Court Filings
Data license: Public court records
22 rows where phase = "Phase 3" sorted by date descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: date, chain, relief_requested, date (date)
phase 1
- Phase 3 · 22 ✖
| filing_id | date ▲ | doc_type | party | description | doc_type_detail | procedural_posture | chain | outcome | phase | filename | relief_requested | full_text |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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… |
| 45 | 2022-11-22 | MTN | Kassab | 2nd Supp. Motion to Designate RTP | Kassab Defendants' Second Supplemental Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties (Adding Scott Favre and Precision Marketing Group, LLC) | Filed November 22, 2022 before Judge Scot Dollinger, 189th Judicial District, Harris County, Texas. Filed 13 days before the December 5, 2022 trial date, after Pohl dismissed Favre and Precision as defendants on November 21, 2022. Kassab seeks good cause to designate newly dismissed parties as responsible third parties within 60 days of trial. | RTP-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-11-22_MTN_Kassab-2nd-Supp-Mtn-to-Designate-RTP_FILED.pdf | Grant leave to designate Favre and Precision Marketing Group, LLC as additional responsible third parties, in addition to the eight individuals from prior supplemental motion, plus all other relief in law or equity | 11/22/2022 3:51 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 70416484 By: Ashley Lopez Filed: 11/22/2022 3:51 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIAkL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS, LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LAlNCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. D/B/A THE KASSAB LAW FIRM’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DESIGNATE RcESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTIES r TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT DOLLINGER: D Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Chsristopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”), and file this, their Secornd Supplemental Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties. REQUEaSTED RELIEF 1. Kassab files this Second Supplemental Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties to add Scott Favre (Favre) aned Precision Marketing Group, LLC (Precision) as additional third parties. Favre and Precisionf were defendants in this lawsuit until Plaintiffs dismissed them on November 21, 2022, jusyt 14 days prior to trail. Thus, Favre and Precision are no longer parties to this suit. ThCus, there is good cause for designating Favre and Precision as responsible Third Parties withina 60 days of trial due to the timing of Plaintiffs nonsuit of these parties. 2. Ffavre and Precision are central to this litigation as they purchased all of the material Uand documents, which are the subject of Plaintiffs’ complaints, from Walker, Ladner and Seymour, who previously owned Precision. Favre and Precision then gave some of the material and documents to Kassab to notify Precision’s clients regarding Pohl’s illegal conduct and potential claims they may have against Pohl. Thus, Favre and Pohl are central to this litigation and are subject to potential third party liability, if there is liability at all. 3. Favre and Precision are outside of the subpoena power of this court. Although Kassab has attempted to depose Favre and Precision for more than a year, Kassab has been unsuccessful due to no fault of Kassab. Now that Plaintiffs have … |
| 44 | 2022-11-15 | MTN | Kassab | 1st Supp. Motion to Designate RTP | Kassab Defendants' Supplemental Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties (Shepherd, Walker, Seymour, Ladner, Dona Pohl, Jaimes, Talley, Santana) | Filed November 15, 2022 before Judge Scot Dollinger, 189th Judicial District, Harris County, Texas. Kassab's original RTP motion was filed May 13, 2022 (more than 60 days before the October 10, 2022 trial setting). Pohl objected May 30, 2022. Court denied the original motion on October 31, 2022 but gave Kassab an opportunity to replead. Trial reset to December 5, 2022. | RTP-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-11-15_MTN_Kassab-Supp-Mtn-to-Designate-RTP_FILED.pdf | Grant the Kassab Defendants' Amended Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties (George W. (Billy) Shepherd, Scott Walker, Steve Seymour, Kirk Ladner, Dona Pohl, Edgar Jaimes, Ken Talley, Magdalena Santana) and grant all other relief in law or equity | 11/15/2022 1:31 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 70189306 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 11/15/2022 1:31 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIAkL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS, LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LAlNCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. D/B/A THE KASSAB LAW FIRM’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DESIGNATE RESPONSIBLEc THIRD PARTIES TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT DOLLINGER: s Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”), and file this, their Amended Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties. REQUESTElD RELIEF 1. Kassab seeks to designate GMeorge W. (Billy) Shepherd (Shepherd), Scott Walker (Walker), Steve Seymour (Seymour) oand Kirk Ladner (Ladner), Dona Pohl (Dona), Edgar Jaimes (Jaimes), Ken Talley (Talley), Magdalena Santana (Santana) as responsible third parties in this litigation. Shepherd, Walker, Seymour, Ladner, Dona, Jaimes, Talley and Santana are all persons who are alleged to have caused or contributed to causing in any way the harm for which recovery of damages by Pohl is sought. Thus, they are all responsible third parties in this cause. TEX. CIV. PRAC. &c REM. CODE § 33.011(6). U FACTS 2. Pohl is a lawyer who commits barratry and has prayed on the less fortunate to earn a living. On October 18, 2014, three Mississippi residents, Scott Walker (“Walker”), Kirk Ladner (“Ladner”) and Steve Seymour (“Seymour”), and their related entities, including Precision Marketing Group, LLC (“Precision”), filed suit against Michael Pohl (“Pohl”) and others in Mississippi federal court (the “Mississippi Litigation”). There, Precision, Walker, Ladner and Seymour alleged that: (1) they had a joint venture with Pohl to sign up clients with economic loss claims stemming from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill and clients with personal injury claims; (2) that they successfully obtained these clients for Pohkl; and (3) that Pohl breached their agreement by … |
| 43 | 2022-11-14 | OA | Kassab | 8th Amended Answer (final) | Kassab Defendants' Eighth Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim (Final Pre-Trial Pleading) | Filed November 14, 2022 in Cause No. 2018-58419, 189th Judicial District, Harris County, Texas. This is Kassab's final amended answer asserting 23 affirmative defenses, responsible third-party designations (8 individuals), and a counterclaim for civil barratry based on assigned claims from 242 claimants. Filed approximately three weeks before the December 5, 2022 trial setting, after all four MSJs were denied on October 31, 2022. | PLEAD-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-11-14_OA_Kassab-8th-Amended-Answer-CC_FILED.pdf | That Pohl recover nothing on his claims; that Kassab recover on counterclaims including (i) actual and consequential damages, (ii) statutory damages, (iii) pre- and post-judgment interest, (iv) attorneys' fees and costs, and (v) all other appropriate relief | 11/14/2022 3:25 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 70152760 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 11/14/2022 3:25 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIArL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS, LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AtND LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. D/B/A THE KASSAB LAWi FIRM’S EIGHTH AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ANsD COUNTERCLAIM TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm and files this their Eighth Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim, and would respectfully show the Court as follows; a f I RULE 47 STATEMENT 1. The Kassab Deffendants, in their capacity as Counter-Plaintiffs, seek monetary relief of more than $1,000,000.00. C II l PARTIES 2. Plaiintiff, Michael A. Pohl is an individual lawyer residing in Colorado and is a paroty herein. 3. Plaintiff, Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl is a law firm set up for the practice of law in various states of the union, including Texas and is a party herein. 4. Defendant, Scott Favre is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi and is a party herein. 5. Defendant, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi and is a party herein. 6. Defendant, Precision Marketing Group, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi and is a party herein. k 7. Defendant, F. Douglas Montague III is a nonresident iCndividual residing in Mississippi. 8. Defendant, Montague, Pittman & Varnadoi, PA is a nonresident professional association located in Mississippi. 9. Defendant, Tina Nicholson is an individual residing in Texas and is a party herein. 10. Defendant, Baker Nicholson, lLLP, d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm is a limited liability partnership located inM Texas and is a party herein. 11. Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Lance Christopher Kassab is an individual residing in Texas anid is a … |
| 42 | 2022-10-31 | ORD | Court | Order: FOUR MSJs DENIED | Order Denying All Four Motions for Summary Judgment (Kassab Traditional MSJ, Kassab No-Evidence MSJ, Nicholson Amended Traditional MSJ, and Nicholson/Kassab TUTSA Preemption MSJ) | Court order signed October 31, 2022 by Judge Scot Dollinger and filed November 2, 2022, denying all four pending motions for summary judgment in a single order with no stated reasoning. | MSJ-2 | DENIED | Phase 3 | 2022-10-31_ORD_Denying-Kassab-Trad-and-No-Evid-MSJ_SIGNED.pdf | Filed 22 November 02 A10:22 Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Pgs-1 CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MFSJY POHL, MICHAEL, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff(s) § S VS. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS S FAVRE, SCOTT, § 189th JUDICIAL DISTRICT Defendant(s) § “ ORDER & SS Pending is THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ _ TRADITIONAL xipnion FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed August 29, 2022. & Motion DENIED. @ GP Pending is THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ NO-EYOENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed August 29, 2022. SS Motion DENIED. Pending is DEFENDANTS TINA NICHOL ( snp BAKER NICHOLSON, LLP D/B/A BAKER NICHOLSON LAW FIRM’S AMENDED TRAD AL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed August 29, 2022. ws Motion DENIED. © ® Pending is NICHOLSON b NDANTS AND KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ TRADITIONAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDG, TON TUTSA PREEMPTION filed August 2, 2022. Motion DENIED. -=\ ow Signed October 31, 2022. . It Hulda & Ae) Hon. SCOT DOLLINGER & Judge, 189th District Court & | |
| 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. … |
| 40 | 2022-09-19 | OBJ | Kassab | Objection to Pohl’s MSJ evidence | Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Evidence — joint filing by Kassab and Nicholson Defendants challenging admissibility of Pohl's summary judgment evidence including the Pohl Declaration (paragraphs 4, 6, 10-18, 20-32) and numerous exhibits, with additional deposition testimony offered under Rule 107 | Evidentiary objections filed September 19, 2022 at 8:16 AM by Kassab and Nicholson defendants jointly, on the morning of the summary judgment hearing. Challenges admissibility of Pohl's September 12, 2022 declaration and exhibits attached to both the traditional and no-evidence MSJ responses. Attaches complete depositions of Ladner, Seymour, and Walker under Rule 107. Addressed to Judge Scot 'Dolli' Dollinger. | MSJ-3 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-09-19_OBJ_Kassab-Objection-to-Pohl-MSJ-Evidence_FILED.pdf | Sustain all objections, strike objectionable portions of Pohl Declaration and exhibits, and grant summary judgment for Kassab and Nicholson defendants | 9/19/2022 8:16 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 68367189 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 9/19/2022 8:16 AM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIALk DISTRICT DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO C PLAINTIFFS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT “DOLLI” DOLLINGEtR: Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm (“the Kassab Defendeants”) and Tina Nicholson and Baker Nicholson, LLP (“Nicholson”) (both sets ouf Defendants collectively referred to as “Defendants”) file this, their Objections to Plaintiffs’ Summary Judgment Evidence, and would respectfully show athe following. OBJECTIONS TO POHL’S EVIDENCE IN RESPONSE TO TRADITIONAL MSJ Plaintiffs Michael A. Pohel and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (“Pohl”) attached to his summary judfgment responses as Exhibit A a declaration from Pohl dated September 12, 2022 with exhibits (“Pohl Declaration”). Defendants object to the following statements or paragraphs in the Pohl Declaration for the following reasons: i Paoragraph/Statement Objection/Basis ¶ 4 – “During the period that I Conclusory. Unsupported by factual or maintained office space in Mississippi, I legal basis. shared that space only with contractors and employees whom I employed full time and were treated for privilege and confidentiality purposes as functional employees of my law firm. ¶ 6 – “I was informed that Maxwell- Hearsay. Walker had retained Mississippi attorneys to advise it and confirm that its agreement with me as well as the public relations and marketing services it was anticipated to provide under the agreement were in compliance with Mississippi law.” e ¶ 10 – “Precision represented to me that Conclusory. Hearstay. Vague and their independent attorney or attorneys ambiguous as to whio at “Precision” made had reviewed and approved each of the alleged represtentations so this contracts I signed with them. In fact, inter… |
| 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… |
| 37 | 2022-09-15 | DECL | D. Kassab | David Kassab’s declaration | Declaration of David Eric Kassab in Support of Kassab Defendants' Summary Judgment Motions and Discovery Objections — sworn declaration under penalty of perjury providing factual basis for discovery burden objections and documenting the voluminous materials received from Pohl in the Barratry Litigation | Evidentiary declaration filed September 15, 2022 in support of Kassab defendants' traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment. Provides factual basis for discovery burden objections by documenting the categories and volume of documents received from Pohl in the Barratry Litigation. | MSJ-2 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-09-15_DECL_David-Kassab-Declaration_FILED.pdf | E 4 H I . Zo : J , S , S | CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § § V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ae SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th SUDIGIAL DISTRICT DECLARATION OF DAVID ERIC KASSAB - 1. My name is David Eric Kassab. My date of birth Oetober 20, 1982. My business address is 1214 Elgin Street, Houses) Texas 77004. I declare under penalty of perjury that the statements of fact made herein are within my personal knowledge and true and correct. 2. Jaman attorney licensed to practice Law the State of Texas. I have been licensed to practice law by the State of Texas since 2010 and I am in good standing. & SS 3. Iam an attorney at Lance Chriesfphier Kassab, PC d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (“the Firm”). In thie suit I represent the Firm and its owner, my uncle and law part , Lance Kassab. 4. J was an attorney for the plaintiff in the following litigation (and any related appeals): (1) Catige No. 2017-38294, Dezzie Brumfield, et al. v. Jimmy iiamson ea , in the 189 Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas (“th umfield case”) (2) Cause No. 459,062-401, Alice Marie Gandy, et alyv. Jimmy Williamson, et al., In the Probate Court No. 2 of taco Texas (“the Gandy case”), (3) Cause No. 2017- 37567, Mae (Bey y, et al. v. Michael Pohl, et al., in the 113 Judicial District Cour (the “Berry case”). I am also currently counsel for plaintiffs in” Cause No. 2017-41110, Mark Cheatham, et al. v. Michael A. Po ee al., in the 55th Judicial District Court, Harris County Texas, and ignthe related appeal (“the Cheatham case’). I will refer to these & collectively as “the Barratry Litigation.” 5. The Berry case was filed on or about June 5, 2017, and ultimately included seven plaintiffs that were alleged to have been solicited by Precision Marketing Group (“Precision”) to hire Michael A. Pohl and his firm (“Pohl”) to pursue auto accident claims. The Cheatham case was filed on June 20, 2017, and ultimately included four plaintiffs who were alleged to have been solicited by Precision to hire Pohl to pursue… | |
| 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… |
| 33 | 2022-09-12 | DECL | Kassab | Lance Kassab’s declaration | Declaration of Lance Christopher Kassab in support of Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Pohl's MSJ — sworn testimony under penalty of perjury establishing Kassab's professional background, the joint venture with Montague and Nicholson, the source of client information from Precision Marketing, the four barratry lawsuits and their outcomes, and assertion of work product and attorney-client privilege over communications | Phase 3 evidentiary filing supporting Kassab's MSJ (Filing #30) and his Response to Pohl's No-Evidence MSJ (Filing #34). This is a sworn declaration under penalty of perjury providing foundational facts for Kassab's immunity and justification defenses. Filed September 12, 2022. | MSJ-2 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-09-12_DECL_Lance-Kassab-Declaration_FILED.pdf | 9/12/2022 3:28:03 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No: 68168171 By: LOPEZ, ASHLEY V Filed: 9/12/2022 3:28:03 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § § V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ae SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th SUDIGIAL DISTRICT DECLARATION OF LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB 1. My name is Lance Christopher Kassab. My date of. ~ is March 12, 1961. My business address is 1214 Elgin Street, H on, Texas 77004. I am of sound mind and have never been conWicted of a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude anda erwise competent to make this declaration. I declare under pe y of perjury that the statements of fact made herein are within personal knowledge and true and correct. 6) 2. Iam an attorney licensed to practice:iaie in the State of Texas. I have been licensed to practice law by theState of Texas since 1995 and I am in good standing. I graduated a a school with honors and was editor-in-chief of Law Review also licensed to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States District Court of Texas, Southern, Eastern and Western Dagens. I was formerly a Briefing Attorney for the First Judicial Disc ourt of Appeals in Houston, Texas and Iam a former intern for Texas Supreme Court and the First Judicial District Court of Appeals. pp ©) 3. For more thaw twenty-five (25) years I have been in private practice handling complex legal malpractice cases. I have been involved in and/or handled appvoximately 2,300 legal malpractice cases and have been alee numerous appeals regarding numerous legal malpractice issues Th e vast majority of these cases have been on the Plaintiff's side. Ho I have also handled the defense of legal malpractice cases. I have. andled cases for clients all over Texas and in numerous other states within the Union such as California, Utah, Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, Arkansas, Colorado, Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida and Mississippi. 4. I am the owner of Lance Christopher K… | |
| 34 | 2022-09-12 | RSP | Kassab | Kassab’s response to Pohl no-evid MSJ | Kassab's Response to Pohl's Motion for Partial Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment on Affirmative Defenses — opposes Pohl's attempt to eliminate Kassab's affirmative defenses of justification, unclean hands, illegality, unlawful acts, criminal acts, and in pari delicto, and challenges Pohl's global no-evidence motion as procedurally defective under Timpte Industries v. Gish | Phase 3 response brief filed September 12, 2022 (same day as Kassab's declaration, Filing #33). Responds to Pohl's motion seeking to eliminate Kassab's key affirmative defenses before trial. Incorporates by reference Kassab's own MSJs (June 8, 2021 and August 29, 2022, i.e. Filing #30), the Nicholson MSJ (August 19, 2022), and Nicholson's response to Pohl's motion (September 12, 2022). Addressed to Judge Scot 'Dolli' Dollinger. | MSJ-3 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-09-12_RSP_Kassab-Response-to-Pohl-No-Evid-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Deny Pohl's Motion for Partial Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment on Affirmative Defenses; alternatively, grant continuance under Rule 166a(g) to allow completion of discovery on illegality defense; grant summary judgment against Plaintiffs ordering they take nothing on their claims against Kassab | 9/12/2022 6:16 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 68179652 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 9/12/2022 6:16 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIALk DISTRICT THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFSC’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL TRADITIONAL AND NO-EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT “DOLLI” DOLLINGEtR: Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”) file this, theeir Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Traditional and No-Evidence Suummary Judgment on Affirmative Defenses,1 and would respectfully show the following. INTRaODUCTION Pohl2 committed illegal and unethical barratry and he wants Kassab, who brought the barratry litigation aend grievances against Pohl on behalf of more than four hundred (400) of Pohl’fs illegally solicited clients, to pay for Pohl’s barratry defense costs. But Pohl’s claims are barred for several reasons, including based on several affirmative defenses. Pohl has filed the instant Motion, seeking partial traditional summiary judgment on the affirmative defenses of justification, unclean hands, illegoality, and unlawful acts. However, Pohl has not negated those defenses as a matter of law. As to the other defenses, Pohl attempts to dispose of them through a global and conclusory no-evidence challenge, which is insufficient. 1 The self-serving title of the pleading is “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.” 2 This refers collectively to Plaintiffs Michael A. Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC. Regardless, Kassab can demonstrate, either here or in incorporated summary judgment briefing, that each of the defenses applicable to him apply, and that evidence supports each of them. Accordingly, the Motion should be in a… |
| 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… |
| 32 | 2022-09-06 | MTA | Kassab | Motion to Abate Trial | Kassab's Motion to Abate Trial Setting pending resolution of the related Cheatham v. Pohl barratry case, which was reversed on appeal August 30, 2022 and remanded for further proceedings | Phase 3 procedural motion filed one week after the Traditional MSJ and Seventh Amended Answer. Kassab argues trial should be abated because the still-pending Cheatham case will determine the full extent of Pohl's alleged damages and may establish Pohl's barratry, which would bar his claims entirely. Addressed to Judge Scot 'Dolli' Dollinger. Counsel for Plaintiffs (Jean Frizzell) opposed. | MTA-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-09-06_MTA_Kassab-Mtn-to-Abate-Trial_FILED.pdf | Abate the trial setting in this case pending the resolution of the Cheatham v. Pohl barratry case | 9/6/2022 8:41 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 67958716 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 9/6/2022 8:41 AM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIALk DISTRICT THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ABATE TRIACL SETTING TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT “DOLLI” DOLLINGER: Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Lance Christopheir Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm files this, Motion to Abate Trial Setting, and would respectfully show the following. BACKGROUND Lance Kassab and his firm were hlired by more than 400 of Michael Pohl’s former clients to sue Pohl and othersM for barratry – the illegal solicitation of clients. Kassab v. Pohl, 612 S.W.3d 571, 575 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. denied). Kassab field four sieparate lawsuits against Pohl, two of which Pohl successfully dismissed on limitations. See Brumfield v. Williamson, 634 S.W.3d 170, 177 (Tex. App.—Houoston [1st Dist.] 2021, pet. denied) and Gandy v. Williamson, 634 S.W.3d 214 (Tlex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2021, pet. denied). Another of the cases settled, iwith Pohl paying a substantial sum of money to Kassab and his clients. The fourth case – the Cheatham case – was dismissed by the trial court but recently reversed by the Houston Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings. See Cheatham v. Pohl, No. 01-20-00046-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 6528, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 30, 2022, no pet. h.). In retaliation, Pohl filed this litigation against Kassab and others, alleging specious claims for conversion and misappropriation of trade secrets.1 Specifically, Pohl alleges that the runners he hired to commit the barratry “gained access to [Pohl’s] confidential and proprietary information and property, inckluding trade secret materials” and “work product” and “illegally misapCpropriated” that information and then allegedly “secretly sold [it] to Kassab”2 who then “solicited clients/prospective clients… |
| 30 | 2022-08-29 | MSJ | Kassab | Trad. + No-Evidence MSJ (2nd attempt) | Kassab's Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment — comprehensive 80+ page dispositive motion raising seven independent grounds for dismissal: Rule 17.09 immunity, judicial proceedings privilege, attorney immunity, limitations, conclusive negation of TUTSA (no secrecy and no ownership), illegal acts bar, and improper damages (American Rule) | Phase 3 dispositive motion filed alongside the Seventh Amended Answer. This is Kassab's second MSJ attempt, substantially more detailed than the first. It adopts and incorporates the Nicholson Motion filed August 19, 2022, and presents extensive evidentiary support including 60+ exhibits (depositions, declarations, contracts, financial records, correspondence). Addressed to Judge Scot 'Dolli' Dollinger. | MSJ-2 | DENIED | Phase 3 | 2022-08-29_MSJ_Kassab-Trad-and-No-Evid-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Grant traditional summary judgment dismissing all of Pohl's claims against Kassab; order that Pohl take nothing | 8/29/2022 5:07 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 67771690 By: Ashley Lopez Filed: 8/29/2022 5:07 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIALk DISTRICT THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ TRADITIONACL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT “DOLLI” DOLLINGEtR: Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm file this, their Traeditional Motion for Summary Judgment, and would respectfully show the follouwing. SUMMARY Pohl committed illegal and uneathical barratry and he wants Kassab, who brought the barratry litigation and grievances against Pohl, to pay for Pohl’s barratry defense costs. But Pohel’s claims against Kassab are barred as a matter of law because: f • Pohl’s claims are predicated on Kassab’s filing of a grievance against Pohl for whicoh Kassab has absolute and unqualified immunity pursuant to Rule 17.09 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. • Pohl’s claiims against Kassab are barred by the judicial proceedings privilegie because they arise out of communications that Kassab made in proospective (solicitation letters) and actual judicial proceedings (the barratry litigation and grievance process) and Pohl seeks defamation- like damages including loss of reputation to his law firm and defense costs incurred because of the statements that Kassab made. • Pohl’s claims against Kassab are barred by attorney immunity. Under the doctrine of attorney immunity, an attorney does not have a right of recovery, under any cause of action, against another attorney arising from conduct the second attorney engaged in as part of the discharge of his duties in representing a party. • Pohl’s claims are barred by limitations because they accrued in 2014 and Pohl did not file suit until more than three years later. • Pohl’s claims are conclusively negated. Pohl’s TUTSA claim is conclusively negated because his alleged trade secrets weere not ac… |
| 31 | 2022-08-29 | OA | Kassab | 7th Amended Answer | Kassab's Seventh Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim — adds Judicial Immunity (#16) and Immunity under Rule 17.09 (#17) as new affirmative defenses, expands Illegality to include 'Unlawful Acts Rule' (#13), bringing total to 23 defenses. Filed same day as Traditional MSJ. | Phase 3 amended pleading superseding the Sixth Amended Answer, filed the same day as the Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing #30). Expands affirmative defenses from 21 to 23, adding Judicial Immunity (#16), Rule 17.09 disciplinary immunity (#17), and expanding #13 to include the Unlawful Acts Rule. This becomes the live answer going into the MSJ hearing. | PLEAD-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-08-29_OA_Kassab-7th-Amended-Answer-CC_FILED.pdf | That Pohl recover nothing; that Kassab recover (i) actual and consequential damages, (ii) statutory damages, (iii) pre- and post-judgment interest, (iv) attorneys' fees and costs, and (v) all other just relief | 8/29/2022 4:43 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 67770941 By: Ashley Lopez Filed: 8/29/2022 4:43 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIArL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS, LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AtND LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. D/B/A THE KASSAB LAWi FIRM’S SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ANsD COUNTERCLAIM TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm and files this their Seventh Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim, and would respectfully show the Court as follows; a f I RULE 47 STATEMENT 1. The Kassab Deffendants, in their capacity as Counter-Plaintiffs, seek monetary relief of more than $1,000,000.00. C II l PARTIES 2. Plaiintiff, Michael A. Pohl is an individual lawyer residing in Colorado and is a paroty herein. 3. Plaintiff, Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl is a law firm set up for the practice of law in various states of the union, including Texas and is a party herein. 4. Defendant, Scott Favre is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi and is a party herein. 5. Defendant, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi and is a party herein. 6. Defendant, Precision Marketing Group, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi and is a party herein. k 7. Defendant, F. Douglas Montague III is a nonresident iCndividual residing in Mississippi. 8. Defendant, Montague, Pittman & Varnadoi, PA is a nonresident professional association located in Mississippi. 9. Defendant, Tina Nicholson is an individual residing in Texas and is a party herein. 10. Defendant, Baker Nicholson, lLLP, d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm is a limited liability partnership located inM Texas and is a party herein. 11. Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Lance Christopher Kassab is an individual residing in Texas anid is a pa… |
| 29 | 2022-08-02 | OA | Kassab | 6th Amended Answer | Kassab's Sixth Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim — adds 21st affirmative defense (TUTSA preemption under § 134A.007(a)) and attorney's fees claim for bad faith TUTSA prosecution under § 134A.005; otherwise substantively identical to the Fifth Amended Answer | Phase 3 amended pleading superseding the Fifth Amended Answer. Key additions over Filing #27: (1) new affirmative defense #21 for preemption under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A.007(a), and (2) new section claiming attorney's fees under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A.005 for bad faith TUTSA claims by Pohl. All prior content maintained including 20 affirmative defenses, factual background, and barratry counterclaim. | PLEAD-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-08-02_OA_Kassab-6th-Amended-Answer-CC_FILED.pdf | That Pohl recover nothing; that Kassab recover (i) actual and consequential damages, (ii) statutory damages, (iii) pre- and post-judgment interest, (iv) attorneys' fees and costs, and (v) all other just relief | 8/2/2022 4:00 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 66899970 By: Ashley Lopez Filed: 8/2/2022 4:00 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIrAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS, LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. D/B/A THE KASSAB LAW FIRM’S SIXTH AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNtTERCLAIM TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm and files this their Sixth Armended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim, and would respectfully show the Court as follows; iIl RULE 47a STATEMENT 1. The Kassab Defendantso, in their capacity as Counter-Plaintiffs, seek monetary relief of more than $1,000,000.00. y PARTIES 2. Plaintiff, Michael A. Pohl is an individual lawyer residing in Colorado and is a party herein. c i 3. oPlaintiff, Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl is a law firm set up for the practice of law in various states of the union, including Texas and is a party herein. 4. Defendant, Scott Favre is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi and is a party herein. 5. Defendant, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi and is a party herein. 6. Defendant, Precision Marketing Group, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi and is a party herein. k 7. Defendant, F. Douglas Montague III is a nonresident indilvidual residing in Mississippi. c 8. Defendant, Montague, Pittman & Varnado, PA is sa nonresident professional association located in Mississippi. 9. Defendant, Tina Nicholson is an individual residing in Texas and is a party herein. 10. Defendant, Baker Nicholson, LLP, d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm is a limited liability partnership located in Texas and is a party herein. 11. Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Laance Christopher Kassab is an individual residing in Texas and is a party herein.… |
| 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… |
| 26 | 2022-05-13 | MTN | Kassab | Motion to Designate RTP | Kassab's Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties seeking to add eight non-party individuals to the verdict form for proportionate responsibility allocation | Phase 3 procedural motion filed after counterclaims were dismissed and before trial, seeking to designate eight individuals as responsible third parties under Texas proportionate responsibility statute to reduce potential damages allocation against Kassab. | RTP-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-05-13_MTN_Kassab-Mtn-to-Designate-RTP_FILED.pdf | Designate George W. (Billy) Shepherd, Scott Walker, Steve Seymour, Kirk Ladner, Dona Pohl, Edgar Jaimes, Ken Talley, and Magdalena Santana as responsible third parties for proportionate responsibility allocation, and grant all other relief in law or equity | 5/13/2022 6:22 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 64509093 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 5/13/2022 6:22 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIAkL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LAlNCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. D/B/A THE KASSAB LAW FIRM’S MOTION TO DESIGNATE RESPONSIBLE THIRD PcARTIES TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT DOLLINGER: s Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”), and file this, their Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties. REQUESTED R ELIEF 1. Kassab seeks to designate Georgel W. (Billy) Shepherd (Shepherd), Scott Walker (Walker), Steve Seymour (Seymour) andM Kirk Ladner (Ladner), Dona Pohl (Dona), Edgar Jaimes (Jaimes), Ken Talley (Talley), Moagdalena Santana (Santana) as responsible third parties in this litigation. Shepherd, Walker, Seymour, Ladner, Dona, Jaimes, Talley and Santana are all persons who are alleged to have caused or contributed to causing in any way the harm for which recovery of damages by Pohl is sought. Thus, they are all responsible third parties in this cause. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 33.011(6). c II f FACTS 2.U Pohl is a lawyer who commits barratry and has prayed on the less fortunate to earn a living. On October 18, 2014, three Mississippi residents, Scott Walker (“Walker”), Kirk Ladner (“Ladner”) and Steve Seymour (“Seymour”), and their related entities, including Precision Marketing Group, LLC (“Precision”), filed suit against Michael Pohl (“Pohl”) and others in Mississippi federal court (the “Mississippi Litigation”). There, Precision, Walker, Ladner and Seymour alleged that: (1) they had a joint venture with Pohl to sign up clients with economic loss claims stemming from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill and clients with personal injury claims; (2) that they successfully obtained these clients for Pohl; and (3) that Pohl breached their agreement by not paying them wh… |
| 27 | 2022-05-13 | OA | Kassab | 5th Amended Answer | Kassab's Fifth Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim — live pleading asserting 20 affirmative defenses, general and specific denials, detailed factual background of Pohl's barratry scheme, and counterclaim for civil barratry on behalf of 242 assigned claimants | Phase 3 amended pleading filed simultaneously with the Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties. This is Kassab's fifth iteration of his answer, expanding affirmative defenses and maintaining the barratry counterclaim based on assigned claims from 242 of Pohl's former clients. | PLEAD-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-05-13_OA_Kassab-5th-Amended-Answer-CC_FILED.pdf | That Pohl recover nothing; that Kassab recover (i) actual and consequential damages, (ii) statutory damages, (iii) pre- and post-judgment interest, (iv) attorneys' fees and costs, and (v) all other just relief on counterclaims | 5/13/2022 6:22 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 64509093 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 5/13/2022 6:22 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIrAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS, LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. D/B/A THE KASSAB LAW FIRM’S FIFTH AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNtTERCLAIM TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm and files this their Fifth Armended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim, and would respectfully show the Court as follows; iIl RULE 47a STATEMENT 1. The Kassab Defendantso, in their capacity as Counter-Plaintiffs, seek monetary relief of more than $1,000,000.00. y PARTIES 2. Plaintiff, Michael A. Pohl is an individual lawyer residing in Colorado and is a party herein. c i 3. oPlaintiff, Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl is a law firm set up for the practice of law in various states of the union, including Texas and is a party herein. 4. Defendant, Scott Favre is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi and is a party herein. 5. Defendant, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi and is a party herein. 6. Defendant, Precision Marketing Group, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi and is a party herein. k 7. Defendant, F. Douglas Montague III is a nonresident indilvidual residing in Mississippi. c 8. Defendant, Montague, Pittman & Varnado, PA is sa nonresident professional association located in Mississippi. 9. Defendant, Tina Nicholson is an individual residing in Texas and is a party herein. 10. Defendant, Baker Nicholson, LLP, d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm is a limited liability partnership located in Texas and is a party herein. 11. Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Laance Christopher Kassab is an individual residing in Texas and is a party her… |
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
);