Court Filings
Data license: Public court records
1 row where party = "Montague" and phase = "Phase 1" sorted by date descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: date (date)
| filing_id | date ▲ | doc_type | party | description | doc_type_detail | procedural_posture | chain | outcome | phase | filename | relief_requested | full_text |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 2018-10-15 | OA | Montague | Montague’s answer subject to special appearance | Defendants F. Douglas Montague III and Montague Pittman & Varnado, P.A.'s Original Answer Subject to Their Special Appearance, including general denial, 12 affirmative defenses, and request for disclosure | Montague Defendants' initial responsive pleading filed October 15, 2018, subject to their previously filed Special Appearance challenging personal jurisdiction. This answer preserves their jurisdictional objection while also responding to the merits of Pohl's Original Petition. | PLEAD-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-10-15_OA_Montague-Answer-Subject-to-Appearance_FILED.pdf | Grant of special appearance dismissing Montague Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction; alternatively, denial of all relief against Montague Defendants with a take-nothing judgment; costs of court; and all other relief to which they may be justly entitled | 10/15/2018 10:49 AM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 28273574 By: ARIONNE MCNEAL Filed: 10/15/2018 10:49 AM NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL POHL, ET AL § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiffs, § v. § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LANCE KASSAB, ET AL § r § C l Defendants. § 189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS F. DOUGLAS MONTAGUE IItI AND MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A.’S ORDIGiINAL ANSWER SUBJECT TO THEIR SPECIAL APPEARANCE Subject to the their previously filed Special Appearance, Defendants F. Douglas Montague III and Montague Pittman & Varnado, P.AB. (“Defendants”) file this Original Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Petition and respectfully show the following: aI. GENERAL DENIAL 1.1. Pursuant to Rule 92, Defendants denies the material allegations made in the Plaintiffs’ Original Petition and aniy petition that may be filed hereinafter by way of amendment or supplement, and demand strict proof thereof by a preponderance of the evidence at trial. o II. AFFIRMATIVE AND ADDITIONAL DEFENSES Defendancts further assert the following additional and affirmative defenses in the alternative subject to their special appearance: 2.1. In the alternative, Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by a lack of standing. Specifically, Plaintiff did not have an attorney-client relationship with the Defendants nor were these Defendants a party or an attorney for a party to the underlying Pohl litigation with Favre and Precision. Therefore, these Defendants owe no duty to Plaintiffs. Moreover, the referral of cases to specialists are the type of professional services that routinely and commonly fall within the services that an attorney would provide and that the Defendants do provide, which would thereby provide immunity to these Defendants from liability. Consequently, there is no basis to assert a claim of liability whether by way of conversion, theft of trade secrets, conspiracky or otherwise against attorneys who are simply discharging traditional legal tasks. l 2.2. In the alternative, Plaintiffs’ claims for conspiracy and reclat… |
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
);