Court Filings
Data license: Public court records
4 rows where party = "Kassab" and phase = "Phase 5" sorted by date descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: date, chain, date (date)
| filing_id | date ▲ | doc_type | party | description | doc_type_detail | procedural_posture | chain | outcome | phase | filename | relief_requested | full_text |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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… |
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
);