Court Filings
Data license: Public court records
10 rows where phase = "Phase 4" sorted by date descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: date, chain, date (date)
phase 1
- Phase 4 · 10 ✖
| filing_id | date ▲ | doc_type | party | description | doc_type_detail | procedural_posture | chain | outcome | phase | filename | relief_requested | full_text |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 56 | 2023-08-14 | ORD | Court | Order: RTP Designation GRANTED | Order Granting Kassab's Motion for Leave to Designate Favre and Precision as Responsible Third Parties | Signed August 14, 2023 by Judge Christine Weems in the 281st Judicial District Court (though header still references 189th District). Grants Kassab's motion (filing #51, filed March 2, 2023) to designate Scott Favre, Scott M. Favre PA, LLC, and Precision Marketing Group, LLC as responsible third parties. | RTP-2 | GRANTED | Phase 4 | 2023-08-14_ORD_Granting-Kassab-Leave-to-Designate-RTP_SIGNED.pdf | 3/2/2023 11:24:31 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No: 73272865 By: HERRINGTON, RACHEL R Filed: 3/2/2023 11:24:31 AM Pgs-1 CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 LD3PX MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th J UDICIAL. DISTRICT eS ORDER ) On this day the Court considered Defendants, Lance Chstopher Kassab and SS Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Motion for Leave to Designate Scott Favre, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC and Pregigion Marketing Group, LLC i) as Responsible Third Parties (“the Motion”). After cots ering the Motion, and having found that Plaintiffs either did not object to (85 designation or finding Plaintiffs’ objection to be without merit, the Court willgeant the Motion. It is therefore, & ORDERED that Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firm’s Motion for Leave to Designate Scott Favre, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC and Pression Marketing Group, LLC as Responsible Third Parties is in all things GRANTED and Scott Favre, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC and Precision Marketing code LLC are designated as responsible third parties in this matter. Re O Ae) Signed & Signed: & 8/14/2023 S Judge Christine Weems | |
| 57 | 2023-08-14 | RSP | Kassab | Response to Pohl Barratry MSJ | Kassab Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Rule 166(g) Motion on Barratry Liability and Specific Affirmative Defenses | Filed August 14, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court, Harris County, Cause No. 2018-58419. Kassab responds to Pohl's Rule 166(g) pretrial motion seeking to exclude evidence of barratry and eliminate ten of Kassab's affirmative defenses. Kassab argues barratry evidence is central to both Pohl's claims and Kassab's defenses, and that Rule 166(g) is procedurally improper for this purpose. | MSJ-3 | N/A | Phase 4 | 2023-08-14_RSP_Kassab-Response-to-Pohl-Partial-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Deny Plaintiffs' Rule 166(g) Motion on Barratry Liability and Specific Affirmative Defenses Asserted by the Kassab Defendants | 8/13/2023 12:21 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 78474030 By: Bonnie Lugo Filed: 8/14/2023 12:00 AM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § k § e SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 281st JUDICCIAL DISTRICT THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S RULE 166(g) tMOTION Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”) files this Reseponse to Plaintiffs’ Michael Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl PLLC’s (“Pohul”) Rule 166(g) Motion on Barratry Liability and Specific Affirmative Defenses Asserted by the Kassab Defendants (“the Motion”), and in support thereof, woulda show the following. SUMMARY Pohl asks the Court to rulee that the issue of whether Pohl committed barratry is irrelevant and should be efxcluded from evidence. Pohl is so concerned about this issue that he has made it the subject of several motions seeking similar relief. But barratry is central not only to Kassab’s defenses; it is central to Pohl’s own claims. As a preliiminary matter, Pohl’s latest motion is procedurally defective. Rule 166(g) is noot intended as a substitute for normal summary judgment practice. Indeed, Pohl previously moved for summary judgment on Kassab’s affirmative defenses, later withdrawing his request to have his summary judgment motion heard. The new Motion improperly tries to backdoor the same relief. More substantively, Pohl’s barratry is relevant to virtually every issue in the case. Take his trade secret claim. He must prove that he is the “rightful, legal, or equitable” owner of the alleged secrets. If Pohl himself obtained the alleged secrets illegally, he cannot enjoy the benefits of the trade secret statute. Moreover, for Pohl to recover his attorneys’ fees on his trade secret claim, he must provek “willful and malicious misappropriation.” In other words, Pohl’s claim dependsC on Kassab’s state of mind. Kassab is entitled to prove that his belief about Pohl’s barratry was well- … |
| 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 … |
| 54 | 2023-03-15 | RPL | Kassab | Reply ISO Mtn to Rule | Kassab Defendants' Reply in Support of Their Motion to Rule on Plaintiffs' Objections to Kassab's Deposition on Written Questions of Scott Favre | Filed March 15, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court before Judge Christine Weems. Kassab replies to Pohl's response (filing #53) opposing Kassab's motion to rule on objections to his DWQ of Scott Favre, arguing his questions are not leading, Pohl's own questions are leading, and Pohl's boilerplate objections are waived. | MSJ-2R | N/A | Phase 4 | 2023-03-15_RPL_Kassab-Reply-ISO-Mtn-to-Rule_FILED.pdf | Overrule Pohl's objections to Kassab's deposition on written questions of Scott Favre | 3/15/2023 5:09 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 73705718 By: Bonnie Lugo Filed: 3/15/2023 5:09 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § k § e SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 281st JUDICCIAL DISTRICT KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ REPLYIN SUPPORT OF THIER MOTION TO RULE ON PLAINTIFFS’ OBJEtCTIONS TO THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ NOTICEi TO TAKE DEPOSITION ON WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SCOTT FAVRE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE CHRISTINE WEEMeS: Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab aund Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firm (collectively “Knassab”) file this, their Reply In Support of Their Rule on Plaintiffs’ Objectionsa to the Kassab Defendants Notice to Take Deposition on Written Questions of Scott Favre and would respectfully show the following. e KASSAB DOES N OOT f AGREE THAT HIS QUESTIONS ARE LEADING, BUT POHL’S QUESTIONS TO FAVRE WERE Plaintiffs claimo “[t]here is no dispute that Kassab asked leading questions, nor does Kassab clontend that any of Pohl’s “leading” objections were directed at non-leading quiestions.”1 Pohl’s claim is false as none of the questions propounded by Kassab are leading in the first place and Kassab made that abundantly clear to Pohl’s counsel in an email, stating “[t]he objections are all meritless.”2 After stating that all the objections were meritless, Kassab stated “[a]dditionally, your clients’ 1 Exhibit F, p. 3 2 Exhibit A. leading objections are improper” for two other reasons: leading questions are permitted on cross examination and for hostile witnesses.3 Kassab’s motion to rule simply focused on Plaintiffs’ absurd argument—meaning even if Kassab’s questions were leading, which they are not, Favre should be treated as a hostile wkitness. One need only look to the questions Pohl served Favre to Csee that Pohl has persuaded Favre to contradict his prior testimony to help Pohl with his frivolous retaliatory lawsuit against Kassab. i For instance, Favre has already testified in an affidavit and in Federal Cour… |
| 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… |
| 51 | 2023-03-02 | MTN | Kassab | Mtn to Designate Favre/Precision as RTP | Kassab Defendants' Motion for Leave to Designate Scott Favre, Scott M. Favre PA, LLC and Precision Marketing Group, LLC as Responsible Third Parties | Filed March 2, 2023 after Pohl inexplicably nonsuited Favre and Precision on November 21, 2022. No trial date has been set. This is a new RTP motion targeting the nonsuited former co-defendants specifically (distinct from the prior RTP motions targeting Walker, Ladner, Seymour, and others). Filed before Judge Christine Weems though the header still references the 189th Judicial District. | RTP-2 | GRANTED | Phase 4 | 2023-03-02_MTN_Kassab-Mtn-to-Designate-Favre-and-Precision-as-RTP_FILED.pdf | Grant leave to designate Scott Favre, Scott M. Favre PA, LLC, and Precision Marketing Group, LLC as responsible third parties | 3/2/2023 11:24 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 73272865 By: Joshua Herrington Filed: 3/2/2023 11:24 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 KASSAB DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO DECSIGNATE SCOTT FAVRE, SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, LLC AND PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, LLC AS RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTIES Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Cihristopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”), file this, their Motion for Leave to Designate Scott Favre, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC and Precision Marketing Group, LLC as Responsible Third Parties, and would respectfully show the following. SUMMlARY In this lawsuit, Plaintiffs MicMhael Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (“Pohl”) initially sued Scott Favre and Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC (collectively, “Favre”) and Precision Markieting Group, LLC (“Precision”) alleging Favre and Precision, along with Kassab, were all part of “a scheme pursuant to which they illegally obtained, moaintained, and used trade secrets and other confidential information and lproperty belonging to Pohl.”1 On November 21, 2022, Pohl inexplicably nionsuited Favre and Precision.2 Because Favre and Precision are alleged to have caused or contributed to causing the harm for which recovery of damages by Pohl is sought, Kassab files this motion requesting leave to designate Favre and Precision as responsible third parties and would ask that it be in all 1 Exhibit 1, Pohl’s First Amended Petition, at ¶ 2. 2 Exhibit 2, Pohl’s Nonsuit as to Favre and Precision. things granted. This motion is timely because there presently is no trial setting in this case. BACKGROUND Pohl alleges that he hired Precision – which was formallky owned by Mississippi residents Scott Walker and Kirk Ladner – “to providCe public relations services, to gather and preserve evidence, and to screen and liaise with Pohl’s clients/prospective clients.”3 However, the truth about whyi Pohl hired… |
| 50 | 2023-02-24 | MSJ | Kassab | Amended Trad + No-Evidence MSJ (3rd attempt) | Kassab Defendants' Amended Motions for Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment (Third Attempt) | Filed February 24, 2023 before Judge Christine Weems in the 281st Judicial District Court after the case was transferred from the 189th District Court. This is Kassab's third attempt at summary judgment, reiterating and expanding arguments from prior MSJs denied by Judge Dollinger on October 31, 2022. Kassab also adopts by reference co-defendant Nicholson's traditional MSJ filed August 19, 2022. | MSJ-4 | N/A | Phase 4 | 2023-02-24_MSJ_Kassab-Amended-Trad-and-No-Evid-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Grant Kassab's traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment and order that Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC take nothing on their claims against Lance Christopher Kassab and The Kassab Law Firm | 2/24/2023 1:36 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 73091211 By: Bonnie Lugo Filed: 2/24/2023 1:36 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 281st JUDICIALk DISTRICT THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED MOTIONCS FOR TRADITIONAL AND NO-EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE CHRISTINE WEEMS: t COME NOW, Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm and file theis, their Motions for Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment, and woulud respectfully show the following. PRELUDE This lawsuit is nothing more thaan a retaliatory suit brought by Michael A. Pohl and his law firm, Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (“Pohl”) against Lance Christopher Kassab and Lancee Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”). Kassab refpresented more than 400 clients in lawsuits against Pohl due to his illegal and unethical solicitation of these clients. It is undisputed that Pohl hired and paid runners more than five million dollars to illegally obtain clients stemminig from catastrophic auto accidents and the BP Deepwater Horizon litigation. o Based upon Pohl’s illegal and unethical solicitation of clients, Kassab filed four separate lawsuits against Pohl for civil barratry and negligence. In addition, as mandated by the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.03, Kassab filed and helped his clients initiate several grievance proceedings, causing the State Bar of Texas to investigate the alleged barratry, which is prohibited by the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and the Texas Penal Code. In response, Pohl filed this lawsuit against Kassab, alleging claims of conversion, theft of trade secrets and civil conspiracy, claiming Kassab conspired with okthers to steal Pohl’s property and solicit his former clients or prospective clienCts to sue him for barratry.1 Pohl claims his defense costs to defend against the barratry li… |
| 49 | 2023-02-23 | MTN | Kassab | Mtn to Reconsider or Rule | Kassab Defendants' Motion to Reconsider or Rule on Three Prior Orders by Judge Dollinger | Filed February 23, 2023 after the case was transferred from the 189th Judicial District Court (Judge Dollinger) to Judge Christine Weems's court on December 19, 2022. Kassab seeks reconsideration of three prior orders under Tex. R. App. P. 7.2(b) before challenging them via mandamus. | MSJ-2R | N/A | Phase 4 | 2023-02-23_MTN_Kassab-Mtn-to-Reconsider-or-Rule_FILED.pdf | Set the motion for hearing and, after hearing, reconsider the three orders by Judge Dollinger, vacate those orders, and grant the relief Kassab requested in each of them (abatement, RTP designation, and compelled discovery under offensive use doctrine) | 2/23/2023 2:10 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 73050165 By: Bonnie Lugo Filed: 2/23/2023 2:10 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § k § e SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICCIAL DISTRICT KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER OR RULE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE CHRISTINE WEEMS: i Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firm (collectively “Kassab”), and file this Motion to Reconsider or Rule, and would respectfully show the following. This case was transferred from the l189th Judicial District Court on December 19, 2022.1 Prior to transfer, Judge DMollinger entered orders that Kassab intends to challenge through petitions for writ of mandamus. However, under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.2(b), this Court must be given the opportunity to reconsider orders or actions of the predecessor judge that will be considered in the original proceeding. See Tex. oR. Civ. P. 7.2(b); In re Loomis Armored US, LLC, No. 01-21- 00027-CV, 2021 Tlex. App. LEXIS 1820, at *1 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 11, 2021, origi. proceeding) (mem. op.). Accordingly, Kassab files this motion requesting the Court to reconsider or rule on the following. 1 Although the order was signed on that date, it was not filed with the District Clerk until January 6, 2023. First, the Court should reconsider Judge Dollinger’s order denying Kassab’s motion to abate.2 As explained in Kassab’s motion to abate,3 this case is related to litigation that is currently pending against Pohl for civil barratry, which is the illegal and unethical solicitation of clients. See Cheatham v. Pohl, No. k01-20-00046- CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 6528 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] ACug. 30, 2022, pet. filed) (mem. op.). In this case, Pohl seeks from Kassab attorney’s fees for defending against the Cheatham case and other barratry litigatioin that Kassab brought against Pohl on behalf of his clients. Although the Cheatham case was d… |
| 48 | 2023-01-04 | MTN | Kassab | Mtn to Reconsider No-Evid MSJ | Kassab Defendants' Motion to Reconsider Traditional and No-Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment | Filed January 4, 2023 before Judge Tamika 'Tami' Craft after case transferred from Judge Dollinger (189th District Court). Kassab seeks reconsideration of the prior judge's October 31, 2022 denial of both traditional and no-evidence summary judgment motions on Pohl's claims of conversion, trade secret theft (TUTSA), and civil conspiracy. Kassab argues the denial was erroneous and cites new case law (Taylor v. Tolbert, 2022) requiring reconsideration of attorney immunity. 90 pages with extensive exhibits. | MSJ-2R | N/A | Phase 4 | 2023-01-04_MTN_Kassab-Mtn-to-Reconsider-No-Evid-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Reconsider and grant Kassab's traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment; dismiss Pohl's retaliatory lawsuit with prejudice; order Pohl take nothing on his claims against Kassab | 1/4/2023 12:12 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 71470463 By: DANIELLE JIMENEZ Filed: 1/4/2023 12:12 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’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER CTRADITIONAL AND NO-EVIDENCE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE TAMIKA “TAMI” CRAFT: t Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm file this, their Motion to Reconsideer Traditional and No-Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment and would respuectfully show the following. BACKGROUND This lawsuit is nothing more thaan a retaliatory suit brought by Michael A. Pohl and his law firm, Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (“Pohl”) against Lance Christopher Kassab and Lancee Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”). Kassab refpresented more than 400 clients in lawsuits against Pohl due to his illegal and unethical solicitation of these clients. It is undisputed that Pohl hired and paid runners more than five million dollars to illegally obtain clients stemminig from catastrophic auto accidents and the BP Deepwater Horizon litigation. o Based upon Pohl’s illegal and unethical solicitation of clients, Kassab filed four separate lawsuits against Pohl for civil barratry. In addition, as mandated by the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.03, Kassab filed and helped his clients initiate several grievance proceedings, causing the State Bar of Texas to investigate the alleged barratry, which is prohibited by the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and the Texas Penal Code. In response, Pohl filed this lawsuit against Kassab, alleging claims of conversion, theft of trade secrets and civil conspiracy, claiming Kassab conspired with others tko steal Pohl’s property and solicit his former clients or prospective clients to sueC him for barratry.1 Pohl claims his defense costs to defend against the barratr… |
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
);