section_id,filing_id,heading,summary
346,48,Background,"Characterizes Pohl's lawsuit as retaliatory, filed because Kassab represented 400+ clients in barratry lawsuits against Pohl. Pohl hired runners who received over $5 million to illegally solicit clients from catastrophic auto accidents and BP Deepwater Horizon litigation."
347,48,Motion to Reconsider,Argues prior judge's denial was erroneous. Reconsideration will save time and money. Evidence is overwhelming. The case is patently frivolous and a waste of judicial economy.
348,48,Summary,"Lists twelve grounds for summary judgment: (1) Rule 17.09 grievance immunity, (2) judicial proceedings privilege, (3) attorney immunity, (4) statute of limitations, (5) TUTSA failure—trade secrets not kept secret, (6) TUTSA failure—Pohl doesn't own client files, (7) unlawful acts doctrine, (8) impermissible damages recovery, (9-12) multiple no-evidence grounds for conversion, trade secrets, and conspiracy."
349,48,Joinder and Incorporation by Reference,"Kassab adopts arguments and evidence from co-defendant Nicholson's traditional summary judgment motion filed August 19, 2022 pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 58."
350,48,Pohl's Barratry Scheme,"Extensive factual recitation with exhibit citations: Walker/Ladner/Precision received $5M+; trained 40-50 people; Helping Hands Financing (owned by Donalda Pohl, operated by Jaimes) funneled payments; Santana solicited 40-50 auto cases in multiple states; Talley solicited 800+ BP claims and 20+ auto cases; specific barratry victims identified (Berry, Speck, Bethley, Bikumbu, Cheatham, Miller, Butts, Reese)."
351,48,Summary Judgment Standard,"Traditional MSJ standard: movant must show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Cites Miranda, Lujan, Maldonado, Ford Motor Co."
352,48,A. Rule 17.09 Immunity,"Rule 17.09 provides absolute and unqualified immunity for grievance filing. Pohl's claims are predicated on Kassab's grievances. Pohl testified he sued because Kassab used information in grievance proceedings. Pohl's damages are costs of defending grievances. Cites Crampton v. Farris, Burch v. State Bar."
353,48,B. Judicial Proceedings Privilege,"Absolute privilege covers statements in judicial proceedings and communications preliminary to proposed proceedings. Pohl is suing for Kassab's solicitation letters (pre-suit) and barratry litigation/grievances (actual proceedings). Damages flow from communications in judicial proceedings. Cites Landry's, Crain v. Smith, Laub v. Pesikoff, Tex. Mut. Ins. Co."
354,48,C. Attorney Immunity,"Attorney does not have right of recovery against another attorney for conduct in discharge of duties representing a party. Even criminal conduct is not categorically excepted. NEW: Taylor v. Tolbert (644 S.W.3d 637, Tex. 2022) held conduct prohibited by statute is subject to attorney immunity if statute does not expressly abrogate the defense. TUTSA does not expressly repudiate attorney immunity. Court of appeals in this case already characterized Kassab's conduct as arising from commercial transaction involving legal services (Kassab v. Pohl, 612 S.W.3d 571). Cites Bradt, Youngkin, Bethel, Cantey Hanger, Taylor, Haynes & Boone, Highland Capital, Clayton."
355,48,D. Statute of Limitations,"TUTSA: 3-year SOL from discovery (§ 16.010(a)). Pohl testified he knew trade secrets stolen in summer 2014. Filed suit August 28, 2018 — over 4 years later. Even if accrual in May 2015 (demand letters to Nicholson), still expired by May 2018. TUTSA expressly precludes continuing tort theories (§ 16.010(b)). Conversion: 2-year SOL (§ 16.003(a)) — expired whether accrual in 2014 or 2015. Conspiracy: accrues when underlying tort accrues (Agar Corp., 580 S.W.3d 136). Extensive Pohl deposition testimony about 2014 theft."
356,48,E.1. TUTSA Failure — Trade Secrets Not Kept Secret,Incorporates Nicholson Motion argument (pp. 45-49) by reference under Rule 58. Pohl did not take reasonable measures to keep information secret.
357,48,E.2. Pohl Does Not Own the Property,"Under Texas law, client owns contents of client file, not the attorney. Attorney is agent of client. Work product belongs to client. Client lists solicited by Precision are owned by Precision, not Pohl. Favre testified Precision's marketing lists were 'solely the work product and property of Precision.' Cites In re McCann, In re George, Thomson v. Findlater, Catania, Resolution Tr. Corp., Tex. Disc. R. 1.15."
358,48,F. Unlawful Acts Doctrine / Illegality,"Pohl's illegal acts (barratry, UPL) preclude recovery because claims are inextricably intertwined with crimes. Pohl himself argued illegality defense in Mississippi Litigation. Texas courts applied the rule in BP solicitation context (Truyen Luong). Trade secrets obtained through illegality cannot receive protection (Alderson v. United States). Privilege to disclose trade secrets about illegal activities (Merckle GmbH, Restatement Third). Extensive unauthorized practice of law analysis across Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida with specific statutory citations."
359,48,G. Impermissible Damages — Attorney's Fees,"TUTSA damages are lost profits, defendant's profits, reasonable royalty — not attorney's fees from other lawsuits. American Rule: attorney's fees not recoverable absent statute or contract (Tony Gullo Motors, Akin Gump). Texas Supreme Court has never adopted 'tort of another' exception. Even if exception applied, Pohl is not wholly innocent (Per-Se Techs., Pacesetter Pools)."
360,48,No-Evidence Motion — Conversion,"Pohl has no evidence of: (1) ownership/possession, (2) unauthorized control by Kassab, (3) demand and refusal, (4) damages. Cites Freezia, Wiese."
361,48,No-Evidence Motion — TUTSA,"Pohl has no evidence of: (1) ownership of trade secret (lawyers don't own client files), (2) misappropriation by Kassab, (3) proximate cause damages. No evidence of reasonable measures to keep secret, no evidence of willful/malicious misappropriation. Cites Malone, Morgan v. Clements Fluids."
362,48,No-Evidence Motion — Conspiracy,"Pohl has no evidence of five conspiracy elements: combination, object, meeting of minds, unlawful overt acts, proximate damages. Cites Tri v. J.T.T., Haynes v. Bryan."