Filing Sections
Data license: Public court records
4 rows where filing_id = 38
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
| section_id ▼ | filing_id | heading | summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 287 | 38 38 | I. Background | Kassab facilitated seven separate grievances and four lawsuits against Pohl, all based on barratry theory. Every grievance failed, often with findings that conduct did not constitute professional misconduct. Two lawsuits resulted in final judgments on the merits in Pohl's favor. Third lawsuit settled for less than cost of defense. The Cheatham case is the fourth — the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel dismissed the related grievance, and the Board of Disciplinary Appeals affirmed. The appellate reversal was on limitations and extraterritoriality grounds, not on finding barratry occurred. Cheatham involves only two sets of wrongful-death claimants out of 10,000+ clients whose information defendants misappropriated. The outcome of Cheatham is not relevant to Pohl's claims; its relevance is only that defense fees are a component of actual damages. |
| 288 | 38 38 | II.A. Future Damages Do Not Support Abatement | Texas law requires injured parties to bring claims even when all damages have not yet occurred (Schlumberger v. Pasko). Future damages are assessed by jury using reasonable probability standard (GTE Mobilnet v. Pascouet). If future damages required abatement, there would be no trials involving lost profits, earning capacity, or future medical expenses. Kassab's cited case (In re Tex. Collegiate Baseball League) is distinguishable: there, parties agreed malpractice claims were premature, the fee claim and malpractice claims involved the same facts and issues, and severance could cause inconsistent litigation positions. None of those circumstances exist here. |
| 289 | 38 38 | II.B. Unlawful Acts Defense Is Preempted | Kassab's sole cited case (Andrew Shebay v. Bishop) predates Texas Supreme Court's ruling in Dugger v. Arredondo that the unlawful acts doctrine is 'no longer a viable defense' under § 33.003. Kassab and David Kassab themselves argued in Beatty v. Knighton that the doctrine was 'no longer good law,' citing Boerjan v. Rodriguez confirming Chapter 33 abrogated the doctrine. Even if available, Kassab must show proximate cause between Pohl's alleged barratry and Pohl's injuries (Arredondo v. Dugger) — the injuries arise from defendants' conversion and misappropriation, not from any alleged barratry. Kassab's unclean hands defense (mentioned once without explanation) fails because it applies only to equitable relief and requires injury to the person raising the defense (In re Nolle); damages are not equitable relief. |
| 290 | 38 38 | III. Conclusion | Abatement is neither required nor appropriate. Pohl is entitled to a trial on the merits regardless of future damages or the Cheatham outcome. |
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
);