section_id,filing_id,heading,summary
121,16,Summary,"Kassab moves for summary judgment on three independent grounds: (1) limitations — Pohl knew of the alleged misconduct in 2014 but waited until 2018 to file; (2) res judicata — Pohl previously brought similar claims in Mississippi federal court and settled, and Kassab is in privity with Precision as an alleged co-conspirator; (3) attorney immunity — Kassab's conduct of soliciting clients and filing barratry lawsuits falls within the scope of attorney representation. These are 'independent and purely legal grounds which require no discovery.'"
122,16,Background,"Recounts the Walker v. Williamson federal litigation (No. 1:14cv381-KS-JCG, filed October 8, 2014) involving Pohl, Precision, and 'Runners' who allegedly solicited clients for Pohl in Mississippi. The Runners contracted to provide 'public relations and marketing services' for a percentage of attorney fees. They procured thousands of BP claims and approximately sixty motor vehicle cases. The Runners were paid over $5 million in 'barratry pass-through money.' Kassab researched the matter, obtained client information from Favre, prepared State Bar-approved advertisement letters, and over 400 Mississippi residents signed representation contracts. Kassab filed four barratry suits against Pohl. Pohl then filed this retaliatory lawsuit."
123,16,Traditional Summary Judgment Standard,The purpose of summary judgment is to eliminate patently unmeritorious claims. Movant must show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. A genuine issue exists if more than a scintilla of evidence establishes the challenged element. Traditional MSJ may be filed 'at any time after the adverse party has appeared or answered.'
124,16,A. Limitations,"Kassab argues the 2-year conversion and 3-year TUTSA limitations bars apply. Pohl's own testimony shows he knew of the alleged theft in 2014 during federal discovery but did not sue because he 'did not want to do anything precipitous.' The statute begins running upon actual knowledge of wrongful injury, even without knowing specific cause, responsible party, full extent, or chances of avoidance. Pohl waited until August 2018 — more than four years after learning of the misconduct. Continuing misappropriation is a single cause of action and limitations begins without regard to whether the act is single or continuing."
125,16,B. Res Judicata,"Kassab argues Pohl's claims are barred because: (1) the Federal Court Case resulted in a final judgment with prejudice on April 21, 2017; (2) Kassab is in privity with Precision as an alleged co-conspirator — conspirators are deemed in privity for res judicata purposes; (3) Pohl's claims here arise from the same subject matter discovered during the federal litigation. Pohl knew of the alleged sale to Kassab during the federal case but chose not to add Kassab as a party. Any cause of action arising out of the same facts should, if practicable, be litigated in the same lawsuit."
126,16,C. Attorney Immunity,Kassab argues that his alleged conduct — purchasing a client list and soliciting potential barratry plaintiffs — falls squarely within the scope of attorney representation. Attorney immunity applies even to pre-litigation conduct and even when conduct is characterized as criminal or wrongful. The First Court of Appeals characterized Kassab's conduct as arising from a commercial transaction involving his legal services. Highland Capital is directly analogous — claims for illegal acquisition and use of stolen proprietary information were dismissed on attorney immunity. The acquisition of clients and filing of lawsuits are protected actions facilitating legal services.