Court Filings
Data license: Public court records
5 rows where party = "Pohl" and phase = "Phase 1" sorted by date descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: chain, date (date)
| filing_id | date ▲ | doc_type | party | description | doc_type_detail | procedural_posture | chain | outcome | phase | filename | relief_requested | full_text |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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
);