Filing Sections
Data license: Public court records
11 rows where filing_id = 46
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
| section_id ▼ | filing_id | heading | summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 331 | 46 46 | I. Standard | Under Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(g), the Court can decide legal issues at pretrial to assist disposition without undue expense. Allowing the barratry question to consume the trial would greatly extend its length and needlessly complicate jury issues. |
| 332 | 46 46 | II.A. Barratry Is Not Material — Overview | Establishing barratry does not deny the factual bases of Pohl's claims or prevent establishment of elements. Even if all clients were obtained through barratry, it would not constitute a defense. The law does not authorize tortious conduct because a person believes it could uncover other wrongful acts. There are no 'outlaws' under Texas law. |
| 333 | 46 46 | II.A.1. Barratry Does Not Impact Trade Secret Ownership | Client contracts procured through barratry are voidable (not void) under Tex. Gov't Code § 82.0651(a), and only the client can seek to void them. Not a single Pohl client contract has been declared void. Even if voided, attorney retains ownership of compilations of client information and copies of contracts. Kassab has conflated contract enforceability with trade secret ownership. |
| 334 | 46 46 | II.A.2. Barratry Is Not a Standalone Defense | Despite Kassab's framing, establishing barratry is not an affirmative defense to conversion, TUTSA, or conspiracy. Kassab cannot cite any Texas case where barratry was found to be an affirmative defense to these claims. Kassab has not pled barratry as a standalone defense. |
| 335 | 46 46 | II.A.3. Kassab Has No Standing to Assert Barratry | Barratry can only be enforced through three avenues: State Bar disciplinary proceedings, criminal charges by the State, and civil suits by affected clients. Kassab has standing under none of these. |
| 336 | 46 46 | II.B.1. Unlawful Acts / Illegality / In Pari Delicto Fail | The unlawful acts doctrine is preempted by Dugger v. Arredondo under proportionate responsibility. Kassab changed his defense description from 'Illegality/Criminal Acts/Unlawful Acts Rule' (7th Answer) to 'Illegality/Criminal Acts' (8th Answer) after Pohl identified the preemption problem. Renaming the defense does not make it un-preempted. Illegality and in pari delicto apply only to enforcement of illegal contracts, which Pohl is not seeking. |
| 337 | 46 46 | II.B.2. Justification Defense Fails | Justification is an affirmative defense only to tortious interference with contract, not to trade secret theft, conversion, or conspiracy. Even where available, if acts are 'tortious in themselves,' justification never arises. Kassab cannot be 'justified' in stealing trade secrets to pursue claims on behalf of clients who did not exist at the time of the tortious conduct. |
| 338 | 46 46 | II.B.3. Rule 17.09 Immunity Fails | Rule 17.09 provides immunity only when lawsuit is 'predicated upon' filing a grievance. Pohl's claims accrued before any grievance was filed, based on conversion and misappropriation. If Kassab had never filed a grievance, Pohl's claims would still exist. Kassab is not a State Bar official entitled to official-duties immunity. |
| 339 | 46 46 | II.B.4. Unclean Hands Fails | Unclean hands bars only equitable relief. Pohl will no longer seek equitable/injunctive relief to streamline trial. Even if applicable, defense requires nexus and injury to the person raising it — Kassab cannot show injury from alleged barratry involving Pohl's clients. |
| 340 | 46 46 | II.B.5. Release, Accord & Satisfaction, Estoppel, Subject to Valid Contract Fail | Kassab acknowledged in his own summary judgment briefing that 'contract-related affirmative defenses of release, accord and satisfaction, estoppel do not apply to Kassab.' Pohl has no contract claims against Kassab. The 'subject to a valid contract' (express contract) defense applies only to quantum meruit recovery. |
| 341 | 46 46 | II.B.6. Assumption of Risk and Contribution Fail | Texas Supreme Court declared common law defenses of assumption of risk and contributory negligence no longer exist; their concepts survive only within the proportionate responsibility statute. |
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
);