Court Filings
Data license: Public court records
4 rows where party = "Kassab" and phase = "Phase 2" sorted by date descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: chain, date (date)
| filing_id | date ▲ | doc_type | party | description | doc_type_detail | procedural_posture | chain | outcome | phase | filename | relief_requested | full_text |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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… |
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
);