Filing Sections
Data license: Public court records
9 rows where filing_id = 15
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
| section_id ▼ | filing_id | heading | summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 112 | 15 15 | I. This Case is Subject to a Mandatory Stay of All Proceedings | Kassab's TCPA motion was denied by operation of law, and Kassab noticed an interlocutory appeal on December 18, 2018. Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(b), the appeal triggers a mandatory stay of all trial court proceedings including discovery. The stay prevents the court from considering Favre/Precision's TCPA motion or taking any other action until the appeal is resolved. Actions taken during the stay are voidable. |
| 113 | 15 15 | II. The Court Should Deny Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Their Motion Out of Time | The TCPA requires filing within 60 days of service. Defendants acknowledge filing late and seek leave. Pohl argues they failed to show good cause: no explanation for the delay, and they actually benefited from the late filing by tailoring their motion to the court's reaction to Kassab's TCPA hearing on November 5, 2018. Favre was served September 14, 2018, and Kassab filed his TCPA motion on October 24 (the 40th day), which should have alerted Favre to the deadline. The three-day delay after the deadline, with this reminder, suggests conscious indifference. |
| 114 | 15 15 | III.A. Response in Opposition — Background | Summarizes the factual basis: Defendants sold Pohl's stolen property to Kassab for $250,000 so Kassab could solicit barratry claims. Defendants now claim the TCPA protects their actions. Defendants filed no evidentiary support and rely on non-binding authority and recharacterizations of Pohl's petition. |
| 115 | 15 15 | III.B.1. Pohl's allegations on their face do not implicate the TCPA | Courts must look at the plaintiff's allegations (not defendant's characterizations) to determine TCPA applicability. Pohl's claims for conversion, TUTSA violations, and conspiracy are based on the wrongful act of selling stolen information — not on any protected speech, petition, or association rights. The breach of contract claim was not even addressed by Defendants' motion and therefore cannot be dismissed. |
| 116 | 15 15 | III.B.2. Defendants have not sustained their burden of demonstrating TCPA applicability | Defendants filed no evidentiary support — five exhibits attached to Favre's motion are not verified. No evidence connects Pohl's specific claims to protected conduct. Right of association argument confuses necessary and sufficient conditions — just because TCPA can apply to a trade secrets claim doesn't mean it must. Free speech argument improperly focuses on post-wrongful-act conduct rather than the factual basis of liability. Allowing defendants to manufacture TCPA applicability by engaging in wrongful conduct then undertaking speech activities afterwards cannot be how the TCPA works. |
| 117 | 15 15 | III.B.3. The commercial exception precludes TCPA dismissal | Under § 27.010(b) and Castleman: (1) Precision is primarily engaged in the marketing business; (2) Precision's conversion and sale was done in its capacity as a seller of marketing goods/services; (3) the conversion and sale was a commercial transaction involving marketing goods/services Precision provides; (4) intended audience was Kassab as the actual customer. Notably, the Motion does not even attempt to argue the commercial exception doesn't apply to Precision. Through ownership and control of Precision, Mr. Favre and Favre's conduct also falls within the exception. |
| 118 | 15 15 | III.B.4. Clear and specific evidence demonstrates a prima facie case | Detailed element-by-element showing for all four causes of action: breach of contract (Settlement Agreement, performance, breach, damages), conversion, TUTSA misappropriation, and conspiracy. Evidence includes the Favre-Kassab Agreement ($250,000 payment, indemnity, confidentiality), Favre and Nicholson testimony, December 7 2016 email regarding Dropbox deliveries, Kassab's admissions, and Favre's confirmation that materials were maintained as confidential trade secrets. |
| 119 | 15 15 | III.B.5. Defendants cannot conclusively establish limitations defense | Settlement Agreement was executed April/May 2017 (4-year breach of contract limitations under § 16.051). Favre-Kassab Agreement executed November 10, 2016 — well within 2-year conversion (§ 16.003(a)) and 3-year TUTSA (§ 16.010(a)) limitations. Pohl was not aware of the claims in the two-year period prior to filing. |
| 120 | 15 15 | C. Defendants Are Not Entitled to Attorney's Fees | Defendants provided no evidentiary support for attorney's fees — no affidavit documenting services performed, hourly rates, or time expended. The Motion mentions fees only once in its final sentence. Without such proof, the court cannot award fees. |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE filing_sections (
section_id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
filing_id INTEGER REFERENCES filings(filing_id),
heading TEXT,
summary TEXT
);