSJ | Kassab | Kassab’s Traditional MSJ | Kassab's Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment asserting three independent grounds: statute of limitations, res judicata, and attorney immunity doctrine | Filed June 8, 2021 in Cause No. 2018-58419, 189th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. Dispositive motion filed in Phase 2, approximately 2.5 years after the original petition. Filed before Kassab responded to any discovery, relying on traditional summary judgment rule permitting filing 'at any time after the adverse party has appeared or answered.' Relies on arguments and evidence previously presented in the TCPA motion and interlocutory appeal. Case is before Judge Scot 'Dolli' Dollinger. District Clerk is now Marilyn Burgess. | MSJ-1 | DENIED | Phase 2 | 2021-06-08_MSJ_Kassab-Traditional-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Traditional summary judgment ordering that Pohl take nothing on all claims against Kassab and The Kassab Law Firm | 6/8/2021 2:44 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 54215119 By: Ozuqui Quintanilla Filed: 6/8/2021 2:44 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 LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LANCE CHRISTOPCHER KASSAB, PC’S TRADITIONAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT “DOLLI” DOLLINGEtR: Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Feirm files this, their Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment, and would respeuctfully show the following. SUMMlARY Plaintiffs Michael A. Pohl andM Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (“Pohl”) sued Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firmi (“Kassab”) and others for conversion, theft of trade secrets and civil conspiracy. The Court should grant summary judgment on Pohl’s claims against Kassabo for any one of three independent reasons: • First, Polhl’s claims are barred by limitations. Pohl testified that discoveiry in federal litigation filed in 2014 revealed that his alleged tradei secrets and confidential information had been stolen from his ofofice in Gulfport, Mississippi. Pohl testified that Kassab was involved in that alleged misappropriation that occurred in 2014, and that he knew it, but he did not file suit because he “did not want to do anything precipitous.” Because Pohl waited more than three years later to bring his claims against Kassab, the claims are barred by limitations. • Second, the claims are barred by res judicata. Pohl previously brought similar claims against alleged co-conspirators in Mississippi federal litigation, wherein Pohl contends that Kassab allegedly purchased his stolen trade secrets. Yet, Pohl never brought Kassab into that lawsuit and instead paid approximately $1 million to settle the dispute against Kassab’s alleged co- conspirators resulting in a final judgment. Pohl’s claims against Kassab… |
| 13 | 2018-11-19 | MTD | Kassab | Supplemental TCPA Motion to Dismiss | Kassab's Supplement to TCPA Motion to Dismiss incorporating Favre co-defendants' statute of limitations arguments | Filed November 19, 2018 in Cause No. 2018-58419, 189th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. Supplemental briefing filed in support of Kassab's original TCPA Motion to Dismiss (filed October 24, 2018). Incorporates arguments from co-defendant Favre's separately filed TCPA motion. Addressed to the Honorable Judge Bill Burke. | TCPA-1 | DENIED | Phase 1 | 2018-11-19_MTD_Kassab-Supp-TCPA_FILED.pdf | Dismissal of Pohl's claims with prejudice; attorney's fees as previously requested in Kassab's original Motion to Dismiss; sanctions of a minimum of $50,000 against Pohl and his counsel Frizzell to deter future frivolous and retaliatory filings | 11/19/2018 10:48 AM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 29125236 By: ARIONNE MCNEAL Filed: 11/19/2018 10:48 AM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIAkL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS, LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LANCE CHlRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. D/B/A THE KASSAB LAW FIRM’S SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS CITIZENS PARTICcIPATION ACT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE BILL BURKE: s Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm (Kassab) files this, their Supplement to Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to the Texas Citizens Participation Act set forth in Chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. This is a retaliatory lawsuit filed by Plaintiff, Michael A. Pohl and his law firm, Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (“ePohl”) that is based on, related to, and in response to the rights to free speech, petition andf association, and should therefore be dismissed pursuant to the Texas Citizens Participationy Act (the “TCPA”). Additionally, Pohl’s claims must be dismissed pursuant to Chapter 2C7 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code because, even if Pohl could establish a parima facie case on each element of each of his causes of action, the TCPA provides that thfe trial court must still dismiss his claims if, based upon a preponderance of the evidence,U each essential element of a valid defense is established. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE, § 27.005(d). Kassab files this supplement to Kassab’s Motion to Dismiss simply to incorporate the arguments and Exhibits outlined in paragraphs 35 through 42 of Scott Favre, Scott M. Favre Public Adjuster, LLC and Precision Marketing Group, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss. The arguments and Exhibits clearly show that Pohl’s claims were filed far beyond the statute of limitations. Thus, not only is there a preponderance of the evidence establishing each essential element of a statute of limitations … |
| 12 | 2018-11-07 | OA | Kassab | 3rd Amended Answer | Kassab's Third Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Counterclaim, and Designation of Responsible Third Parties | Filed November 7, 2018 in Cause No. 2018-58419, 189th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. The day after the Second Amended Answer. Third amended responsive pleading, further expanding counterclaims from 235 to 242 assigned barratry claimants. Adds additional detail to the Designation of Responsible Third Parties section regarding Shepherd's knowledge of Favre's document transfers to third parties prior to the Federal Litigation settlement. | PLEAD-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-11-07_OA_Kassab-3rd-Amended-Answer-CC_FILED.pdf | Plaintiffs take nothing; Kassab recovers on counterclaims and against third-party defendants including actual and consequential damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other just relief | 11/7/2018 4:22 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 28873961 By: ARIONNE MCNEAL Filed: 11/7/2018 4:22 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 THIRD 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 thBeir Third 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. 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. Defnendant, Scott Favre is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi. Defendant, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi. Defendant, Precision Marketing Group, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi. Defendant, F. Douglas Montague III is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi. Defendant, Montague, Pittman & Varnado, PA is a nonresident professional association located in Mississippi. Defendant, Tina Nicholson is an individual residing in Texas. k Defendant, Baker Nicholson, LLP, d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm ils a limited liability partnership located in Texas. c Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Lance Christopher Kassab is an sindividual residing in Texas. Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm is a professional corporation … |
| 11 | 2018-11-06 | OA | Kassab | 2nd Amended Answer | Kassab's Second Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Counterclaim, and Designation of Responsible Third Parties | Filed November 6, 2018 in Cause No. 2018-58419, 189th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. The day after the reply brief on the TCPA motion. This is the second amended responsive pleading, expanding the counterclaims from 150 to 235 assigned barratry claimants and adding a Designation of Responsible Third Parties (Billy Shepherd, Scott Walker, Steve Seymour, Kirk Ladner). Addressed to the Honorable Judge of said Court. | PLEAD-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-11-06_OA_Kassab-2nd-Amended-Answer-CC_FILED.pdf | Plaintiffs take nothing; Kassab recovers on counterclaims and against third-party defendants including actual and consequential damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other just relief | 11/6/2018 2:08 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 28831260 By: ARIONNE MCNEAL Filed: 11/6/2018 2:08 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 SECOND 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 Second 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. 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. Defendant, Scott Favre is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi. Defendant, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi. Defendant, Precision Marketing Group, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi. Defendant, F. Douglas Montague III is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi. Defendant, Montague, Pittman & Varnado, PA is a nonresident professional association located in Mississippi. Defendant, Tina Nicholson is an individual residing in Texas. k Defendant, Baker Nicholson, LLP, d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm ils a limited liability partnership located in Texas. c Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Lance Christopher Kassab is an sindividual residing in Texas. Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm is a professional corporation… |
| 10 | 2018-11-05 | OBJ | Kassab | Objections to Pohl’s TCPA response evidence | Kassab's Objections to Plaintiffs' Response Evidence and Reply in Support of TCPA Motion to Dismiss | Filed November 5, 2018 as a combined objection and reply brief in further support of Kassab's TCPA Motion to Dismiss. Responds to Pohl's November 1, 2018 opposition, challenging the admissibility of Pohl's evidence and arguing the commercial speech exception does not apply. Filed in Cause No. 2018-58419, 189th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. Addressed to the Honorable Judge Bill Burke. | TCPA-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-11-05_OBJ_Kassab-Objections-to-Pohl-Response_FILED.pdf | Grant the TCPA Motion to Dismiss; strike Shepherd affidavit and all attached documents; strike Pohl's declaration paragraphs 3-9; order Plaintiffs take nothing; award reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and costs as required by the statute | 11/5/2018 8:03 AM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 28779207 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 11/5/2018 8:03 AM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIAkL DISTRICT THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTlIFFS’ RESPONSE AND REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE BILL BURKE: r Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Lance Christopher Kassab Dand Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”) file this reply asnd objections in further support of their Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to the Texas Citizens Parrticipation Act. OBJECTIONS A. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A (Affidavait of Billy Shepherd) Kassab objects to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A, the alleged affidavit of Billy Shepherd (“Shepherd”) and all exhibits attacheed thereto. Specifically, Shepherd’s affidavit fails as an affidavit on its face because itf is not based upon “personal knowledge” or state that the statements therein are “true yand correct”, thus perjury does not attach, and therefore, the alleged affidavit is nothing moCre than a statement by Pohl’s “interested” counsel. An affidavit must be based on the affianta’s personal knowledge and must state that the facts in it are true. Humphreys v. Caldwell, 88 8f S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. 1994); see TEX. R. EVID. 602 (evidence must show the witness hUas personal knowledge); Radio Station KSCS v. Jennings, 750, S.W.2d 760, 761-62 (Tex. 1988). An affidavit must contain direct and unequivocal statements that, if false, would be grounds for perjury. Burke v. Satterfield, 525 S.W.2d 950, 955 (Tex. 1975); Hall v. Stephenson, 919 S.W.2d 454, 466 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, writ denied). Additionally, Shepherd’s statement appears to attempt to prove up business records, but this attempt fails. To introduce a business record through a witness, a party must prove the following: (1) the record is a memorandum, report, other compilation of data; (2) the witness is the custodian or another quali… |
| 5 | 2018-10-24 | DEPO | Kassab | Pohl deposition filed by Kassab (TCPA exhibit) | Excerpts from the Oral Videotaped Deposition of Michael A. Pohl taken May 15, 2018 in Cheatham v. Pohl (Cause No. 2017-41110), filed as Exhibit 23 in connection with Kassab's TCPA motion in Pohl v. Kassab | Deposition taken in a related case (Cheatham v. Pohl, Cause No. 2017-41110, 55th Judicial District, Harris County) on May 15, 2018, subsequently filed as an exhibit (Exhibit 23) in the Pohl v. Kassab TCPA proceedings. The deposition was taken by Lance Kassab as counsel for the Cheatham plaintiffs, with Pohl represented by Billy Shepherd. Only pages 85-93 and 318-319 are included in this exhibit. | TCPA-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-10-24_DEPO_Pohl-Deposition_FILED.pdf | E »< H I BIT 23 iA Michael Pohl 5/15/2018 CAUSE NO. 2017-41110 MARK KENTRELL CHEATHAM, ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT SR., AND LUELLA MILLER, ) INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ) WRONGFUL DEATH ) N= BENEFICIARIES OF LADONNA ) oe CHEATHAM, DESTINY CHEATHAM) ) AND MARKUS CHEATHAM, ) DECEASED ) , & ) Ss vs. ) HARRIS counry,, TEXAS ) ©) MICHAEL A. POHL, DONALDA ) & POHL, LAW OFFICE OF ) @ MICHAEL POHL, PLLC, ROBERT) @ AMMONS AND THE AMMONS LAW ) Le) FIRM, LLP ) STR gMDICIAL DISTRICT ORAL VIDEOTAPED pebosrz0n OF MICHAEL BS OHL May Be 2018 ©) ORAL VIDEOTAPED BRPOSTTION OF MICHAEL A. POHL, produced as a witedee at the instance of the Plaintiff and ox sworn, was taken in the above-styled and numbered cause on May 15, 2018, from 9:26 a.m. to 5:05 p-m., before Laurie Carlisle, Certified ‘Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of SS Texas, Feported by computerized machine shorthand, at the 6éfices of Shepherd Prewett, 770 South Post Oak Lane, Suite 420, Houston, Texas, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the provisions stated on the record or attached hereto. Omni Litigation 713-864-4443 Michael Pohl 5/15/2018 85 1 malicious act by an unethical lawyer, and I don't 2 think anything should be -- further should be 3 submitted by you. 4 Q. Okay. And you think I'm an unethical ee a 5 lawyer? G 6 A. Yes. You stole my files. You robed me. 7 You tried to destroy my practice. So I believe 8 you should submit any more materials, popVicularty 9 false affidavits that have been retracted by the 10 witnesses who made them and othe erifiably false 11 accusations. And you've soticiead my clients like 12 Mr. Cheatham, and you've told hin lies to get him to 13 sue me. LV 14 Q. Okay. And you State on the record under 15 oath, subject to pesiey, that I stole your files, 16 | right? O 17 A. You and your co-counsel and your team of 18 thieves. ou 19 OR. L. KASSAB: Objection, nonresponsive. 20 Q. ‘< that a yes to my question? 21 os MR. SHEPHERD: Form. 22 A. That's what I said it was. 23 Q. I just need a yes or no, sir. Is thata 24 yes? 25 MR.… | |
| 6 | 2018-10-24 | EX | Kassab | Exhibit: bar grievance pleadings against Pohl | State Bar of Texas Grievance filed by Lance Christopher Kassab against Michael Pohl (File No. 201801825), including grievance form, detailed Exhibit 'A' statement of facts and violations, and two supplemental letters to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel dated July 3 and July 20, 2018 | Bar grievance filed by Kassab against Pohl with the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas, pursuant to Rule 8.03(a) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Filed on behalf of approximately 10,000 alleged victims. Companion grievance No. 201801826 filed against Cyndi Rusnak. Subsequently filed as Exhibit 21 in the Pohl v. Kassab TCPA proceedings. | TCPA-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-10-24_EX_Grievance-Pleadings-Against-Pohl_FILED.pdf | Disciplinary action against Michael Pohl by the State Bar of Texas for violations of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and Texas Penal Code barratry and commercial bribery statutes | EXHIBIT 21 . & aS & @ & & S & & < OFFICE OF THE CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL STATE BAR OF TEXAS GRIEVANCE FORM I. GENERAL INFORMATION Before you fill out this paperwork, there may be a faster way to resolve the isgue-you are currently having with an attorney. @ If you are considering filing a grievance against a Texas attorney for any ofthe following reasons: 5 G S ~ You believe your attorney is neglecting your case. XZ) ~ Your attorney does not return phone calls or keep you informed <a the status of your case. ~ You have fired your attorney but are having problems getting you ile back from the attorney. You may want to consider contacting the Client-Attorne Aséistance Program (CAAP) at 1-800-932-1900. & CAAP was established by the State Bar of Texas to help people resolve these kinds of issues with attorneys quickly, without the filing of a formal-griévance. CAAP can resolve many problems without a grievance being filed by prov information, by suggesting various self- help options for dealing with the situation, or byeon cting the attorney either by telephone or letter. > I have Ihave not X __ wc Client-Attorney Assistance Program. II. INFORMATION ABOUT YOu -- Praase KEEP CURRENT wS COMPLAINANT # 1: & 1. Name and address: ©) Lance Christophe Kassab, pursuant to Rule 8.03 (a) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of rrofessional Co ct and on behalf of approximately 10,000 victims surrounding the Gulf Coast. & Re, Lance topher Kassab THE AB LAW FIRM 1 abama ton, Texas 77004 2. Employer and address: The Kassab Law Firm 1420 Alabama Houston, TX 77004 3. Telephone number: Residence: | Work: 713-522-7400 4. Drivers License # NA Date of Birth: NA 5. Name, address, and telephone number of person who can always reach you. Ne EN Lance Christopher Kassab NZ) THE KASSAB LAW FIRM © 1420 Alabama, Houston, Texas 77004 Re Telephone: 713-522-7400 “GO Facsimile: 713-522-7410 XG 6 @ 6. Do you understand and write in the English language? Yes ©) . ® If no, what is your primary language? GP Who helped you prepare this form? © Lance Chri… |
| 7 | 2018-10-24 | MTD | Kassab | TCPA Motion to Dismiss | Kassab's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to the Texas Citizens Participation Act (Anti-SLAPP), filed October 24, 2018 | Filed simultaneously with Kassab's First Amended Answer on October 24, 2018, before Judge Bill Burke, 189th Judicial District. This is an early dispositive motion seeking dismissal of all of Pohl's claims under the TCPA's anti-SLAPP framework. The motion was ultimately denied. | TCPA-1 | DENIED | Phase 1 | 2018-10-24_MTD_Kassab-TCPA_FILED.pdf | Dismiss all of Pohl's claims under the TCPA; award Kassab $36,750 in attorney's fees ($31,500 for Kassab at $450/hr for 70 hours, $5,250 for associate at $350/hr for 15 hours); conditional appellate fees totaling $90,000; and sanctions of at least $50,000 against Pohl and his counsel Reynolds Frizzell | 10/24/2018 2:11 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 28523758 By: ARIONNE MCNEAL Filed: 10/24/2018 2:11 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIAkL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LANCE CHlRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. D/B/A THE KASSAB LAW FIRM’S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS CITIZENS PARTICIPATION AcCT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE BILL BURKE: s Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm files this, their Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to the Texas Citizens Participation Act set forth in Chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. SUMMlARY This is a retaliatory lawsuit filed bMy Plaintiff, Michael A. Pohl and his law firm, Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (“Poohl”) that is based on, related to, and in response to the rights to free speech, petition and association, and should therefore be dismissed pursuant to the Texas Citizens Participation Act (the “TCPA”). Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”) represent more than 400 clients who were illegally and unethically personally solicited to hire Pohl for representation of them in claimcs stemming from catastrophic auto accidents or the BP Deepwater Horizon litigation. Kassab filed four separate lawsuits against Pohl on behalf of these clients alleging claims for civil barratry. In addition, Kassab filed and initiated several grievance proceedings on behalf of these clients, causing the State Bar of Texas to investigate the alleged barratry, which is prohibited by the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and the Texas Penal Code. In response, Pohl filed this lawsuit against Kassab, alleging claims of conversion, theft of trade secrets and civil conspiracy, claiming Kassab conspired with others to steal Pohl’s property and solicit his former clients or prospective clients… |
| 8 | 2018-10-24 | OA | Kassab | 1st Amended Answer with Counterclaims | Kassab's First Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim for Civil Barratry, filed October 24, 2018 simultaneously with TCPA Motion to Dismiss | Filed October 24, 2018 simultaneously with the TCPA Motion to Dismiss. This amends Kassab's original answer (Filing #2) by adding res judicata as a 17th affirmative defense. Maintains general denial, 17 affirmative defenses, specific denials regarding conditions precedent, and counterclaims for civil barratry on behalf of 150 assigned claimants. | PLEAD-1, CC-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-10-24_OA_Kassab-1st-Amended-Answer-CC_FILED.pdf | Plaintiffs take nothing on their claims; Kassab recovers on counterclaims including actual and consequential damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other just relief | 10/24/2018 2:33 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 28526297 By: ARIONNE MCNEAL Filed: 10/24/2018 2:33 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 FIRST AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNtTERCLAIM TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm and files this their First Armended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim, and would respectfully show the Court as follows; RULE 47 SiT l ATEMENT The Kassab Defendants, in their caMpacity as Counter-Plaintiffs, seek monetary relief of more than $1,000,000.00. o PARTIES Plaintiff, Michael A. PoOhl is an individual lawyer residing in Colorado. Plaintiff, Law Offipces of Michael A. Pohl is a law firm set up for the practice of law in various states of the union, including Texas. Defendant, iScott Favre is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi. Defenodant, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi. Defendant, Precision Marketing Group, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi. Defendant, F. Douglas Montague III is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi. Defendant, Montague, Pittman & Varnado, PA is a nonresident professional association located in Mississippi. Defendant, Tina Nicholson is an individual residing in Texas. Defendant, Baker Nicholson, LLP, d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm is a klimited liability partnership located in Texas. l Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Lance Christopher Kassab is an indicvidual residing in Texas. Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C.s d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm is a professional corporation located in Texas. JURISDICTION AND VENUE This matter is within the jurisdictional limitsu of t… |
| 2 | 2018-10-08 | OA | Kassab | Kassab’s initial answer with counterclaims | Kassab Defendants' Original Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim for Civil Barratry, including general denial, 16 affirmative defenses, specific denials, and counterclaims based on assigned barratry claims | Kassab's initial responsive pleading to Pohl's Original Petition, filed October 8, 2018, approximately six weeks after suit was commenced. Includes both defensive pleading (general denial, 16 affirmative defenses, specific denials) and offensive counterclaims for civil barratry based on assigned claims from Pohl's former clients. | PLEAD-1, CC-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-10-08_OA_Kassab-Answer-and-CC_FILED.pdf | That Plaintiffs recover nothing on their claims; actual and consequential damages on counterclaims; statutory damages; pre- and post-judgment interest; attorneys' fees and costs; and all other relief to which Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs may be justly entitled | 10/8/2018 1:34 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 28104847 By: Brianna Denmon Filed: 10/8/2018 1:34 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 ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIM t TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm and files this their Origirnal Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim, and would respectfully show the Court as follows; RULE 47 SiT l ATEMENT The Kassab Defendants, in their caMpacity as Counter-Plaintiffs, seek monetary relief of more than $1,000,000.00. o PARTIES Plaintiff, Michael A. PoOhl is an individual lawyer residing in Colorado. Plaintiff, Law Offipces of Michael A. Pohl is a law firm set up for the practice of law in various states of the union, including Texas. Defendant, iScott Favre is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi. Defenodant, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi. Defendant, Precision Marketing Group, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi. Defendant, F. Douglas Montague III is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi. Defendant, Montague, Pittman & Varnado, PA is a nonresident professional association located in Mississippi. Defendant, Tina Nicholson is an individual residing in Texas. Defendant, Baker Nicholson, LLP, d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm is a klimited liability partnership located in Texas. l Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Lance Christopher Kassab is an indicvidual residing in Texas. Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C.s d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm is a professional corporation located in Texas. JURISDICTION AND VENUE This matter is within the jurisdictional limitsu of this Court and Plaint… |
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
);