section_id,filing_id,heading,summary
442,59,Introduction and Overview,"Identifies five objections to Pohl's proposed judgment: (1) exemplary damages not supported by unanimous predicate finding, (2) attorneys' fees from barratry cases and grievances not recoverable under TUTSA, (3) double recovery of unjust enrichment and fair market value, (4) conspiracy preempted by TUTSA or subject to Chapter 33, and (5) Precision's exoneration precludes Kassab's liability for indirect misappropriation. Notes Kassab will file subsequent motions challenging jury findings on other grounds."
443,59,I. The judgment should not include exemplary damages because the predicate question to reach the exemplary damages question was not answered unanimously,"Question 19 (exemplary damages) was predicated on unanimous 'Yes' to Q17 or Q18. Jury did not answer Q18. The presiding juror conspicuously did not sign the unanimity certificate for Q17, though he signed for Q2 and Q19. The general verdict certificate checked 'ten jurors agreed' rather than 'unanimous.' Pohl's assertion of unanimity on Q17 is 'erroneous and false.' Both Rule 292 and § 41.003(d) require unanimity for exemplary damages. Cites Redwine and DeAtley."
444,59,II. The judgment should not include attorney's fees incurred in Pohl barratry cases and grievance procedures because they are not recoverable under TUTSA or the Disciplinary Rules,Two sub-arguments.
445,59,II.A. Attorney's fees incurred in Pohl's barratry cases and grievances are not recoverable under TUTSA,"TUTSA provides recovery for 'actual losses' but does not define the term. Under § 134A.008, courts must look to other states' uniform acts. Other jurisdictions define 'actual loss' as lost profits, lost customers, or lost market share — not attorneys' fees from other litigation. Pre-TUTSA Texas law likewise limited trade secret damages to lost profits, defendant's profits, investor value, development costs, and royalties (Sw. Energy). Texas courts consistently hold fees from prior litigation are not recoverable as damages (Martin-Simon, Tana Oil, O'Neal, Tex. Mut. Ins., Woodhaven). The tort of another exception has never been embraced by the Texas Supreme Court and was rejected by the Fourteenth Court of Appeals (Naschke). Even if viable, it requires a wholly innocent plaintiff, and the jury found in Q3 that Pohl's wrongful conduct contributed to the injury."
446,59,II.B. Attorneys' fees are never recoverable against persons bringing grievance procedures,"Rule 17.09 provides absolute and unqualified immunity for complainants and witnesses filing grievances. The $112,286 in attorney's fees for defending grievances (Q7(1)(e) and (f)) are not recoverable as a matter of law. Cites Crampton v. Farris."
447,59,III. The judgment should not include damages for both unjust enrichment and fair market value; Pohl should have to elect between the two,"The $250,000 market value (Q7(2)) and $200,000 development costs (Q7(3)) are duplicative. A buyer acquiring trade secrets at fair market value would necessarily avoid development costs, so those costs are 'taken into account' in market value under § 134A.004. Pohl should elect one remedy."
448,59,IV. The judgment should not include joint and several liability under a conspiracy theory because conspiracy is pre-empted under TUTSA or subject to proportionate responsibility under Chapter 33,"TUTSA displaces conflicting tort remedies (§ 134A.007) and conspiracy is preempted per VEST Safety. Alternatively, Chapter 33 applies to any tort-based cause of action (§ 33.002(a)), civil conspiracy is an intentional tort (Firestone Steel), and conspiracy is not listed among Chapter 33 exemptions. Courts have concluded Chapter 33's proportionate responsibility applies to conspiracy rather than joint and several liability (Seven Seas, Pemex)."
449,59,V. The judgment should not include any damages against Kassab because the jury's finding of no wrongdoing by Precision destroys the misappropriation claim against Kassab,"Pohl alleged Precision illegally misappropriated trade secrets and Kassab subsequently committed indirect misappropriation by acquiring from Precision. Pohl originally sued Precision but non-suited; Precision was designated as a responsible third party. The jury found Precision did NOT misappropriate (Q2(a)(3) and Q2(b)(3)) and assigned 0% fault (Q4). Indirect misappropriation is 'daisy-chain' liability requiring the first person to have committed direct misappropriation (AssuredPartners). TUTSA § 134A.002(3)(B)(ii)(a) requires knowing acquisition from someone who used improper means. Precision was defined in the charge to include Walker, Seymour, and Ladner (before May 12, 2015) and Favre (after May 12, 2015). Precision's exoneration breaks the chain."