Filing Sections
Data license: Public court records
10 rows where filing_id = 57
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
| section_id ▼ | filing_id | heading | summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 425 | 57 57 | Summary | Argues barratry is central to the entire case — Pohl's trade secret claim, damages, proportionate responsibility, and Kassab's affirmative defenses. Notes Pohl has made this the subject of several motions seeking similar relief, including a previously withdrawn summary judgment motion on Kassab's affirmative defenses. Pohl's barratry is relevant to TUTSA ownership, willful and malicious misappropriation, damages recovery for defending barratry suits, and proportionate responsibility. |
| 426 | 57 57 | I. Pohl's belated use of Rule 166(g) as a last-minute effort to decide the merits of Kassab's affirmative defenses is improper | Argues Rule 166(g) pretrial conference is not a substitute for summary judgment practice. Rule 166(g) should not be used to determine issues involving controverted facts — it is a tool to dispose of issues founded upon admitted or undisputed facts. Pohl previously sought summary judgment on Kassab's affirmative defenses but withdrew the notice after Kassab filed his response. Pohl now improperly tries to 'backdoor' the same relief through Rule 166(g). |
| 427 | 57 57 | II. Evidence of Pohl's barratrous conduct is directly relevant to Pohl's claims and his own proportionate responsibility | Argues barratry is relevant to: (1) TUTSA ownership — Pohl cannot own trade secrets for information about ongoing illegal activities because a person who obtains property by illegal means acquires no title; (2) tort of another damages theory — has never been embraced by Texas Supreme Court and requires claimant to be an innocent party; (3) willful and malicious misappropriation — Kassab's state of mind regarding Pohl's barratry is relevant to negating this element for TUTSA fees and exemplary damages; (4) proportionate responsibility — whether Pohl caused or contributed 'in any way' to the harm, including the $2.4M+ in actual loss damages and the $1M Precision settlement. |
| 428 | 57 57 | III. Evidence of Pohl's barratrous conduct is directly relevant to Kassab's affirmative defenses | Addresses multiple defenses that Pohl seeks to eliminate. Notes Kassab will request jury findings on these defenses at trial. Pohl argues ten defenses 'do not exist or do not apply' but the Court should not consider this untimely request for summary judgment disguised as a Rule 166(g) motion. |
| 429 | 57 57 | III.A. Whether Pohl committed barratry is directly relevant to many of Kassab's defenses which Pohl has failed to conclusively negate | Unlawful acts doctrine — distinguishes Dugger v. Arredondo as expressly limited to personal injury and wrongful death cases. Cites Sharpe, Luong, Denson, and Villanueva for continued application outside that context. Argues Pohl's claims are inextricably intertwined with his illegal contract with Precision to commit barratry. Notes Kassab incorporates arguments from his August 29, 2022 Traditional MSJ and from Nicholson's September 12, 2022 Response (pp. 9-14 on unlawful acts doctrine). |
| 430 | 57 57 | III.B. Whether Pohl committed barratry is directly relevant to Kassab's justification and immunity defenses which Pohl either fails to address or fails to negate | Addresses Pohl's argument that justification is only a defense to tortious interference. Responds that justification is commonly applied in conversion cases because the alleged theft must occur 'without justification' (citing Morey v. Page). Pohl conflates Kassab's justification defense with privilege/immunity defenses. |
| 431 | 57 57 | III.B.1. Barratry is relevant to Kassab's defense of privilege | Cites Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 40 cmt. c and Restatement of Torts § 757 cmt. d for a privilege to disclose trade secrets relating to crime, tort, or matters of substantial public concern. Notes the Reporters' Notes compare this to whistleblower statutes. Kassab was privileged to obtain and use the information to notify Pohl's clients about illegal solicitation. Cites Philadelphia Plaza and Sys. Operations for application of the privilege. |
| 432 | 57 57 | III.B.2. Barratry is relevant to Kassab's defenses of attorney immunity and judicial proceedings privilege | Attorney immunity: Cites Bradt, Youngkin, Cantey Hanger, Bethel, and Taylor v. Tolbert for attorney immunity even covering alleged criminal conduct connected to client representation. Taylor is highlighted — attorney accused of violating wiretapping laws was immune because conduct fell within attorney immunity. The First Court of Appeals already characterized Kassab's conduct as arising from legal services. Cites Clayton and Haynes & Boone for immunity extending to pre-litigation and business transaction conduct. Judicial proceedings privilege: Cites Landry's for absolute privilege covering all aspects of proceedings including preliminary communications. Kassab's solicitation letters and barratry litigation are protected. Cites Crain and Highland Capital. Question No. 8 on Kassab's proposed jury charge incorporates these defenses. |
| 433 | 57 57 | III.B.3. Barratry is relevant to Kassab's defenses of immunity under Texas Rule of Disciplinary Procedure 17.09 | Rule 17.09 provides absolute and unqualified immunity for complainants and witnesses in the grievance process, extending to 'all actions at law or in equity.' Pohl admits Kassab was both a complainant and witness. Pohl's suit is at least partially predicated on the grievance proceedings — Pohl seeks fees incurred defending grievances filed by Kassab or his clients. Even Pohl concedes a 'small portion' of his damages are connected to the grievance process. Under Rule 17.09, the entire suit is barred. Cites Crampton and Burch. |
| 434 | 57 57 | III.B.4. Barratry is relevant to Kassab's defenses of unclean hands | Unclean hands applies to claims involving equitable remedies. Pohl sought injunctive relief and has not filed an amendment to remove it, so the claim is still live. Additionally, TUTSA requires 'legal, or equitable' title to trade secrets. Because Pohl's ownership claim is grounded in equity, Kassab is entitled to show Pohl's unclean hands from his illegal barratry scheme. |
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
);