Court Filings
Data license: Public court records
26 rows where party = "Pohl" sorted by date descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: date, chain, relief_requested, date (date)
party 1
- Pohl · 26 ✖
| filing_id | date ▲ | doc_type | party | description | doc_type_detail | procedural_posture | chain | outcome | phase | filename | relief_requested | full_text |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 67 | 2024-02-02 | RSP | Pohl | Objections to Kassab JNOV | Pohl's Response in Opposition to Kassab's Motions for New Trial and for JNOV, systematically opposing all 22 grounds for new trial and all JNOV arguments. Argues: all grounds are recycled rejected arguments; witness tampering allegations identical to rejected mistrial motion and based on unsworn statements of self-professed perjurer/extortionist; multiple charge objections waived at charge conference; jury verdict supported by nearly two weeks of trial evidence; Kassab fails to cite trial record; incorporates 15 prior filings by reference. | Response filed February 2, 2024, opposing both the Motion for New Trial and Motion for JNOV filed January 19, 2024. Pohl incorporates by reference 15 prior filings spanning 2021-2023. Notes Kassab has not filed a proposed order as required by court procedures. | POST-1 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2024-02-02_RSP_Pohl-Objections-to-Kassab-JNOV_FILED.pdf | Denial of Kassab's Motion for New Trial and Motion for JNOV in their entirety | 2/2/2024 4:44 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 84110431 By: Bonnie Lugo Filed: 2/2/2024 4:44 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL et al. § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiffs, § V. § HARRIS COUNTY,k TEXAS § e LANCE CHRISTOPHER § C l KASSAB et al. § § c Defendants. § 281ST JUDrICIAL DISTRICT POHL’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL AND FOR JUDGMENT NOT WITHSTANDING THE VERDsICT AND TO DISREGARD JURY FINDINGS FILED BY THE KASSAsB DEFENDANTS Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Office of Michaerl A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) respond in opposition to The Kassab Defendants’ Motion for New Trial (the “Motion for New Trial”) and Motion for Judgment Not Withstanding the Verdlict and to Disregard Jury Findings (the “Motion for JNOV”) filed by Defendants Lance ChMristopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C., d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (collectively “Kassab”). I. INTRODUCTION Kassab’s Motion for New Trial and Motion for JNOV repeat Kassab’s arguments that the Court has previously considered and rejected. In these two motions, Kassab recycles arguments rejected at summary judgment, 166(g) hearings, pre-trial hearings, directed verdict, and otherwise. The Court’s judgcment and the jury verdict are supported by and consistent with ample evidence presented at trial. But Kassab would have the Court throw out a jury verdict supported by nearly two weeks’ worth of trial evidence. Because the issues that Kassab raises are without merit, the Court should deny Kassab’s Motion for New Trial and Motion for JNOV. II. STANDARDS A. Motion for New Trial “Jury trials are essential to our constitutionally provided method for resolving disputes,” and “a jury’s decision is not to be tampered with lightly, regardless of whether it favors the plaintiff or the defendant.” In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, Subsidiary, L.Pl., 290 S.W.3d 204, 211 (Tex. 2009) (citing Tex. Const. art. I, § 15, art. V, § 10); see generally Hterbert v. Herbert, 754 S.W.2d 141, 144 (Tex. 1988) (“long-establi… |
| 68 | 2024-02-02 | RSP | Pohl | Response to Mtn to Modify Judgment | Pohl's Response to Kassab's Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform Judgment, arguing all arguments are recycled and rejected, the jury properly awarded exemplary damages unanimously (Q17 answered per unanimity instructions, Q19 predicated on unanimous Q17, Kassab waived by not objecting before discharge), attorneys' fees from separate proceedings are recoverable actual losses under TUTSA's broad 'actual loss' definition and tort of another doctrine, damages are not duplicative (TUTSA expressly authorizes both actual loss and unjust enrichment), conspiracy is not preempted (it is a rule of joint liability, not an independent tort or conflicting remedy), and great-weight-and-preponderance arguments are meritless | Response filed February 2, 2024, opposing Kassab's Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform Judgment. Filed simultaneously with Pohl's response to the JNOV and New Trial motions. Incorporates prior briefing by reference. | POST-2 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2024-02-02_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-Mtn-to-Modify-Judgment_FILED.pdf | Denial of Kassab's Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform Judgment, and any other relief to which Pohl is entitled | 2/2/2024 4:20 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 84108335 By: Patricia Gonzalez Filed: 2/2/2024 4:20 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et. al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiffs, § V. § HARRIS COUNTY,k TEXAS § e LANCE CHRISTOPHER § C l KASSAB, et. al § § c Defendants. § 281ST JUDrICIAL DISTRICT POHL’S RESPONSE TO KASSAB’S MOTION TO MODIFY, CORRECT, OR REFsORM JUDGMENT Plaintiffs Michael A. Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (collectively “Pohl”) respond in opposition to Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab’s and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm’s (collectively “Kassab”) motion to modify, correct, or reform the judgment (“Motion to Modify”). a I. Summary. The Motion to Modify primareily consists of recycled arguments that Kassab has previously made and that the Court has prefviously rejected. On that ground alone, the motion should be denied. y Substantively, CKassab re-argues in shotgun fashion that all of the damages found by the jury and awarded bay the Court are not recoverable for various erroneous reasons. As Pohl has previously brieffed at length, however, both the actual damages and exemplary damages are reasonablUe and fully supported by the verdict, the evidence, and the law. For these and other reasons that we discuss next, the Motion to Modify should be denied. II. The Jury Properly Awarded Exemplary Damages, and Pohl is Entitled to Recover Them. Kassab contends that the award of exemplary damages is unsupported and improper because the jury allegedly did not unanimously answer “Yes” in response to Question 17. See Motion to Modify, p. 4. But that is not true. On its face, the jury charge shorws that the jury unanimously answered “Yes” to Question 17 after being instructed to only answer the question “Yes” if the finding was unanimous. See Charge of the Court, p. 24. Irfi Kassab believed that the certificate of unanimity was in conflict with the answers containDed in the jury verdict, he was obligated to request that the jury be … |
| 63 | 2023-10-23 | LTR | Pohl | Request for ruling on final judgment | Pohl's Request for a Ruling on Motion for Entry of Final Judgment, urging Court to expedite consideration of the pending motion and raising concerns about Kassab's continued harassment through Mississippi bar complaints filed using case materials | Request for ruling filed October 23, 2023, more than one month after the September 19, 2023 hearing on entry of judgment. The Motion for Entry of Final Judgment was filed promptly after the August 31, 2023 jury verdict and has been ripe for over a month without a ruling. | JDGMT-1 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2023-10-23_LTR_Pohl-Request-for-Ruling-on-Final-Judgment_FILED.pdf | That the Court expedite consideration and grant Pohl's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment, entering final judgment in Pohl's favor in the form attached to the Motion | 10/23/2023 5:36 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 80886597 By: Patricia Gonzalez Filed: 10/23/2023 5:36 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et. al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiffs, § V. § HARRIS COUNTY,k TEXAS § e LANCE CHRISTOPHER § C l KASSAB, et. al § § c Defendants. § 281ST JUDrICIAL DISTRICT POHL’S REQUEST FOR A RULING ON POHL’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAsL JUDGMENT Pohl requests that the Court expedite its consideration of Pohl’s Motion for Entry of Final Judgment (the “Motion”). The Motion has been ripe for a ruling for over a month, and while Pohl waits for entry of judgment on the jury verdict in his favor, it appears that Kassab is using materials from this lawsuit to continue to harass Pohl—adespite the jury’s verdict being inconsistent with Kassab’s barratry and unauthorized practice of law theories in this case. The Court should promptly enter a final judgment to gieve finality to the trial proceedings in this case. f I. BACKGROUND Kassab has unsucceyssfully accused Pohl of engaging in barratry and the unauthorized practice of law for the lCast six years. According to Kassab, Pohl allegedly obtained clients through barratry and the unaauthorized practice of law in Mississippi, and thus, Pohl did not have rightful, legal, or equitabfle title in any trade secret concerning Pohl’s clients. However, on August 31, 2023, theU jury rendered a verdict in Pohl’s favor, and found that, despite Kassab’s allegations of barratry and the unauthorized practice of law, Pohl owned the trade secrets concerning his clients. After the jury rendered their verdict, Pohl promptly filed the Motion requesting entry of judgment and set the Motion for a hearing on September 19, 2023. As the briefing and arguments at that hearing showed, Pohl is entitled to entry of a final judgment in his favor that gives effect to the jury’s findings of liability and damages. Since trial, Pohl has learned new information that suggests that Kassab is using materials from this case to continue to harass P… |
| 62 | 2023-09-22 | LTR | Pohl | Response to Kassab letter | Pohl's letter to Judge Christine Weems replying to Kassab's September 20, 2023 post-hearing letter brief, addressing exemplary damages burden of proof, recoverability of attorneys' fees, conspiracy preemption, and Precision's exoneration | Sur-reply letter brief filed September 22, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court, Harris County, Cause No. 2018-58419. Addressed to Judge Christine Weems. Filed two days after Kassab's post-hearing letter brief (September 20) and three days after the September 19 hearing on entry of judgment. Pohl notes his Reply was filed one business day after Kassab's Response. Signed by Harris Y. Wells and Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. | JDGMT-1 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2023-09-22_LTR_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-Letter-re-Final-Judgment_FILED.pdf | That the Court grant Pohl's Motion, enter judgment in the form attached as Exhibit B to the Motion, and overrule Kassab's objections to entry of judgment | 9/22/2023 9:53 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 79868932 By: Bonnie Lugo Filed: 9/22/2023 9:53 PM September 22, 2023 Via Electronic Filing Judge Christine Weems r Harris County Civil Courthouse l 201 Caroline, 14th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 c t RE: Michael A. Pohl et al. v. Lance Christopher Kassab et al.; Casutse No. 2018-58419; In the 281st Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. D i Reply to Kassab’s Post-Hearing Letter on Pohl’s Motion for Entry of Judgment (the “Motion”) Dear Judge Weems: e In Kassab’s September 20, 2023 letter (the “Leutter”), Kassab suggests that the timing of Pohl’s Reply brief entitles Kassab to further briefing. Pohl filed his Reply one business day after Kassab filed his Response. Because Kassab misstates both the law and facts in the Letter, Pohl files this reply letter. l DMISCUSSION A. The Jury Verdict shows thoe Jury unanimously awarded exemplary damages. Kassab makes two argumencts on the recovery of exemplary damages: he claims (1) it was Pohl’s burden to ensure the Jury fsigned a certificate of unanimity for Question 17, and (2) that various cases Pohl cited are “distinguishable for important reasons.” Letter at 1–2. Each argument fails. First, as the Supreme Cyourt of Texas held in USAA Tex. Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca, “the party who must rely on theo conflicting answer to avoid the effect of answers that establish liability . . . bore the burden to object.” 545 S.W.3d 479, 519 (Tex. 2018) (emphasis added). That is Kassab here. lSecond, any so-called distinguishing facts either are not distinguishing or are immaterial becaucsei the reasoning of those cases, applied to the facts of this case, shows Pohl is entitled to an awfard of exemplary damages. 1. It was Kassab’s burden to object because he seeks to set aside the Jury’s answers. Pohl obtained the necessary findings to support an award of exemplary damages against Kassab through the Jury’s answers to Questions 2, 17, and 19.1 Kassab asks the Court to ignore the Jury’s findings because he … |
| 60 | 2023-09-18 | RPL | Pohl | Reply ISO Mtn for Final Judgment | Pohl's Reply in Support of Motion for Entry of Final Judgment, responding to Kassab's five objections to the proposed judgment regarding exemplary damages unanimity, attorneys' fees recoverability, overlapping damages, conspiracy preemption, and Precision's exoneration | Reply brief filed September 18, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court, Harris County, Cause No. 2018-58419. Filed three days after Kassab's September 15, 2023 objections to Pohl's September 5, 2023 Motion for Entry of Final Judgment. Addresses each of Kassab's five objections and argues the court must enter judgment consistent with the jury verdict. | JDGMT-1 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2023-09-18_RPL_Pohl-Reply-ISO-Mtn-for-Final-Judgment_FILED.pdf | That the Court overrule Kassab's objections and enter the Final Judgment in the form attached to the Motion as Exhibit B | 9/18/2023 8:21 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 79681130 By: Bonnie Lugo Filed: 9/18/2023 8:21 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r281ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT POHL’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT On September 5, 2023, Plaintiffs Michaell Pohl and Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl PLLC (collectively, “Pohl”) filed their motion foMr entry of a Final Judgment and to adjudge costs (the “Motion”). On September 15, 2023, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm’s (collectively, “Kassab”) filed Objections to Pohl’s Proposed Final Judgment (the “Response”). Kassab fails to demonstrate in the Response that the Court would commit error in any way by entering final judgment in the form requested by Pohl. OVERVIEW Kassab liscts five general objections to entry of judgment. None of the objections withstand scrutiny. • Kassab objects to the inclusion of exemplary damages in the judgment because he contends the Jury’s answer of “Yes” to Question 17 was not unanimous. But Kassab is factually incorrect because, on its face, the Jury Verdict shows that the Jury unanimously answered “Yes” to Question 17. The Court instructed the Jury to only answer “Yes,” in response to Question 17 if it was unanimous, and the Jury is presumed to have followed those instructions. Moreover, the Court instructed the Jury to answer Question 19 “only if you unanimously answered “Yes” to Question no. 17,” and the Jury answered Question 19. k • Kassab objects to the inclusion of attorneys’ fees from a p… |
| 58 | 2023-09-05 | MTN | Pohl | Mtn for Entry of Final Judgment | Pohl's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment following jury verdict, requesting court to enter judgment on approximately $6.3M award including actual damages, exemplary damages, attorneys' fees, prejudgment and postjudgment interest, and court costs | Post-trial motion filed September 5, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court, Harris County, Cause No. 2018-58419. Filed after jury returned verdict on August 31, 2023, in favor of Pohl on trade secret misappropriation and conspiracy claims against Kassab. Pohl seeks formal entry of final judgment consistent with jury findings. The 189th District Court had previously entered summary judgment against Kassab's barratry counterclaims on February 7, 2022. Trial commenced August 21, 2023 on three claims: theft of trade secrets, conversion, and conspiracy. Kassab's motion for directed verdict was denied on August 29, 2023. | JDGMT-1 | GRANTED | Phase 5 | 2023-09-05_MTN_Pohl-Mtn-for-Entry-of-Final-Judgment_FILED.pdf | Entry of Final Judgment in the form attached as Exhibit B, awarding: (1) $1,453,040 in actual damages (after $765,000 settlement credit); (2) $1,232,013 in attorneys' fees through trial; (3) conditional appellate attorneys' fees ($175,000 court of appeals, $55,000 petition for review, $85,000 merits briefing, $60,000 through oral argument); (4) $3,000,000 in exemplary damages; (5) $624,986.34 in prejudgment interest through September 18, 2023 (plus $338.38/day thereafter); (6) postjudgment interest at 8.50%; (7) all court costs against Kassab | 9/5/2023 6:40 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 79235207 By: Patricia Gonzalez Filed: 9/5/2023 6:40 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r281ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT POHL’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Offices lof Michael A. Pohl PLLC (collectively, “Pohl”) move for entry of a Final Judgment and to aMdjudge costs. In support thereof, Pohl would show the Court as follows: On February 7, 2022, the 189th District Court entered a traditional summary judgment against Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm’s (“Kassab”) counterclaims for civil barratry. The February 7 Order resolved the barratry counterclaims asserted by Kassab against Pohl. On Augusct 21, 2023, the case proceeded to trial on three claims filed by Pohl (theft of trade secrets, conversion, and conspiracy. This Court and the jury heard testimony from witnesses and experts presented by both Pohl and Kassab. On August 29, 2023, Kassab moved for a directed verdict and asserted, among other things, that Pohl’s damages were not recoverable or were not supported by sufficient evidence. The Court denied Kassab’s motion for directed verdict, implicitly ruling that Pohl’s requested damages were recoverable and were supported by evidence presented to the jury. I. THE JURY’S VERDICT After a trial on the merits, the Court submitted this case to the jury. On Akugust 31, 2023, the jury returned a verdict. Pohl attaches as Exhibit A the executed jury verdiclt. The jury verdict found in favor of Poh… |
| 55 | 2023-03-29 | RSP | Pohl | Response to Amended MSJ | Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to the Amended Motions for Summary Judgment Filed by the Kassab Defendants | Filed March 29, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court (Judge Weems) by Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. Responds to Kassab's Amended MSJ (filing #50). Pohl argues the Amended Motion is a disguised motion to reconsider that reiterates the same arguments and evidence denied by the 189th District Court on October 31, 2022. Pohl objects to oral hearing under 281st Court Procedure I(I). | MSJ-4 | N/A | Phase 4 | 2023-03-29_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-Amended-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Deny Kassab's Amended Motions for Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment | 3/29/2023 5:09 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 74146534 By: Julia Adkins Filed: 3/29/2023 5:09 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et. al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiffs, § V. § HARRIS COUNTY,k TEXAS § e LANCE CHRISTOPHER § C l KASSAB, et. al § § c Defendants. § 281ST JUDrICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE AMENDED MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY THE KASsSAB DEFENDANTS Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) respond in opposition to the Amended Motions for Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment (the “Amended Motion”) filed by Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C., d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (coallectively “Kassab”). I. INTRODUCTION The Court should not entertaien motions to reconsider filed under another name, especially when such a motion fails to makef any statement about why reconsideration is warranted. Despite its name, the Amended Motiyon does not specify what prior motions it purports to amend. But, in substance, it seeks recoCnsideration of Kassab’s previous motions for summary judgment that the 189th District Courat denied. Kassab does not explain why those prior rulings were wrong, nor does he attemptf to explain whether the facts, arguments, or law have changed from the previously denied mUotions. Kassab has not demonstrated that the Court should reconsider or revisit those rulings, or that any prior ruling was erroneous. Thus, the Court should deny the Amended Motion. Pohl also objects to the hearing on Kassab’s Amended Motion. The vast majority of the Amended Motion is directly copied and pasted from Kassab’s prior motions for traditional and no- evidence summary judgment that were denied by the 189th District Court. Kassab seeks the same relief and uses the same arguments as contained in his denied motions. Thus, the Amended Motion is a motion to “reconsider” with a different title. Under this Court’s procedures, “[a]ll motions to reconsider are heard … |
| 53 | 2023-03-14 | RSP | Pohl | Response to Mtn to Rule | Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Kassab's Motion to Rule on Plaintiffs' Objections to Kassab's Deposition on Written Questions of Scott Favre | Filed March 14, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court by Pohl's counsel Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. Pohl opposes Kassab's motion seeking to overrule Pohl's objections to Kassab's deposition on written questions (DWQ) of Scott Favre. This is Kassab's second motion — the first version argued leading questions were 'cross examination' but was revised to remove that argument as directly contrary to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. | MSJ-2R | N/A | Phase 4 | 2023-03-14_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-Mtn-to-Rule_FILED.pdf | Deny Kassab's Motion to Rule and sustain Pohl's objections to the questions contained in Kassab's DWQ | 3/14/2023 9:54 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 73666907 By: Bonnie Lugo Filed: 3/14/2023 9:54 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et. al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiffs, § V. § HARRIS COUNTY,k TEXAS § e LANCE CHRISTOPHER § C l KASSAB, et. al § § c Defendants. § 281ST JUDrICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO KASSAB’S MOTION TO RULE Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Office of Michael As. Pohl PLLC (collectively “Pohl”) respond in opposition to Defendants Lance Christopher rKassab and Lance Christopher Kassab P.C.’s (collectively, “Kassab”) Motion to Rule on Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Kassab Defendants’ Notice to Take Deposition on Written Questions lof Scott Favre (the “Motion”).1 I. MBACKGROUND The parties have been unable to osecure an oral deposition of Scott Favre (“Favre”), and the parties have been told his capabilityc to appear is limited by his ongoing cancer treatment. Favre is a former co-defendant, and Pohl alleged Favre conspired with Kassab to misappropriate Pohl’s trade secrets and propertyp, including by selling that information to Kassab.2 Although Kassab admits that he made a six-figure, up-front payment to Favre, he contends the payment was made to hire Favre as anc e i xpert to assist Kassab with bringing barratry claims against Pohl.3 Pohl alleges the payment woas made in exchange for misappropriating Pohl’s confidential information.4 1 This is the second motion Kassab filed regarding Pohl’s objections. Kassab initially tried to argue that his leading questions were proper because they constituted “cross examination.” But Kassab filed a subsequent motion that removed that argument, as it was directly contrary to the wording of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Compare Kassab Defendants’ Motion to Rule on Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Kassab Defendants’ Notice to Take Deposition on Written Questions of Scott Favre, filed Feb. 28, 2023, with Motion (filed March 2, 2023). 2 See Pohl’s First Amended Petition ¶¶ 21–23. 3 See Deposition of… |
| 52 | 2023-03-08 | RSP | Pohl | Response to Mtn to Reconsider/Rule | Plaintiffs' Response in Partial Opposition to Kassab's Motion to Reconsider or Rule | Filed March 8, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court (Judge Weems) by Pohl's counsel Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. Response to Kassab's Motion to Reconsider or Rule (filing #49), which sought reconsideration of three prior orders by Judge Dollinger. Pohl partially opposes — agreeing the court should rule on the pending RTP motion but opposing reconsideration of the abatement and discovery compulsion rulings. | MSJ-2R | N/A | Phase 4 | 2023-03-08_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-Mtn-to-Reconsider-or-Rule_FILED.pdf | Deny Kassab's Motion in part; deny Kassab's Supplemental RTP Motion on the merits; decline to reconsider prior rulings on Kassab's Motion to Abate and Motion to Compel | 3/8/2023 7:39 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 73486867 By: Lewis John-Miller Filed: 3/8/2023 7:39 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et. al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiffs, § V. § HARRIS COUNTY,k TEXAS § e LANCE CHRISTOPHER § C l KASSAB, et. al § § c Defendants. § 281ST JUDrICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN PARTIAL OPPOSITION TO KASSAB’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER OR RULE s Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm (collectively, “Kassab”) filed the Motion to Reconsider or Rule (the “Motion”), and in it states he filed it in order to file a petition for writ of mandamus if the Motion is denied. Pohl partially opposes the relief Kassab requests in his Motion. Pohl does not oppose the Court ruling on Kassab’s pending motion to designate responsible third parties—although Pohl contends that motion should be denied when thee Court addresses it on the merits. However, Pohl does not agree that the Court should reconfsider or revisit the other two rulings mentioned in the Motion, and Kassab has not shown hyow any prior ruling was erroneous. C I. DISCUSSION Kassab asksa the Court to rule on one pending motion and to reconsider rulings on two other motions. Kassafb is not entitled to relief on the merits with respect to any of those three motions. First, the Court should rule on Kassab’s Supplemental Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties (“Kassab’s Supplemental RTP Motion”), but it should deny the relief Kassab requests. Kassab’s Supplemental RTP Motion does not fix the pleading defect that caused Judge Dollinger to deny Kassab’s first motion to designate responsible third parties. Second, Kassab provides no basis for why the Court should reconsider the denial of Kassab’s Motion to Abate Trial Setting (“Kassab’s Motion to Abate”), and the Court should not allow Kassab to delay trial. Third, the Court should not reconsider the denial of Kassab’s Motion to Compel Testimony and Documents Pursuant to the Offensive Use D… |
| 46 | 2022-11-30 | MSJ | Pohl | Partial MSJ on Barratry Liability | Plaintiffs' Rule 166(g) Motion on Barratry Liability and Specific Affirmative Defenses Asserted by the Kassab Defendants | Pre-trial motion filed November 30, 2022 by Pohl, five days before the December 5, 2022 trial setting. Seeks legal rulings under Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(g) to narrow trial issues by: (1) finding barratry is not legally relevant to this lawsuit, and (2) striking 10+ of Kassab's affirmative defenses as barred as a matter of law. | MSJ-3 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-11-30_MSJ_Pohl-Partial-MSJ-Barratry-Liability_FILED.pdf | Find that: (1) establishing whether barratry occurred is not legally relevant to this lawsuit; (2) Kassab's affirmative defenses of unlawful acts, illegality, criminal acts, in pari delicto, justification, immunity under Rule 17.09, unclean hands, release, accord and satisfaction, estoppel, subject to a valid contract, assumption of the risk, and contribution are barred as a matter of law | 11/30/2022 8:20 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 70589892 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 11/30/2022 8:20 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et. al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiffs, § V. § HARRIS COUNTY,k TEXAS § r LANCE CHRISTOPHER § l KASSAB, et. al § § c Defendants. § 189TH JUDrICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ RULE 166(g) MOTION ON BARRATRY LIDABILITY AND SPECIFIC AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ASSERTED BY THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166(g), Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl PLLC (collectively “Pohl”) file this Motion on the issues of the relevance of barratry liability and the legal viability of specific affirmative defenses asserted by the Kassab defendants (the “Motion”). Pohl requests tahat the Court find Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab P.C.’s (collectively, “Kassab”) theories regarding establishing barratry and certain otheer legal defenses fail as a matter of law. f I. STANDARD Under Texas Rule ofy Civil Procedure 166(g), this Court can decide legal issues at pretrial “to assist in the disposition of the case without undue expense or burden to the parties . . . .” See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(g). Allowing this trial to subsume the question of whether Pohl committed barratry, in connfection with clients whose information Kassab later misappropriated, would greatly extend the length of trial, and it would needlessly complicate the issues presented to the jury. A legal determination by this Court that whether barratry did in fact occur is immaterial to Pohl’s claims—whether as a matter of denial or as a defense—would assist in disposing of this case with less undue burden and expense. Furthermore, determining whether certain defenses fail as a matter of law is a set of legal questions the Court can decide to appropriately focus the trial in this case. II. DISCUSSION To prevent “undue expense” and additional “burden to the parties,” and to ensure that trial does not proceed for longer than is necessary, th… |
| 47 | 2022-11-30 | OBJ | Pohl | Objection to Kassab supp. RTP | Pohl's Objection to Kassab's Supplemental Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties | Filed November 30, 2022 in response to Kassab's Supplemental RTP Motion filed November 15, 2022. Judge Dollinger denied Kassab's original RTP Motion on October 31, 2022 (finding Pohl's objection was 'well taken') and gave Kassab 14 days to replead. Kassab filed 15 days later (one day late). Pohl argues the supplemental motion contains no new factual allegations. Pohl does not object to designation of Favre and Precision as RTPs. | RTP-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-11-30_OBJ_Pohl-Objection-to-Kassab-Supp-RTP_FILED.pdf | Deny Kassab's Supplemental RTP Motion without leave for Kassab to attempt to replead, as Kassab failed to plead sufficient facts after already being granted leave to replead | 11/30/2022 4:26 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 70583280 By: Ashley Lopez Filed: 11/30/2022 4:26 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et. al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiffs, § V. § HARRIS COUNTY,k TEXAS § e LANCE CHRISTOPHER § C l KASSAB, et. al § § c Defendants. § 189TH JUDrICIAL DISTRICT POHL’S OBJECTION TO KASSAB’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DESIGNATE RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTsIES Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl PLLC (collectively “Pohl”) file this Objection to Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm’s Supplemental Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties1 (the “Supplemental RTP Motion”) and would showa the Court as follows: Kassab’s Supplemental RTP Motion does not address the failings of the original RTP Motion. The Court denied Kassab’se first RTP Motion2 because Kassab failed to plead sufficient facts showing that the alleged resfponsible third parties were responsible for the harms underlying Pohl’s claims. Kassab was ygiven a chance to replead with sufficient new facts to demonstrate liability. However, thCe Supplemental RTP Motion contains the same factual allegations copied and pasted from the briefing before the Court when it denied the RTP Motion. Kassab tried to disguise this bfyf reordering and lightly paraphrasing or modifying the allegations. But Kassab 1 This Objection is primarily directed at Kassab’s Supplemental RTP Motion, filed Nov. 15, 2022. Kassab also filed a Second Supplemental Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties, filed Nov. 22, 2022 (“Second Supplemental RTP Motion”). Pohl does not object to the designation of Scott Favre and Precision Marketing Group, LLC as responsible third parties. However, Pohl objects to the Second Supplemental RTP Motion, on the same grounds as set forth in this briefing, to the extent that it seeks the same relief sought in the Supplemental RTP Motion or seeks to designate anyone as a responsible third party other than Scott Fav… |
| 41 | 2022-09-21 | NTC | Pohl | Filing evidence and request for leave | Pohl Plaintiffs' Notice of Filing of Evidence in Support of Claims of Privilege and Request for Leave | Notice filed September 21, 2022 pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.4, filing Pohl's declaration to support privilege claims in response to Kassab Defendants' Fifth Set of Written Discovery Requests and their related Motion to Compel. Filed before Judge Scot Dollinger, 189th Judicial District, Harris County, Texas. | MSJ-3 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-09-21_NTC_Pohl-Filing-Evidence-and-Request-for-Leave_FILED.pdf | Leave to file the declaration of Michael A. Pohl in support of privilege claims less than seven days in advance of the September 23, 2022 hearing on Kassab's Motion to Compel | 9/21/2022 9:03 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 68499533 By: Ashley Lopez Filed: 9/21/2022 9:03 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT THE POHL PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF FILING OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE AND REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT “DOaLLI” DOLLINGER: Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.4, Plaintiffs Michael A. Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC fieles and serves the attached declaration of Michael A. Pohl which will be used to support thfe claims of privilege made by Pohl in response to the Kassab Defendants’ Fifth Set of Wriytten Discovery Requests. This declaratioCn is being filed as a result of the Kassab Defendants’ Motion to Compel Removal of Pohl’sa Objections and Properly Respond to Discovery, filed Sept. 19, 2022 (the “Motion”)—whfich was set for hearing on Sept. 23, 2022. Given that the Motion was both filed and set for hearing less than seven days in advance of the hearing date, Pohl requests leave for the filing of this declaration less than seven days in advance of the hearing under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.4(a). The Kassab Defendants and the Montague Defendants do not oppose this request for leave. Dated: September 21, 2022 Respectfully submitted, REYNOLDS FRIZZELL LLP By: /s/ Jean C. Frizzell Jean C. Frizzell State Bar No. 07484650 k 1100 Louisiana St., Suite 3500 e Houston, Texas 77002 C l Tel. 713.485.7200 Fax 713.485.7250 c jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.rcom Attorney for PlaintifDfs Michael Pohl and Law Office ofs Michael A. … |
| 39 | 2022-09-18 | NTC | Pohl | Withdrawal of partial MSJ on aff. def. | Pohl Plaintiffs' Notice of Drawing Down from Hearing Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Defendants' Affirmative Defenses that Seek to Relitigate Failed Barratry Claims and No-Evidence Motion on the Remaining Affirmative Defenses | Notice submitted September 18, 2022 (filed by clerk September 19, 2022) withdrawing Pohl's own motion for partial summary judgment on affirmative defenses from the September 19, 2022 hearing before Judge Scot 'Dolli' Dollinger, while defendants' MSJs remained pending for the same hearing date. Filed by Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. | MSJ-3 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-09-18_NTC_Pohl-Withdrawal-of-Partial-MSJ-on-Aff-Def_FILED.pdf | Request that Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Defendants' Affirmative Defenses be drawn down from the September 19, 2022 hearing | 9/18/2022 5:42 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 68364897 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 9/19/2022 12:00 AM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT THE POHL PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF DRAWING DOWN FROM HEARING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFElNSES THAT SEEK TO RELITIGATE FAILED BARRATRY CLAIMS AGaAINST PLAINTIFFS AND NO-EVIDENCE MOTION ON THE REMAMINING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT “DOLLI” DOLLINGER: Plaintiffs Michael A. Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC file this notice to draw down 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, filed on August 29, 2022. This motion is currently set for hcearing on September 19, 2022, and Plaintiffs request that it be drawn down from that hearing so that the motion is not heard at that time. Dated: September 18, 2022 Respectfully submitted, REYNOLDS FRIZZELL LLP By: /s/ Jean C. Frizzell Jean C. Frizzell State Bar No. 07484650 k 1100 Louisiana St., Suite 3500 e Houston, Texas 77002 C l Tel. 713.485.7200 Fax 713.485.7250 c jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.rcom Attorney for PlaintifDfs Michael Pohl and Law Office ofs Michael A. Pohl, PLLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct coply of this document was served on all counsel of record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Praocedure on this 18th day of September, 2022. o /s/ Jean C… |
| 38 | 2022-09-15 | RSP | Pohl | Pohl’s response to MTA | Plaintiffs' Response to the Kassab Defendants' Motion to Abate Trial Setting — opposes abatement of four-year-old case on eve of preferential trial setting, arguing future damages do not justify abatement and unlawful acts defense has been preempted | Response filed September 15, 2022 by Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP opposing Kassab's motion to abate the trial setting in a four-year-old case with a preferential trial setting. Incorporates by reference Pohl's September 12, 2022 responses to defendants' summary judgment motions. | MTA-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-09-15_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-MTA-Trial_FILED.pdf | Deny Kassab's Motion to Abate Trial Setting and allow the case to proceed to trial during its current preferential trial setting | 9/15/2022 5:08 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 68313271 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 9/15/2022 5:08 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § v. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § 189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, § r P.C. d/b/a THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, LLP § d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW FIRM; and § s DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and MONTAGUE § PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § g Defendants. § r HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ABATEy TRIAL SETTING Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Officaes of Michael A. Pohl (collectively, “Pohl”) file this this response to Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C.’s (collectively, “Kassab”) Motion to Abeate Trial Setting (the “Motion to Abate”). Pohl requests that the Court deny Kassab’s Motion fto Abate and allow this four-year-old case to be tried during its current preferential trial settiyng—a trial setting that Kassab appears to be trying to avoid. Kassab argues Cthat this case should be abated for two reasons: (1) Pohl is still incurring damages; and (2) the outcome of a separate lawsuit—the Cheatham case—will impact Kassab’s illegality (unlafwfful acts doctrine) defense. Neither argument has merit. First, the existence of future daUmages does not justify abatement. For Pohl to recover future damages, he must satisfy the ordinary standard of showing to the jury that he will sustain those damages with reasonable probability. Second, Kassab’s unlawful acts defense has been preempted and does not apply—a defense Kassab acknowledged in another case is “no longer good law.” I. BACKGROUND1 Kassab’s campaign of lawsuits and bar grievances against Pohl can only be described as a failure. Kassab facilitated the filing of seven separate grievances with the Texas State Bar and four law… |
| 35 | 2022-09-12 | RSP | Pohl | Pohl’s response to Kassab no-evid MSJ | Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to No-Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment Filed by Kassab and Nicholson Defendants — Pohl presents extensive evidence supporting all three claims (conspiracy, conversion, TUTSA) and rebuts defendants' challenges to ownership, protection, misappropriation, and damages elements | Response to no-evidence MSJs filed by Kassab and Nicholson defendants on August 29, 2022, in the third phase of litigation. Filed September 12, 2022 at 11:26 PM. Pohl incorporates by reference the discussion and evidence from his companion Response in Opposition to the Traditional Motions filed the same day. Filed by Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. Addressed to the 189th Judicial District Court of Harris County. | MSJ-2 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-09-12_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-No-Evid-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Deny the no-evidence motions for summary judgment filed by Kassab and Nicholson and allow all issues to be tried by a jury | 9/12/2022 11:26 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 68182775 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 9/12/2022 11:26 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NO EVIDENCE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY THE KASSAB DEFENDANTSl AND THE NICHOLSON DEFENDANTS Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law OfMfice of Michael A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) respond in opposition to the No Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C., d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (collectively “Kassab”) and Tina Nicholson and Baker Nicholson, LLP d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm (collectively, “Nicholson”). Given the overlapping issues in the multiple summary judgment motions before the Court, Pohl also incorpcorates by reference the discussion and evidence included in his Response in Opposition to the Traditional Motions for Summary Judgment Filed by the Kassab Defendants and the Nicholson Defendants that is filed on the same day as this Response. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Pohl represented various persons and entities in claims arising from motor vehicle accidents and the British Petroleum Deepwater Horizon oil spill.1 Pohl engaged Precision Marketing Group, LLC (“Precision”) to provide public relations services, to gathker and preserve evidence, and to screen and liaise with Pohl’s clients and prospective clients.2 l While working for Pohl, Precision necessarily gained access to Pohl’s confidential and propcrietary information and property, including trade … |
| 36 | 2022-09-12 | RSP | Pohl | Pohl’s response to Kassab trad MSJ | Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Traditional Motions for Summary Judgment Filed by Kassab and Nicholson Defendants — comprehensive 38-page response opposing limitations, unlawful acts doctrine, attorney immunity, judicial proceedings privilege, release, TUTSA protection, ownership, and damages defenses | Response to traditional MSJs filed by Kassab (Aug. 29, 2022) and Nicholson (Amended, Aug. 29, 2022), four years into litigation. Filed September 12, 2022 at 11:55 PM. Incorporates arguments and evidence from companion no-evidence MSJ response filed same day. Filed by Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. Notes Court previously denied Kassab's first MSJ (limitations, res judicata, attorney immunity) on August 3, 2021. | MSJ-2 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-09-12_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-Trad-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Deny the traditional motions for summary judgment filed by Kassab and Nicholson in all respects | 9/12/2022 11:55 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 68182991 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 9/12/2022 11:55 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE TRADITIONAL MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY THE KASSAB DEFENDANTSl AND THE NICHOLSON DEFENDANTS Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law OfMfice of Michael A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) respond in opposition to the Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C., d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (collectively “Kassab”) and the Amended Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Tina Nicholson and Baker Nicholson, LLP d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm (collectively, “Nicholson,” and together with Kassab, the “Moving Defendants”). c I. INTRODUCTION On June 8, 2021, Kassab moved for traditional summary judgment on the grounds of limitations, res judicata, and attorney immunity. By order dated August 3, 2021, the Court denied Kassab’s motion. Although nothing has changed relative to the facts relating to the defenses of limitations and attorney immunity, Kassab reargues those issues to the Court. Nicholson likewise asserts limitations and immunity defenses. For the same reasons the Court rejected those defenses in Kassab’s original motions, the Court should reject those defenses again here. The Moving Defendants’ assertion of an “illegal acts” defense fails as both a matter of fact and a matter of law. Both Nicholson and Kassab expend countless breathless pakges and submi… |
| 28 | 2022-05-31 | OBJ | Pohl | Pohl’s objection to RTP designation | Pohl's Objection to Kassab's Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties, arguing the designated persons did not cause or contribute to the harms underlying Pohl's tort claims and that Kassab failed to satisfy pleading requirements | Phase 3 response to Kassab's RTP motion. Pohl objects on grounds that the designated persons are not responsible for the specific harms underlying Pohl's conversion and TUTSA claims, distinguishing between harm to Pohl and general connection to events. Also argues Kassab failed to timely disclose RTP identities in discovery. Filed by Reynolds Frizzell LLP. | RTP-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-05-31_OBJ_Pohl-Objection-to-Kassab-RTP-Designation_FILED.pdf | Deny Kassab's Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties with leave for Kassab to attempt to replead | 5/31/2022 5:00 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 64998436 By: cassie combs Filed: 5/31/2022 5:00 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § r SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § D LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT POHL’S OBJECTION TO KASSAB’S MOTION TO DESIGNATE RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTIES Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Officae of Michael A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) file this Objection to Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm’s Motion to Desiegnate Responsible Third Parties (the “Motion”) and would show the Court as follows: f y I. INTRODUCTION The Court shouCld deny Kassab’s Motion because he fails to allege facts showing how the alleged responsiblea third parties are responsible for the harms underlying Pohl’s tort claims. Kassab seeks tfo designate eight different allegedly responsible third parties—Billy Shepherd (“ShepheUrd”), Scott Walker (“Walker”), Steve Seymour (“Seymour”) Kirk Ladner (“Ladner”), Dona Pohl (“Dona”), Edgar Jaimes (“Jaimes”), Ken Talley (“Talley”), and Magdalena Santana (“Santana”) (collectively, the “Alleged RTPs”). None of the Alleged RTPs “caused or contributed to causing” the harms underlying Pohl’s claims. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 33.011(6). Reading Kassab’s Motion, one might be forgiven for thinking that a responsible third party is any person who bears some (or any) connection with events related to a lawsuit and whose actions could allegedly have impacted the amount of damages suffered by a claimant. See generally Motion. But Texas has not adopted a “butterfly effect” theory okf proportionate… |
| 24 | 2022-02-04 | RPL | Pohl | Pohl’s reply ISO MSJ on counterclaims | Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants' Counterclaims for Civil Barratry | Pohl's reply brief supporting his MSJ on Kassab's barratry counterclaims, filed February 4, 2022. This is the final brief in the CC-1 motion chain before the court's ruling (which ultimately granted Pohl's motion). Attorney: Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. | CC-1 | N/A | Phase 2 | 2022-02-04_RPL_Pohl-Reply-ISO-MSJ-on-CC_FILED.pdf | Grant summary judgment dismissing Kassab's counterclaims for civil barratry | 2/4/2022 3:45 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 61466983 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 2/4/2022 3:45 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIMS Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Officae of Michael A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) file this Reply in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants’ Counterclaims for Civil Barratry. e In his Response to Plfaintiffs’ Motion (the “Response”) Kassab admits that the Assignments1 underlying hisy counterclaims were shams that altered nothing about the ownership of the claims and wereC made explicitly for the purpose of circumventing the statute of limitations and fomenting otherwise barred litigation. See Response, at 6 (“Seeing Pohl’s retaliatory suit as a means to potenftfially revive the barratry claims dismissed on limitations in Brumfield and Gandy, Kassab aUnd his clients executed 242 Limited Assignments.”); see also Declaration of Lance Kassab ¶ 12, Ex. 5 to the Response (after purported “assignment,” clients retained 60% interest in claims and Kassab retained 40% contingent fee interest). These admissions demonstrate the 1 Terms defined in Plaintiffs’ Motion carry the same meaning in this Reply. invalidity of the Assignments and therefore the Counterclaims. In addition to effectively admitting that the Assignments are shams, Kassab’s Response fails to rebut any of the other bases on which Pohl moved for summary judgment. The Court can resolve Pohl’s Motion based on a s… |
| 22 | 2021-12-07 | MSJ | Pohl | Pohl’s MSJ on Kassab Counterclaims | Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants' Counterclaims for Civil Barratry | Pohl's dispositive motion seeking traditional summary judgment on Kassab's counterclaims for civil barratry based on 242 assigned claims. Filed December 7, 2021, after Kassab's Fourth Amended Answer. This is the principal motion in the CC-1 chain, which was ultimately granted. Attorney: Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. | CC-1 | GRANTED | Phase 2 | 2021-12-07_MSJ_Pohl-MSJ-on-Kassab-Counterclaims_FILED.pdf | Grant summary judgment dismissing Kassab's counterclaims for civil barratry | 12/7/2021 4:11 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 59800424 By: Ozuqui Quintanilla Filed: 12/7/2021 4:11 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIMS Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Officae of Michael A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) move for summary judgment on the Defendants’ counterclaims for civil barratry. SU e MMARY OF ARGUMENT Defendants Lance Christfopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C., d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (collectiveyly “Kassab”) assert counterclaims that have already been adjudicated. Kassab’s clients previoCusly brought these very claims and lost them. Kassab’ counterclaims fail because they are barred by res judicata, they are not revived by the savings provision of the Texas Civil Practice fafnd Remedies Code and are accordingly time-barred, and because the purported assignmeUnts of the claims are invalid and unenforceable. After purchasing Pohl’s stolen client lists and contact information, Kassab solicited Pohl’s clients to bring barratry claims. When courts (including this one) found those barratry claims to be barred by limitations, Kassab obtained purported “assignments” of those claims and asserted them as counterclaims in this action, contending they had been “revived” pursuant to the savings provision of Civil Practices and Remedies Code section 16.069. The statutory requirements of section 16.069 are not met for multiple reasons, and Kassab’s effort to revitalize the stale claims fails. In addition, civil barratry… |
| 21 | 2021-10-18 | OA | Pohl | Pohl’s response and special exceptions | Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants Pohl's Verified Original Answer and Special Exceptions to Kassab's Fourth Amended Answer, Counterclaim, and Designation of Responsible Third Parties | Pohl's responsive pleading to Kassab's Fourth Amended Answer and Counterclaim filed on October 13, 2021. Filed October 18, 2021, five days after Kassab's amended pleading. Challenges Kassab's legal capacity to assert assigned barratry claims through verified denials and seeks clarification of the counterclaim through special exceptions. Attorney: Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. | PLEAD-1 | N/A | Phase 2 | 2021-10-18_OA_Pohl-Response-and-Special-Exceptions_FILED.pdf | That the Court render judgment that Kassab take nothing; dismiss Kassab's counterclaim for barratry on its merits; and grant such other and further or alternative relief (legal and equitable) to which Pohl may be entitled | 10/18/2021 5:07 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 58297712 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 10/18/2021 5:07 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS–COUNTER DEFENDANTS MICHAEL POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC’S VERIFIED ORIGINAL ANSWERl AND SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS Plaintiffs–Counter Defendants MichMael Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (collectively “Pohl”), file this Verified Original Answer and Special Exceptions to Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm’s Fourth Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim, and Designation of Responsible Third Parties, filed October 13, 2021 (the “Counterclaim”), and would show as follows: I. Verified Denials Pursuant tco Rules 93(1) and 93(2) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Pohl denies that Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (collectively “Kassab”) has legal capacity to sue or recover in the capacity in which he sued. Kassab purports to assert barratry claims assigned to him by his clients. Such assignments of barratry claims (whether complete or partial) are void, and Kassab both lacks legal capacity to sue and to recover. Pohl’s Verification is attached as Exhibit A. II. Answer Pursuant to Rule 92, Pohl generally denies each and every, all and singular, of the allegations made in Kassab’s Counterclaim, and demands strict proof thereof. Pohl hereby pleads the following affirmative defenses: k i. Statute of limitations; l ii. L… |
| 17 | 2021-07-26 | RSP | Pohl | Pohl’s response to Kassab MSJ | Pohl's Response in Opposition to Kassab's Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment, addressing all three grounds (limitations, res judicata, attorney immunity) | Response brief filed in Phase 2 opposing Kassab's dispositive Traditional MSJ. Pohl argues Kassab's motion recycles the same arguments and limited evidence from the TCPA motion and interlocutory appeal, and was filed prior to responding to any discovery. Filed July 26, 2021, approximately 7 weeks after Kassab's MSJ. | MSJ-1 | N/A | Phase 2 | 2021-07-26_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-Traditional-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Deny Kassab's Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment in all respects | 7/26/2021 2:51 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 55701585 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 7/26/2021 2:51 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, PC’S TRADITIONAL MOTION FOlR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law OfMfice of Michael A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) respond in opposition to the Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C., d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (collectively “Kassab”). Kassab’s Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”), which Kassab filed prior to responding to any discovery, relies on the same arguments and (very limited) evidence previously presented to this Court and the First Court of Appeals in Kassab’s motion under the TCPA.c Kassab’s arguments were not persuasive then, nor is his recycled assertion of them persuasive now. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Pohl is a lawyer who represented various persons and entities in claims arising from motor vehicle accidents and the British Petroleum Deepwater Horizon oil spill.1 Pohl engaged Precision 1 Sworn Declaration of Michael A. Pohl (the “Pohl Declaration”) ¶ 3, attached as Exhibit A. Marketing Group, LLC (“Precision”) to provide public relations services, to gather and preserve evidence, and to screen and liaise with Pohl’s clients and prospective clients.2 While working for Pohl, Precision naturally gained access to Pohl’s confidential and proprietary informat… |
| 15 | 2018-12-26 | RSP | Pohl | Pohl’s response to supp. TCPA motion | Pohl's combined notice of mandatory stay, response in opposition to motion for leave to file late TCPA motion, and response in opposition to Favre/Precision's TCPA Motion to Dismiss | Filed December 26, 2018 in Cause No. 2018-58419, 189th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. Filed after Kassab's TCPA motion was denied by operation of law and Kassab noticed an interlocutory appeal on December 18, 2018. Pohl argues a mandatory stay bars consideration of the Favre/Precision TCPA motion. This response addresses both the timeliness of the Favre/Precision motion (filed after the 60-day TCPA deadline) and the merits of the TCPA dismissal arguments. | TCPA-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-12-26_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Supp-MTD-TCPA_FILED.pdf | Deny the Motion for Leave to file late TCPA motion; deny the Motion to Dismiss as untimely and on the merits; deny attorney's fees | 12/26/2018 11:52 AM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 29957412 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 12/26/2018 11:52 AM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § D LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS MICHAEL POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. POHL’S NOTICE OF MANDATORY STAY OF ALL PROCEEDINGS, RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVEl TO FILE MOTION TO DISMISS, AND RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO aDEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl (collectively, “Pohl”) provide this notice that all proceedings are staeyed, respond in opposition to the Motion for Leave to File a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defenfdants Scott Favre (“Mr. Favre”), Scott M. Favre Public Adjuster, LLC (“Favre”), and Precisioyn Marketing Group, LLC (“Precision”) (collectively, “Defendants”), and respond in oppositCion to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”). In light of the filing of an interlocutory appeal, this case is currently subject to a mandatory stay, precludinfgf the Court’s consideration of the Motion. In addition, the Motion was not timely filed andU should be denied for that reason. Finally, the Motion purports to find its basis in the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 27.001 et. seq. (“TCPA”), but the TCPA does not apply to Pohl’s claims, and even if it did, the Motion would fail. THIS CASE IS SUBJECT TO A MANDATORY STAY OF ALL PROCEEDINGS Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”) moved to dismiss the claims agai… |
| 14 | 2018-11-30 | AP | Pohl | Pohl’s 1st Amended Petition | Pohl's First Amended Petition asserting four causes of action (breach of contract, conversion, TUTSA violations, civil conspiracy) against all defendants | Filed November 30, 2018 in Cause No. 2018-58419, 189th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. Amended pleading filed approximately three months after the original petition (August 28, 2018). Filed during the pendency of Kassab's TCPA motion to dismiss. Adds detail to factual allegations and refines causes of action. This is the operative petition in Phase 1. Jury trial demanded. | PLEAD-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-11-30_AP_Pohl-1st-Amended-Petition_FILED.pdf | Judgment against all defendants; actual damages within jurisdictional limits; injunctive relief under § 134A.003; exemplary damages under §§ 41.001 et seq. and 134A.004(b); attorney's fees under §§ 38.001 et seq. and 134A.005; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; trial by jury | 11/30/2018 9:45 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 29415016 By: ARIONNE MCNEAL Filed: 11/30/2018 9:45 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS MICHAEL POHL AND LAW OyFFICE OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC’S FIRST AMENDiED PETITION fSUMMARY 1. Plaintiffs Michael Pcohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (sometimes collectively “Pohl”) sue DefendOants Scott Favre and Scott M. Favre PA, LLC (collectively “Favre”); Precision Marketing Groupp, LLC (“Precision”); Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firm (collectively “Kassab”); Tina Nicholson and Baker Nicholson, LLP Di/B/A Baker Nicholson Law Firm (collectively “Nicholson”); and F. Douglas Montague III oand Montague Pittman & Varnado, P.A. (collectively “Montague”). Favre, Precision, Kassab, Nicholson, and Montague are collectively called “Defendants.” 2. Defendants engaged in a scheme pursuant to which they illegally obtained, maintained, and used trade secrets and other confidential information and property belonging to Pohl. Favre and Precision’s actions are in breach of a settlement agreement to which Pohl, Favre, and Precision are parties, and all Defendants’ actions constitute the torts of conversion and violations of the uniform trade secrets act, as well as conspiracy. 3. More specifically, Favre and Precision executed a settlement agreement with Pohl pursuant to which they agreed to return to Pohl certain information in their andk their counsel’s possession, custody, or control; to permanently delete such electr… |
| 9 | 2018-11-01 | RSP | Pohl | Pohl’s response opposing TCPA MTD | Pohl's Response in Opposition to Kassab's TCPA Motion to Dismiss | Filed November 1, 2018 in response to Kassab's October 24, 2018 TCPA Motion to Dismiss. Pohl opposes dismissal on three grounds: (1) the TCPA does not apply to his claims, (2) even if it did, the commercial speech exception bars application, and (3) Pohl has established a prima facie case. Includes alternative motion for continuance and discovery. Filed in Cause No. 2018-58419, 189th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. | TCPA-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-11-01_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-MTD-TCPA_FILED.pdf | Deny the TCPA Motion to Dismiss in all respects; award Pohl costs and fees of $33,352; alternatively, grant continuance and permit discovery under §§ 27.004(c) and 27.006(b) | 11/1/2018 7:18 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 28744115 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 11/1/2018 7:18 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS MICHAEL POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. POHL’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS CITlIZENS PARTICIPATION ACT Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law OfMfices of Michael A. Pohl (collectively, “Pohl”) respond in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C., d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (collectively, “Kassab”). Kassab’s Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) purports to find its basis in the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act, TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODEo § 27.001 et. seq. (“TCPA”), but as set forth below the TCPA does not apply to Pohl’s claims, and even if it did, the Motion would fail. c I. INTRODUCTION Kassab paid $250,000 to obtain the stolen names, addresses, and in some instances actual client files of Pohl’s former clients and potential clients so that Kassab could solicit those clients to assert barratry claims. Kassab attempted to disguise the purchase as the engagement of a putative “expert witness,” whom he agreed to indemnify in the event that Pohl asserted claims for the theft. Now that Pohl has asserted the anticipated claims, Kassab asks the Court to hold that his actions and communications in purchasing and using the stolen materials are protected by the TCPA. Despite having advocated directly inconsistent positions regarding the kTCPA in other litigati… |
| 3 | 2018-10-15 | AFF | Pohl | Pohl’s affidavit in support of claims | Affidavit of Michael Pohl filed as Exhibit 24, sworn June 19, 2018 in Montgomery County, Texas, in response to Kassab's State Bar grievance (File No. 201801825), providing Pohl's version of facts regarding his relationship with PR Consultants and denying barratry allegations | Sworn affidavit prepared by Pohl in the State Bar of Texas grievance proceeding (No. 201801825, Kassab as Complainant, Pohl as Respondent), later filed in the Pohl v. Kassab litigation as Exhibit 24 in connection with TCPA proceedings. Sworn June 19, 2018. | TCPA-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-10-15_AFF_Pohl-Affidavit_FILED.pdf | EXHIBIT 24 Ne oe SS Iw se & @ Ke) & & © 2G S S& ¢ NO. 201801825 LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, § STATE BAR OF TEXAS Complainant. § § MIKE A. POHL, § Respondent. § GRIEVANCE : COMPLAINT NS AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL POHL G Rey THE STATE OF TEXAS § ~S COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY § ; & BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared ) Michael Pohl, who upon being duly sworn, deposes says: SN 1. My name is Michael Pohl. I am eighteen years old and am fully capable of making this affidavit. I have pergonal knowledge of the facts addressed SN herein except as otherwise specifically eo and they are true and correct. 2. Iam a lawyer. My law Geta was at all times material to the allegations herein called the Law Office, ‘Gf Michael A. Pohl (sometimes referred to as eS “LOMAP”). & 3. I was introduced to Scott Walker (“Walker”) and Robbie Maxwell, the © | principals of Maxwell W alker Consulting Group, LLC (“Maxwell-Walker”), as well as Terry Robinsoi, and Steve Seymour (“Seymour”) in April 2012. I was introduced SS to Kirk Lady Laine’ approximately six to eight weeks later. These parties all held theiasdlves out to me as professional, experienced marketing consultants who had prior experience providing marketing and client-relations services on behalf of lawyers and law firms generally and in connection with claims asserted against British Petroleum arising from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (“BP claims”) in particular. Robinson’s father-in-law, who Pohl was informed by Walker, Robinson and Seymour was a prominent local attorney who advised their group, met with Pohl on one occasion to discuss the services to be provided. 4. I initially contracted with Maxwell-Walker for it to prove exclusive © public-relations and client-liaison services in connection with existing and potential BP claims by signing what was represented by Walker tobe Maxwell-Walker’s customary services agreement. I was informed that Magiwell-Walker had retained Mississippi attorneys to advise it and confirm that its agreement with me as well a… | |
| 1 | 2018-08-28 | OP | Pohl | Original Petition — breach of settlement, conversion, TUTSA, conspiracy | Plaintiffs' Original Petition asserting breach of settlement agreement, conversion, TUTSA trade secret misappropriation, and civil conspiracy against multiple defendants | Initial filing commencing the lawsuit. Pohl and his law firm sue Favre, Precision, Kassab, Nicholson, and Montague for conduct arising from alleged theft and misuse of confidential client information and trade secrets. Filed August 28, 2018, assigned to the 189th District Court of Harris County, Texas, Cause No. 2018-58419. | PLEAD-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-08-28_OP_Pohl-Original-Petition_FILED.pdf | Judgment in Pohl's favor against all Defendants on all counts; actual damages within jurisdictional limits; injunctive relief under TUTSA § 134A.003; exemplary damages under §§ 41.001 et seq. and 134A.004(b); attorney's fees under §§ 38.001 et seq. and 134A.005; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; trial by jury; and all other legal and equitable relief to which Pohl may be entitled | 8/28/2018 5:05 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 27116535 - . By: Walter Eldrid 2018-58419 / Court: 189 ried ate at Cause No. MICHAEL POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § Plaintiff, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § § NG LANCE KASSAB, et al § © Defendants. § JUDICIAE DISTRICT a, PLAINTIFFS MICHAEL POHL’S AND LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC’S ORIGINAL PETITION © SUMMARY” Y 1. Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Ome of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (sometimes 8 collectively “Pohl”) sue Defendants Scott Favre and cott M. Favre PA, LLC (collectively “Favre”); Precision Marketing Group, LLC crisis Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher © Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab ae (collectively “Kassab”); Tina Nicholson and Baker Nicholson, LLP D/B/A Baker Nso Law Firm (collectively “Nicholson”); and F. Douglas Montague III and Montague ear & Varnado, P.A. (collectively “Montague’”). Favre, Precision, Kassab, Nicholson, and Montague are collectively called “Defendants.” 2. Defendait engaged in a scheme pursuant to which they illegally obtained, 2~O maintained, and asd trade secrets and other confidential information and property belonging to Pohl. Favre'sand Precision’s actions are in breach of a settlement agreement to which Pohl, Favre, and Precision are parties, and all Defendants’ actions constitute the torts of conversion and violations of the uniform trade secrets act, as well as conspiracy. 3. More specifically, Favre and Precision executed a settlement agreement with Pohl pursuant to which they agreed to return to Pohl certain information in their and their counsel’s possession, custody, or control; to permanently delete such electronically-stored information; and not to cause any claim to be made or filed against Pohl. Favre and Precision also warranted that they had not caused any suit or action to be filed against Pohl. At the time, Ene and Precision had possession, custody, or control of all such information that they had previously provided to S Kassab and/or Montague because Favre’s and Preci… |
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
);