Court Filings
Data license: Public court records
11 rows where phase = "Phase 5" sorted by date descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: date, chain, date (date)
outcome 3
- N/A 9
- $6.3M JUDGMENT 1
- GRANTED 1
phase 1
- Phase 5 · 11 ✖
| filing_id | date ▲ | doc_type | party | description | doc_type_detail | procedural_posture | chain | outcome | phase | filename | relief_requested | full_text |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 67 | 2024-02-02 | RSP | Pohl | Objections to Kassab JNOV | Pohl's Response in Opposition to Kassab's Motions for New Trial and for JNOV, systematically opposing all 22 grounds for new trial and all JNOV arguments. Argues: all grounds are recycled rejected arguments; witness tampering allegations identical to rejected mistrial motion and based on unsworn statements of self-professed perjurer/extortionist; multiple charge objections waived at charge conference; jury verdict supported by nearly two weeks of trial evidence; Kassab fails to cite trial record; incorporates 15 prior filings by reference. | Response filed February 2, 2024, opposing both the Motion for New Trial and Motion for JNOV filed January 19, 2024. Pohl incorporates by reference 15 prior filings spanning 2021-2023. Notes Kassab has not filed a proposed order as required by court procedures. | POST-1 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2024-02-02_RSP_Pohl-Objections-to-Kassab-JNOV_FILED.pdf | Denial of Kassab's Motion for New Trial and Motion for JNOV in their entirety | 2/2/2024 4:44 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 84110431 By: Bonnie Lugo Filed: 2/2/2024 4:44 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL et al. § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiffs, § V. § HARRIS COUNTY,k TEXAS § e LANCE CHRISTOPHER § C l KASSAB et al. § § c Defendants. § 281ST JUDrICIAL DISTRICT POHL’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL AND FOR JUDGMENT NOT WITHSTANDING THE VERDsICT AND TO DISREGARD JURY FINDINGS FILED BY THE KASSAsB DEFENDANTS Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Office of Michaerl A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) respond in opposition to The Kassab Defendants’ Motion for New Trial (the “Motion for New Trial”) and Motion for Judgment Not Withstanding the Verdlict and to Disregard Jury Findings (the “Motion for JNOV”) filed by Defendants Lance ChMristopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C., d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (collectively “Kassab”). I. INTRODUCTION Kassab’s Motion for New Trial and Motion for JNOV repeat Kassab’s arguments that the Court has previously considered and rejected. In these two motions, Kassab recycles arguments rejected at summary judgment, 166(g) hearings, pre-trial hearings, directed verdict, and otherwise. The Court’s judgcment and the jury verdict are supported by and consistent with ample evidence presented at trial. But Kassab would have the Court throw out a jury verdict supported by nearly two weeks’ worth of trial evidence. Because the issues that Kassab raises are without merit, the Court should deny Kassab’s Motion for New Trial and Motion for JNOV. II. STANDARDS A. Motion for New Trial “Jury trials are essential to our constitutionally provided method for resolving disputes,” and “a jury’s decision is not to be tampered with lightly, regardless of whether it favors the plaintiff or the defendant.” In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, Subsidiary, L.Pl., 290 S.W.3d 204, 211 (Tex. 2009) (citing Tex. Const. art. I, § 15, art. V, § 10); see generally Hterbert v. Herbert, 754 S.W.2d 141, 144 (Tex. 1988) (“long-establi… |
| 68 | 2024-02-02 | RSP | Pohl | Response to Mtn to Modify Judgment | Pohl's Response to Kassab's Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform Judgment, arguing all arguments are recycled and rejected, the jury properly awarded exemplary damages unanimously (Q17 answered per unanimity instructions, Q19 predicated on unanimous Q17, Kassab waived by not objecting before discharge), attorneys' fees from separate proceedings are recoverable actual losses under TUTSA's broad 'actual loss' definition and tort of another doctrine, damages are not duplicative (TUTSA expressly authorizes both actual loss and unjust enrichment), conspiracy is not preempted (it is a rule of joint liability, not an independent tort or conflicting remedy), and great-weight-and-preponderance arguments are meritless | Response filed February 2, 2024, opposing Kassab's Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform Judgment. Filed simultaneously with Pohl's response to the JNOV and New Trial motions. Incorporates prior briefing by reference. | POST-2 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2024-02-02_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-Mtn-to-Modify-Judgment_FILED.pdf | Denial of Kassab's Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform Judgment, and any other relief to which Pohl is entitled | 2/2/2024 4:20 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 84108335 By: Patricia Gonzalez Filed: 2/2/2024 4:20 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et. al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiffs, § V. § HARRIS COUNTY,k TEXAS § e LANCE CHRISTOPHER § C l KASSAB, et. al § § c Defendants. § 281ST JUDrICIAL DISTRICT POHL’S RESPONSE TO KASSAB’S MOTION TO MODIFY, CORRECT, OR REFsORM JUDGMENT Plaintiffs Michael A. Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (collectively “Pohl”) respond in opposition to Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab’s and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm’s (collectively “Kassab”) motion to modify, correct, or reform the judgment (“Motion to Modify”). a I. Summary. The Motion to Modify primareily consists of recycled arguments that Kassab has previously made and that the Court has prefviously rejected. On that ground alone, the motion should be denied. y Substantively, CKassab re-argues in shotgun fashion that all of the damages found by the jury and awarded bay the Court are not recoverable for various erroneous reasons. As Pohl has previously brieffed at length, however, both the actual damages and exemplary damages are reasonablUe and fully supported by the verdict, the evidence, and the law. For these and other reasons that we discuss next, the Motion to Modify should be denied. II. The Jury Properly Awarded Exemplary Damages, and Pohl is Entitled to Recover Them. Kassab contends that the award of exemplary damages is unsupported and improper because the jury allegedly did not unanimously answer “Yes” in response to Question 17. See Motion to Modify, p. 4. But that is not true. On its face, the jury charge shorws that the jury unanimously answered “Yes” to Question 17 after being instructed to only answer the question “Yes” if the finding was unanimous. See Charge of the Court, p. 24. Irfi Kassab believed that the certificate of unanimity was in conflict with the answers containDed in the jury verdict, he was obligated to request that the jury be … |
| 65 | 2024-01-19 | MJNOV | Kassab | Mtn for JNOV and Disregard Jury Findings | Kassab Defendants' Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and to Disregard Jury Findings, asserting 10 grounds for JNOV (no trade secret, no misappropriation evidence, limitations, unlawful acts doctrine, privilege to disclose, grievance immunity, judicial proceedings privilege, attorney immunity, unrecoverable damages, no causation), plus arguments that conspiracy is preempted by TUTSA and exemplary damages are improper due to non-unanimous Q17 finding | Post-judgment motion filed January 19, 2024, 28 days after entry of the Final Judgment on December 22, 2023. Kassab seeks JNOV on all claims or alternatively on exemplary damages and conspiracy claim. Filed simultaneously with Motion for New Trial. | POST-1 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2024-01-19_MJNOV_Kassab-Mtn-for-JNOV-and-Disregard-Jury-Findings_FILED.pdf | Judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of Kassab on all claims (take-nothing judgment), or alternatively: (1) JNOV on exemplary damages due to non-unanimous Q17 finding; (2) JNOV on conspiracy claim as preempted by TUTSA, eliminating joint and several liability; (3) disregard of jury findings | 1/19/2024 3:31 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 83597613 By: Rhonda Momon Filed: 1/19/2024 3:31 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’ MOTION FOR JUDGMCENT NOT WITHSTANDING THE VERDICT AND TO DISREGARD JURY FINDINGS Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Chtristopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”), files this Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and to Disregard Jurey Findings and would show as follows. u SUMMARY Pohl’s claims against Kassab are abarred as a matter of law. Therefor the Court should disregard the findings of the jury and enter a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of Kassab for aney one of the following reasons: 1. Pohl’s claims are ba rrfed as a matter of law because the information at issue is not a trade secret: • not Pohl’s trade secret because he does not own the information at issue; l • not Piohl’s (or anyone’s) trade secret because the information at issue dooes not have any independent economic value from not being generally known; • not Pohl’s (or anyone’s) trade secret because he made no reasonable measures to keep the subject information secret. 2. Pohl’s claims fail as a matter of law because there is no evidence that Kassab engaged in regular or willful misappropriation; specifically, there is no evidence that Kassab knew the information was Pohl’s trade secret or had been acquired by improper means. The jury’s finding that those associated with Precision, did not misappropriate anything precludes liability against Kassab. k 3. Pohl’s claims are barred by limitations because they accruedC, if at all, in the summer of 2014 when Precision engaged in the first acts of alleged misappropriation, or at the latest in the spring ofi 2015, when both Precision and Favre engaged in additional acts of alleged misappropriation. 4. Pohl’s claims are barred by the unlawful acts doctrine bec… |
| 66 | 2024-01-19 | MNT | Kassab | Motion for New Trial | Kassab Defendants' Motion for New Trial, filed in the alternative to the JNOV Motion, raising 22 grounds for new trial including: (1) newly discovered evidence of witness bribery/tampering (Walker 30% confession), (2-4) factual insufficiency on trade secret ownership and misappropriation, (5-6) jury charge errors on Q3 and proportionate responsibility, (7) limitations question error on Q5, (8) insufficiency on Q5 answer, (9-10) refusal to submit unlawful acts defense and immunity/privilege questions, (11) exclusion of barratry expert testimony, (12) Q6 attorney immunity question error, (13) insufficiency on Q6, (14) improper Q7(1) submission (attorney fees not TUTSA damages), (15) property owner rule error, (16) insufficiency on Q7(2)-(3), (17-18) insufficiency on willful/malicious and exemplary damages, (19) conspiracy preemption, (20) denial of responsible third party designations, (21) denial of abatement, (22) privilege/offensive use errors, and (23) dismissal of barratry counterclaims, plus insufficiency of attorney fees evidence | Post-judgment motion filed January 19, 2024, simultaneously with the JNOV Motion, within 30 days of the December 22, 2023 Final Judgment. Filed in the alternative — if Court does not grant JNOV, it should grant a new trial on any of 22 enumerated grounds. | POST-1 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2024-01-19_MNT_Kassab-Motion-for-New-Trial_FILED.pdf | New trial on all claims — vacate final judgment and order new trial. Alternatively, new trial on specific issues and/or remittitur of exemplary damages. | 1/19/2024 3:31 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 83597613 By: Rhonda Momon Filed: 1/19/2024 3:31 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’ MOTION FOR NEWC TRIAL In the alternative to their Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and to Disregard Jury Findings (“the JNOV Motion”), Defenidants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”) file this Motion for New Trial and would respectfully show as follows. SUMMARY Pohl’s claims against Kassab are barlred as a matter of law, so the Court should grant the JNOV Motion. To the extenMt the Court does not disregard findings of the jury and enter a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of Kassab, it should grant a new trial for any one oif the following reasons: 1. Newly discovered evidence demonstrates that material witnesses engaged in poerjury and Pohl engaged in unlawful bribery and witness tamperinlg which resulted in the jury being deceived as to material issuesi. 2. Factually insufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding in Question 1 that Pohl owned a trade secret in (a) attorney-client fee contracts and (b) lists of Pohl’s actual, potential, or rejected clients. 3. The trial court erred by submitting Question 2, the misappropriation question, to the jury because it failed to sufficiently distinguish the acts of each defendant and included liability theories not supported by legally sufficient evidence. 4. Factually insufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding in Qukestion 2 that Kassab misappropriated Pohl’s alleged trade secreCt. 5. The Court improperly submitted Question 3 on Pohl’s “wrongful conduct” because it is not tied to the privilege quesition, proportionate responsibility question or anything else in the jury charge. 6. The Court erred by refusing to submit Kassab’s proposed jury question on immunity or privilege. 7. The … |
| 64 | 2023-12-22 | ORD | Court | FINAL JUDGMENT: $6,310,039.34 | Final Judgment entered by the 281st District Court, Harris County, Texas, awarding Pohl and LOMAP $6,310,039.34 against Kassab and LCKPC jointly and severally, including $1,453,040 in actual damages, $1,232,013 in trial attorneys' fees, $3,000,000 in exemplary damages, $624,986.34 in prejudgment interest, conditional appellate attorneys' fees escalating total to $6,685,039.34 if proceedings go through Supreme Court of Texas oral argument, and postjudgment interest at 8.5% compounded annually. Incorporates full jury charge and verdict as Exhibit 1. | Final judgment signed December 22, 2023 by Judge Christine Weems of the 281st District Court, Harris County, Texas, resolving all claims in Cause No. 2018-58419. The court granted Pohl's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment after considering the motion, responses, replies, other briefing, arguments of counsel, and the pleadings. Trial commenced August 21, 2023; jury rendered verdict August 31, 2023. | JDGMT-1 | $6.3M JUDGMENT | Phase 5 | 2023-12-22_ORD_Final-Judgment_SIGNED.pdf | ‘nity BD Slater eieee DEC 22 2023 «= Pas? - CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 Time:_____2 A oe VIONEX By pare AA- DC MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURS@F UC ~aTFex MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § 9A Plaintiffs, § § § @ | § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § ~~ Pg: 3 q LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § 6 Re THE KASSAB LAW FIRM § SN Defendants. § 281ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT FINAL JUDGMENT : : 1. On August 21, 2023, this case was called to trial? Plaintiff Michael Pohl (“Pohi’’) . and the Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC CLOMAR*pppere in person and through their - Q) attorneys and announced ready for trial. Detnda Lac Christopher Kassab (“Kassab”) and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassib La Firm (“LCKPC”) appeared in person and ( O, through their attorneys and announced ready fri The Court determined that it had jurisdiction over the subject matter of this lawsuitGnd the parties to this lawsuit. Thereafter, the Court instructed, empaneled, and an which heard the evidence and arguments of counsel. The Court submitted instructidas) efinitions, and questions to the jury, and in response, the jury ‘made findings that this Cassie filed, and entered of record. Counsel for Pohl and LOMAP orally moved for Bee Court to accept the jury’s verdict, which the Court granted on the record. . ( 2. The instructions, definitions, and questions submitted to the jury, and the jury’s uwS - . findings, are atached to this Final Judgment as Exhibit 1 and are incorporated into this Final Judgment, > 3. Prior to trial, Pohl and LOMAP settled with certain former defendants to this lawsuit for payments to Pohl and LOMAP that total $765,000.00 in the aggregate (the “Settlement Credit”). . . a EXHIBIT B oe RECORDER'S MEMORANDUM | This instrument is of poor quality \ { at the time of imaging ‘ 4, Pohl and LOMAP have filed a motion for judgment on the jury’s verdict (the “Motion”), which the Court has carefully considered and grants after considering the Motion, any ‘ response to the Motion, any reply to the re… | |
| 63 | 2023-10-23 | LTR | Pohl | Request for ruling on final judgment | Pohl's Request for a Ruling on Motion for Entry of Final Judgment, urging Court to expedite consideration of the pending motion and raising concerns about Kassab's continued harassment through Mississippi bar complaints filed using case materials | Request for ruling filed October 23, 2023, more than one month after the September 19, 2023 hearing on entry of judgment. The Motion for Entry of Final Judgment was filed promptly after the August 31, 2023 jury verdict and has been ripe for over a month without a ruling. | JDGMT-1 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2023-10-23_LTR_Pohl-Request-for-Ruling-on-Final-Judgment_FILED.pdf | That the Court expedite consideration and grant Pohl's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment, entering final judgment in Pohl's favor in the form attached to the Motion | 10/23/2023 5:36 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 80886597 By: Patricia Gonzalez Filed: 10/23/2023 5:36 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et. al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiffs, § V. § HARRIS COUNTY,k TEXAS § e LANCE CHRISTOPHER § C l KASSAB, et. al § § c Defendants. § 281ST JUDrICIAL DISTRICT POHL’S REQUEST FOR A RULING ON POHL’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAsL JUDGMENT Pohl requests that the Court expedite its consideration of Pohl’s Motion for Entry of Final Judgment (the “Motion”). The Motion has been ripe for a ruling for over a month, and while Pohl waits for entry of judgment on the jury verdict in his favor, it appears that Kassab is using materials from this lawsuit to continue to harass Pohl—adespite the jury’s verdict being inconsistent with Kassab’s barratry and unauthorized practice of law theories in this case. The Court should promptly enter a final judgment to gieve finality to the trial proceedings in this case. f I. BACKGROUND Kassab has unsucceyssfully accused Pohl of engaging in barratry and the unauthorized practice of law for the lCast six years. According to Kassab, Pohl allegedly obtained clients through barratry and the unaauthorized practice of law in Mississippi, and thus, Pohl did not have rightful, legal, or equitabfle title in any trade secret concerning Pohl’s clients. However, on August 31, 2023, theU jury rendered a verdict in Pohl’s favor, and found that, despite Kassab’s allegations of barratry and the unauthorized practice of law, Pohl owned the trade secrets concerning his clients. After the jury rendered their verdict, Pohl promptly filed the Motion requesting entry of judgment and set the Motion for a hearing on September 19, 2023. As the briefing and arguments at that hearing showed, Pohl is entitled to entry of a final judgment in his favor that gives effect to the jury’s findings of liability and damages. Since trial, Pohl has learned new information that suggests that Kassab is using materials from this case to continue to harass P… |
| 62 | 2023-09-22 | LTR | Pohl | Response to Kassab letter | Pohl's letter to Judge Christine Weems replying to Kassab's September 20, 2023 post-hearing letter brief, addressing exemplary damages burden of proof, recoverability of attorneys' fees, conspiracy preemption, and Precision's exoneration | Sur-reply letter brief filed September 22, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court, Harris County, Cause No. 2018-58419. Addressed to Judge Christine Weems. Filed two days after Kassab's post-hearing letter brief (September 20) and three days after the September 19 hearing on entry of judgment. Pohl notes his Reply was filed one business day after Kassab's Response. Signed by Harris Y. Wells and Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. | JDGMT-1 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2023-09-22_LTR_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-Letter-re-Final-Judgment_FILED.pdf | That the Court grant Pohl's Motion, enter judgment in the form attached as Exhibit B to the Motion, and overrule Kassab's objections to entry of judgment | 9/22/2023 9:53 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 79868932 By: Bonnie Lugo Filed: 9/22/2023 9:53 PM September 22, 2023 Via Electronic Filing Judge Christine Weems r Harris County Civil Courthouse l 201 Caroline, 14th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 c t RE: Michael A. Pohl et al. v. Lance Christopher Kassab et al.; Casutse No. 2018-58419; In the 281st Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. D i Reply to Kassab’s Post-Hearing Letter on Pohl’s Motion for Entry of Judgment (the “Motion”) Dear Judge Weems: e In Kassab’s September 20, 2023 letter (the “Leutter”), Kassab suggests that the timing of Pohl’s Reply brief entitles Kassab to further briefing. Pohl filed his Reply one business day after Kassab filed his Response. Because Kassab misstates both the law and facts in the Letter, Pohl files this reply letter. l DMISCUSSION A. The Jury Verdict shows thoe Jury unanimously awarded exemplary damages. Kassab makes two argumencts on the recovery of exemplary damages: he claims (1) it was Pohl’s burden to ensure the Jury fsigned a certificate of unanimity for Question 17, and (2) that various cases Pohl cited are “distinguishable for important reasons.” Letter at 1–2. Each argument fails. First, as the Supreme Cyourt of Texas held in USAA Tex. Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca, “the party who must rely on theo conflicting answer to avoid the effect of answers that establish liability . . . bore the burden to object.” 545 S.W.3d 479, 519 (Tex. 2018) (emphasis added). That is Kassab here. lSecond, any so-called distinguishing facts either are not distinguishing or are immaterial becaucsei the reasoning of those cases, applied to the facts of this case, shows Pohl is entitled to an awfard of exemplary damages. 1. It was Kassab’s burden to object because he seeks to set aside the Jury’s answers. Pohl obtained the necessary findings to support an award of exemplary damages against Kassab through the Jury’s answers to Questions 2, 17, and 19.1 Kassab asks the Court to ignore the Jury’s findings because he … |
| 61 | 2023-09-20 | LTR | Kassab | Letter to judge re final judgment | Kassab's letter brief to Judge Christine Weems responding to Pohl's Reply filed the night before the hearing on entry of final judgment, addressing new arguments on exemplary damages, attorneys' fees, TUTSA preemption of conspiracy, and Precision's exoneration | Post-hearing letter brief filed September 20, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court, Harris County, Cause No. 2018-58419. Addressed to Judge Christine Weems. Pohl's Reply was filed well after working hours the evening of September 18, 2023 — the night before the September 19, 2023 hearing on entry of final judgment. This letter responds to new arguments and authorities raised in that Reply. Written by Kevin Dubose (Alexander Dubose & Jefferson LLP, Board Certified Civil Appellate Law). | JDGMT-1 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2023-09-20_LTR_Kassab-Letter-to-Judge-re-Final-Judgment_FILED.pdf | That the Court refrain from signing Pohl's proposed final judgment and sustain Kassab's objections | 9/20/2023 3:18 PM Kevin Dubose Marilyn Burgess - D18is4tr4ic Ht aCrlvearkr dH Satrrreise Ct ounty kdubose@ adjtlaw.com Houston, TEenxvaes lo7p7e0 0N8o-.4 7394726 5300 By: Bonnie Lugo (713) 523-0667 www.adjtlaw.com Filed: 9/20/2023 3:18 PM Board Certified Civil Appellate Law September 20, 2023 The Honorable Christine Weems Judge 281st District Court 201 Caroline, 14th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Re: Cause No. 2018-58419; Michael A. Pohl, and Law Otffice of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC v. Lance Christopher Kassab and Lanrcie Christopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firm s Dear Judge Weems: s Pohl’s response to Kassab’s objections to the gproposed judgment were filed well after working hours the night before the hearing orn entry of judgment. Because that response raised some new arguments and authoriBties that Kassab has not had a chance to address, we file the following letter brief to addnress some of those new matters. A. Exemplary damages are not rercoverable because Question 17 was not answered unanimously. M Pohl relies on several cases noot previously addressed, and all are distinguishable for important reasons. e • Bruce v. Oscar Renda Cofntracting, 657 S.W.3d 453, 464 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2022, pet. filed). In Bruce there was no Additional Certificate in which the jury was instructed to certify whether certain jury questions were unanimous. Id. at 463. In the present case, there was an Additionaol Certificate in which the jury failed to certify that Question 17 was unanimous. C • Stover v. ADM Milling Co., No. 05-17-00778-CV, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 10883 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 28, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.). In Stover there was an Additional Certificfate, and the jury certified that the predicate question for exemplary damages (Qunestions 15 and 16 on fraud and malice) were answered unanimously. Id. at *12. In the prUesent case, the equivalent predicate question (Question 17 on willful and malicious misappropriation) was not certified as unanimous. • Bryan v. Papalia, 542 S.W.3d 676, 692–93 (Tex. App.—Houston … |
| 60 | 2023-09-18 | RPL | Pohl | Reply ISO Mtn for Final Judgment | Pohl's Reply in Support of Motion for Entry of Final Judgment, responding to Kassab's five objections to the proposed judgment regarding exemplary damages unanimity, attorneys' fees recoverability, overlapping damages, conspiracy preemption, and Precision's exoneration | Reply brief filed September 18, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court, Harris County, Cause No. 2018-58419. Filed three days after Kassab's September 15, 2023 objections to Pohl's September 5, 2023 Motion for Entry of Final Judgment. Addresses each of Kassab's five objections and argues the court must enter judgment consistent with the jury verdict. | JDGMT-1 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2023-09-18_RPL_Pohl-Reply-ISO-Mtn-for-Final-Judgment_FILED.pdf | That the Court overrule Kassab's objections and enter the Final Judgment in the form attached to the Motion as Exhibit B | 9/18/2023 8:21 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 79681130 By: Bonnie Lugo Filed: 9/18/2023 8:21 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r281ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT POHL’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT On September 5, 2023, Plaintiffs Michaell Pohl and Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl PLLC (collectively, “Pohl”) filed their motion foMr entry of a Final Judgment and to adjudge costs (the “Motion”). On September 15, 2023, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm’s (collectively, “Kassab”) filed Objections to Pohl’s Proposed Final Judgment (the “Response”). Kassab fails to demonstrate in the Response that the Court would commit error in any way by entering final judgment in the form requested by Pohl. OVERVIEW Kassab liscts five general objections to entry of judgment. None of the objections withstand scrutiny. • Kassab objects to the inclusion of exemplary damages in the judgment because he contends the Jury’s answer of “Yes” to Question 17 was not unanimous. But Kassab is factually incorrect because, on its face, the Jury Verdict shows that the Jury unanimously answered “Yes” to Question 17. The Court instructed the Jury to only answer “Yes,” in response to Question 17 if it was unanimous, and the Jury is presumed to have followed those instructions. Moreover, the Court instructed the Jury to answer Question 19 “only if you unanimously answered “Yes” to Question no. 17,” and the Jury answered Question 19. k • Kassab objects to the inclusion of attorneys’ fees from a p… |
| 59 | 2023-09-15 | OBJ | Kassab | Objection to proposed final judgment | Kassab's Objections to Pohl's Proposed Final Judgment, challenging exemplary damages, recoverability of attorneys' fees as actual damages, double recovery of unjust enrichment and market value, joint and several liability based on conspiracy, and indirect misappropriation theory | Filed September 15, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court, Harris County, Cause No. 2018-58419. Filed 10 days after Pohl's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment, objecting to specific elements of the proposed judgment while reserving right to file subsequent motions challenging jury findings on other grounds. New appellate counsel Kevin Dubose (Alexander Dubose & Jefferson LLP) appears for Kassab. | JDGMT-1 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2023-09-15_OBJ_Kassab-Objection-to-Pohl-Proposed-Final-Judgment_FILED.pdf | That the Court refrain from signing Pohl's proposed final judgment and exclude: (1) exemplary damages ($3,000,000) due to non-unanimous Q17 finding, (2) attorneys' fees from barratry cases and grievances as actual damages, (3) one of the duplicative damage measures ($250,000 market value or $200,000 development costs), (4) joint and several liability based on conspiracy, and (5) all damages given Precision's exoneration breaking the indirect misappropriation chain | 9/15/2023 1:38 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 79605741 By: Patricia Gonzalez Filed: 9/15/2023 1:38 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’S OBJECTIONS TO POHL’S PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMEtNT Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”) file these Objection teo the proposed Final Judgment submitted by Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and uLaw Office of Michael A. Pohl PLLC’(“Pohl”). INTRODUCTIOaN AND OVERVIEW Kassab will file subsequent motions challenging the jury findings against him on various grounds. But this filineg will be limited to objecting to elements of recovery in Pohl’s proposed judgmenft that are legally insupportable, even with these jury findings. Specifically: • The judgment should not include exemplary damages because one of the predicate ifindings for exemplary damages was not answered by the jury unanoimously. • The judgment should not include as actual damages attorney’s fees incurred by Pohl in actions against him by former clients and rejected potential clients who were victims of Pohl’s barratry. Attorney’s fees are not an element of recoverable damages under TUTSA. • The judgment should not include actual damages for both unjust enrichment of Kassab and the fair market value of the alleged trade secret misappropriated from Pohl because they are two impermissibly overlapping versions of the same loss. Pohl should have to elect one of those remedies rather than being awarded a double recovery. C • The judgment should not include joint and several liabili i ty under a conspiracy theory because conspiracy is pre-empted under TUTiSA or subject to Chapter 33’s proportionate responsibility scheme. • The judgment should not include any actual damages for theft of trade secrets because of the jury’s findings that Precision did not misappropriate trade secrets. Because Kassab acquired Plohl’s alleged trade se… |
| 58 | 2023-09-05 | MTN | Pohl | Mtn for Entry of Final Judgment | Pohl's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment following jury verdict, requesting court to enter judgment on approximately $6.3M award including actual damages, exemplary damages, attorneys' fees, prejudgment and postjudgment interest, and court costs | Post-trial motion filed September 5, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court, Harris County, Cause No. 2018-58419. Filed after jury returned verdict on August 31, 2023, in favor of Pohl on trade secret misappropriation and conspiracy claims against Kassab. Pohl seeks formal entry of final judgment consistent with jury findings. The 189th District Court had previously entered summary judgment against Kassab's barratry counterclaims on February 7, 2022. Trial commenced August 21, 2023 on three claims: theft of trade secrets, conversion, and conspiracy. Kassab's motion for directed verdict was denied on August 29, 2023. | JDGMT-1 | GRANTED | Phase 5 | 2023-09-05_MTN_Pohl-Mtn-for-Entry-of-Final-Judgment_FILED.pdf | Entry of Final Judgment in the form attached as Exhibit B, awarding: (1) $1,453,040 in actual damages (after $765,000 settlement credit); (2) $1,232,013 in attorneys' fees through trial; (3) conditional appellate attorneys' fees ($175,000 court of appeals, $55,000 petition for review, $85,000 merits briefing, $60,000 through oral argument); (4) $3,000,000 in exemplary damages; (5) $624,986.34 in prejudgment interest through September 18, 2023 (plus $338.38/day thereafter); (6) postjudgment interest at 8.50%; (7) all court costs against Kassab | 9/5/2023 6:40 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 79235207 By: Patricia Gonzalez Filed: 9/5/2023 6:40 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r281ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT POHL’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Offices lof Michael A. Pohl PLLC (collectively, “Pohl”) move for entry of a Final Judgment and to aMdjudge costs. In support thereof, Pohl would show the Court as follows: On February 7, 2022, the 189th District Court entered a traditional summary judgment against Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm’s (“Kassab”) counterclaims for civil barratry. The February 7 Order resolved the barratry counterclaims asserted by Kassab against Pohl. On Augusct 21, 2023, the case proceeded to trial on three claims filed by Pohl (theft of trade secrets, conversion, and conspiracy. This Court and the jury heard testimony from witnesses and experts presented by both Pohl and Kassab. On August 29, 2023, Kassab moved for a directed verdict and asserted, among other things, that Pohl’s damages were not recoverable or were not supported by sufficient evidence. The Court denied Kassab’s motion for directed verdict, implicitly ruling that Pohl’s requested damages were recoverable and were supported by evidence presented to the jury. I. THE JURY’S VERDICT After a trial on the merits, the Court submitted this case to the jury. On Akugust 31, 2023, the jury returned a verdict. Pohl attaches as Exhibit A the executed jury verdiclt. The jury verdict found in favor of Poh… |
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
);