Legal Theories

509 claims, defenses, counterclaims, and affirmative defenses

Data license: Public court records

213 rows where role = "affirmative_defense"

This data as json, CSV (advanced)

Suggested facets: filing_id

theory_id ▼ filing_id theory party role basis
7 2 2 Statute of Limitations Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl's claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitations
8 2 2 Justification Kassab affirmative_defense Kassab's actions were justified
9 2 2 Estoppel Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl is estopped from asserting claims
10 2 2 Waiver Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl waived his claims
11 2 2 Ratification Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl ratified the conduct complained of
12 2 2 Release Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl released Kassab from liability
13 2 2 Unclean Hands Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl's own misconduct (barratry) bars his claims in equity
14 2 2 Contribution Kassab affirmative_defense Other parties share responsibility for any damages
15 2 2 Failure to Mitigate Damages Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl failed to mitigate his damages
16 2 2 Lack of Standing Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl lacks standing to assert claims
17 2 2 Accord and Satisfaction Kassab affirmative_defense Claims were resolved by accord and satisfaction
18 2 2 Assumption of the Risk Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl assumed the risk of the alleged harm
19 2 2 Illegality/Criminal Acts Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl's own illegal conduct (barratry) bars recovery
20 2 2 First Amendment Kassab affirmative_defense First Amendment protects Kassab's conduct (petition and speech rights in filing lawsuits and grievances)
21 2 2 Attorney Immunity Kassab affirmative_defense Kassab is immune from suit for actions taken in his capacity as an attorney
22 2 2 In Pari Delicto Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl is equally at fault and thus barred from recovery
28 4 4 Lack of Standing / No Duty Owed / Attorney Immunity Montague affirmative_defense No attorney-client relationship with Pohl; not party to underlying litigation or settlement; referral of cases to specialists is traditional legal service providing attorney immunity from liability; no basis to assert liability for conversion, trade secrets, conspiracy, or otherwise against attorneys discharging traditional legal tasks
29 4 4 Failure to State a Claim — conspiracy requires viable underlying tort Montague affirmative_defense Under Texas law, if defendant's liability for alleged underlying tort is foreclosed as matter of law, there is no claim for conspiracy (Frankoff v. Norman, 448 S.W.3d 75, 87). Plaintiffs' only link to Montague is bald assertion they 'knew' information was stolen, which has no factual basis.
30 4 4 Comparative Responsibility / Contributory Negligence — Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Chapter 33 Montague affirmative_defense Plaintiffs' own unreasonable actions charted the course for this dispute; Montague asserts right to reduction of liability based on comparative responsibility of Plaintiffs, other Defendants, settling defendants, and responsible third parties
31 4 4 Excuse, Legal Justification, and Good Faith Montague affirmative_defense Montague's actions were excused, legally justified, or taken in good faith
32 4 4 No Legally Cognizable Damages / Failure to Mitigate Montague affirmative_defense Plaintiffs suffered no legally cognizable damages and/or failed to mitigate damages
33 4 4 Failure to Satisfy Conditions Precedent Montague affirmative_defense Plaintiffs failed to satisfy all necessary conditions precedent to maintaining their claims
34 4 4 Estoppel Montague affirmative_defense Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel
35 4 4 Waiver Montague affirmative_defense Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of waiver
36 4 4 Unclean Hands Montague affirmative_defense Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands
37 4 4 Illegality Montague affirmative_defense Plaintiffs' claims are barred by illegality (Pohl's own illegal conduct)
38 4 4 Statute of Limitations Montague affirmative_defense Plaintiffs' claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitations
39 4 4 Chapter 41 Limitations on Exemplary Damages — Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Chapter 41 Montague affirmative_defense Montague asserts statutory limitations on exemplary damages
59 7 7 Attorney Immunity Doctrine (Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd) Kassab affirmative_defense All complained-of conduct — obtaining client information, filing lawsuits, filing grievances — falls within the scope of client representation; Highland Capital directly analogous
60 7 7 Statute of Limitations (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 16.003, 16.010) Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl knew of his claims in 2014 (moved from Gulfport office, learned from secretary clients were diverted, Mississippi Litigation discovery began October 2014) but did not file until August 2018, exceeding the 2-year conversion/conspiracy and 3-year TUTSA limitations periods
61 7 7 Res Judicata / Claims Preclusion Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl sued Precision Marketing for conversion, fraud, and unjust enrichment in the Mississippi Litigation based on the same transactions; settled with prejudice on April 21, 2017
66 8 8 Statute of Limitations Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl's claims are time-barred
67 8 8 Justification Kassab affirmative_defense Kassab's conduct was justified
68 8 8 Estoppel Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl is estopped from asserting claims
69 8 8 Waiver Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl waived his claims
70 8 8 Ratification Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl ratified the conduct complained of
71 8 8 Release Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl released Kassab from liability
72 8 8 Unclean Hands Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl's own illegal barratry precludes equitable relief
73 8 8 Contribution Kassab affirmative_defense Other parties share responsibility for any damages
74 8 8 Failure to Mitigate Damages Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl failed to mitigate his damages
75 8 8 Lack of Standing Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl does not own the allegedly converted property
76 8 8 Accord and Satisfaction Kassab affirmative_defense Claims resolved by accord and satisfaction
77 8 8 Assumption of the Risk Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl assumed the risk of the alleged harm
78 8 8 Illegality/Criminal Acts Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl's claims arise from his own criminal conduct (barratry)
79 8 8 First Amendment Kassab affirmative_defense Kassab's conduct is protected speech, petition, and association
80 8 8 Attorney Immunity Kassab affirmative_defense Kassab's conduct falls within scope of client representation
81 8 8 In Pari Delicto Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl is equally at fault
82 8 8 Res Judicata Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl's claims were or should have been litigated in the Mississippi Litigation (new defense added in this amended answer)
101 11 11 Statute of Limitations Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answer
102 11 11 Justification Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answer
103 11 11 Estoppel Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answer
104 11 11 Waiver Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answer
105 11 11 Ratification Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answer
106 11 11 Release Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answer
107 11 11 Unclean Hands Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answer
108 11 11 Contribution Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answer
109 11 11 Failure to Mitigate Damages Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answer
110 11 11 Lack of Standing Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answer
111 11 11 Accord and Satisfaction Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answer
112 11 11 Assumption of the Risk Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answer
113 11 11 Illegality/Criminal Acts Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answer
114 11 11 First Amendment Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answer
115 11 11 Attorney Immunity Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answer
116 11 11 In Pari Delicto Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answer
117 11 11 Res Judicata Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answer
121 12 12 Statute of Limitations Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answers
122 12 12 Justification Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answers
123 12 12 Estoppel Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answers
124 12 12 Waiver Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answers
125 12 12 Ratification Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answers
126 12 12 Release Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answers
127 12 12 Unclean Hands Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answers
128 12 12 Contribution Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answers
129 12 12 Failure to Mitigate Damages Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answers
130 12 12 Lack of Standing Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answers
131 12 12 Accord and Satisfaction Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answers
132 12 12 Assumption of the Risk Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answers
133 12 12 Illegality/Criminal Acts Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answers
134 12 12 First Amendment Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answers
135 12 12 Attorney Immunity Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answers
136 12 12 In Pari Delicto Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answers
137 12 12 Res Judicata Kassab affirmative_defense Same as prior answers
139 13 13 TCPA Valid Defense Dismissal — Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.005(d) Kassab affirmative_defense Even if Pohl establishes a prima facie case, dismissal is required if movant establishes by preponderance of evidence each essential element of a valid defense (here, statute of limitations)
140 13 13 Statute of Limitations Kassab affirmative_defense Kassab argues Pohl's claims were filed beyond the applicable limitations period, incorporating arguments from Favre's motion paragraphs 35-42
151 16 16 Statute of Limitations — Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 16.003, 16.010 Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl's conversion claim (2-year period) and TUTSA claim (3-year period) are time-barred because Pohl knew of the alleged misconduct in 2014 but did not file until August 2018; continuing misappropriation is a single cause of action under § 16.010(b)
152 16 16 Res Judicata / Claim Preclusion Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl's claims against Kassab arise from the same subject matter as the Federal Court Case, which resulted in a final judgment with prejudice on April 21, 2017. Kassab is in privity with Precision as an alleged co-conspirator. Pohl knew of Kassab's involvement during federal discovery but chose not to add Kassab as a party.
153 16 16 Attorney Immunity Doctrine Kassab affirmative_defense An attorney is immune from liability to nonclients for conduct within the scope of client representation. Kassab's solicitation of clients and filing of barratry lawsuits is protected conduct even if characterized as wrongful or criminal. Applies to pre-litigation conduct. Highland Capital directly analogous.
160 18 18 Statute of Limitations — Accrual in 2014 from Pohl's Own Testimony Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl testified under oath that Kassab stole his information in 2014; cause of action accrues when tortious act committed even if all damages not yet occurred; Pohl chose not to file suit immediately
161 18 18 Statute of Limitations — Discovery Rule Inapplicable Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl never pled the discovery rule, so it cannot be relied upon. Even if pled, an office break-in is not inherently undiscoverable. Wagner & Brown requires inherently undiscoverable and objectively verifiable.
162 18 18 Res Judicata — Conspiracy Establishes Privity Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl's own allegations and judicial admissions that Kassab, Favre, and Precision are co-conspirators establish privity with parties to the Federal Court Case; supported by Palaxar, Seenyur, RSM, and SED Holdings
163 18 18 Res Judicata — Same Claims in Both Actions Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl's own sworn testimony (Mot. Exhibit 1) describes the same conversion and theft of client files and trade secrets at issue in this case; Pohl sued Precision in both actions for the same conduct
164 18 18 Attorney Immunity — Law of the Case Kassab affirmative_defense The First Court of Appeals' characterization of Kassab's conduct as arising from commercial transaction involving legal services is binding law of the case; applies outside litigation context; even criminal conduct not categorically excepted
168 20 20 Statute of Limitations Kassab affirmative_defense Defense to Pohl's claims
169 20 20 Justification Kassab affirmative_defense Kassab's actions were justified
170 20 20 Estoppel Kassab affirmative_defense Defense to Pohl's claims
171 20 20 Unclean Hands Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl's own illegal barratry precludes equitable relief
172 20 20 Attorney Immunity Kassab affirmative_defense Actions taken in capacity as attorney are protected
173 20 20 First Amendment Kassab affirmative_defense Constitutional protection for speech/petition activities
174 20 20 In Pari Delicto Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl is equally or more at fault due to his own illegal conduct
175 20 20 Res Judicata Kassab affirmative_defense Prior adjudication bars relitigation

Next page

Advanced export

JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object

CSV options: 

CREATE TABLE legal_theories (
    theory_id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
    filing_id INTEGER REFERENCES filings(filing_id),
    theory TEXT,
    party TEXT,
    role TEXT,
    basis TEXT
);