section_id,filing_id,heading,summary
127,17,I. Factual Background,"Pohl recounts hiring Precision for PR services, Precision's access to confidential information, Kassab's November 2016 purchase of stolen information for $250,000 plus bonuses, and Kassab's subsequent use to solicit Pohl's clients. The settlement agreement executed in late April or early May 2017 resolved the Mississippi federal litigation. Favre was a party to the Settlement Agreement but not the Federal Court Case. Precision is the only defendant in this lawsuit that was also a party to the Federal Court Case. Pohl brought this lawsuit on August 28, 2018."
128,17,II.A. Pohl's Claims are Not Barred by Limitations,"Pohl's claims against Kassab accrued no earlier than November 2016 because they arise from Kassab's purchase and subsequent use of stolen information. No claim has a limitations period of less than two years, and suit was filed in August 2018. Even if this were not so, Kassab has failed to carry his burden to show the claims accrued outside the limitations period."
129,17,II.A.1. Summary Judgment Standard for Limitations,"Kassab bears the burden to conclusively establish when each cause of action accrued and must also negate the discovery rule. A conversion claim accrues at the defendant's unlawful taking, and each possession is a new conversion. A TUTSA claim accrues upon actual commercial use of the trade secret. Civil conspiracy accrues when each underlying tort occurs. Two-year period for conversion; three-year period for TUTSA."
130,17,II.A.2. Claims Accrued Within Two Years,"Suit filed August 28, 2018. Conversion claim accrued after August 28, 2016 and TUTSA claim accrued after August 28, 2015. The undisputed November 10, 2016 contract date establishes the earliest possible accrual. Kassab was still acquiring possession in December 2016 per the December 7, 2016 email. Conversion accrued no earlier than December 1, 2016. TUTSA claim necessarily accrued after November 10, 2016 since Kassab could not use trade secrets before acquiring them."
131,17,II.A.3. Kassab's Evidence About Prior Wrongdoing is Irrelevant,"Kassab focuses on others' conduct, but it is Kassab's own wrongful conduct that matters for accrual. Pohl's deposition testimony only shows knowledge of 'some wrongful conduct by some individuals' at an undefined point prior to May 2018, not knowledge of Kassab's specific wrongful conduct. Even if testimony created an issue, it at most creates a fact question. Pohl affirmatively testified he was not aware of the claims in this case in the two-year period prior to filing. Kassab also acknowledges he bears the burden of negating the discovery rule but fails to conclusively do so."
132,17,II.B. Res Judicata Does Not Apply,"Kassab was not a party to the Federal Court Case or the settlement agreement. He fails to establish privity under the controlling three-part Texas test (control, representation of interests, successor in interest). His reliance on out-of-state conspiracy-privity cases is misplaced. Precision itself did not move for summary judgment on res judicata grounds. Even if privity existed, the factual bases of the two actions differ — the Federal Counterclaim addressed improper billing, not theft of confidential information."
133,17,II.B.1. Kassab Fails to Establish Privity,"Texas rejects categorical privity approaches. Kassab must show (1) control over the prior action, (2) interests represented by a party, or (3) successor in interest. He provides no evidence on any test. Allegations of conspiracy alone are insufficient under Texas law — contrary to the out-of-state cases Kassab cites. Kassab cannot establish control because there is no evidence he openly participated in the Federal Court Case. He fails to prove Precision represented his interests. The successor-in-interest test is also unaddressed."
134,17,II.B.2. Factual Bases of the Two Actions Differ,"The Federal Counterclaim focused on improper billing and charging of expenses (conversion of 'funds'), while this lawsuit addresses conversion of confidential information and property. Kassab's citation to Pohl's Federal Counterclaim actually demonstrates the allegations are entirely separate. Pohl's June 2018 affidavit reflects post-Federal-Case knowledge and does not establish the claims could have been brought earlier. Even if Pohl had prior knowledge, the different subject matter is fatal to res judicata."
135,17,II.C. Attorney-Immunity Doctrine Does Not Apply,"Two inquiries govern: type of conduct and existence of attorney-client relationship. Kassab's purchase of stolen property before having any clients is not conduct 'within the scope of client representation' or undertaken in a 'uniquely lawyerly capacity.' The solicitation and advertising necessarily preceded any attorney-client relationship and the requisite 'meeting of the minds.' The First Court of Appeals' commercial-transaction characterization addresses scope of a commercial transaction, not scope of duties to a client, and does not establish attorney immunity. Kassab also failed to provide any evidence of an attorney-client relationship at the time of his wrongful conduct."