Court Filings
Data license: Public court records
68 rows sorted by date descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: chain, date (date)
doc_type 19
outcome 4
- N/A 56
- DENIED 6
- GRANTED 5
- $6.3M JUDGMENT 1
| filing_id | date ▲ | doc_type | party | description | doc_type_detail | procedural_posture | chain | outcome | phase | filename | relief_requested | full_text |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 67 | 2024-02-02 | RSP | Pohl | Objections to Kassab JNOV | Pohl's Response in Opposition to Kassab's Motions for New Trial and for JNOV, systematically opposing all 22 grounds for new trial and all JNOV arguments. Argues: all grounds are recycled rejected arguments; witness tampering allegations identical to rejected mistrial motion and based on unsworn statements of self-professed perjurer/extortionist; multiple charge objections waived at charge conference; jury verdict supported by nearly two weeks of trial evidence; Kassab fails to cite trial record; incorporates 15 prior filings by reference. | Response filed February 2, 2024, opposing both the Motion for New Trial and Motion for JNOV filed January 19, 2024. Pohl incorporates by reference 15 prior filings spanning 2021-2023. Notes Kassab has not filed a proposed order as required by court procedures. | POST-1 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2024-02-02_RSP_Pohl-Objections-to-Kassab-JNOV_FILED.pdf | Denial of Kassab's Motion for New Trial and Motion for JNOV in their entirety | 2/2/2024 4:44 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 84110431 By: Bonnie Lugo Filed: 2/2/2024 4:44 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL et al. § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiffs, § V. § HARRIS COUNTY,k TEXAS § e LANCE CHRISTOPHER § C l KASSAB et al. § § c Defendants. § 281ST JUDrICIAL DISTRICT POHL’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL AND FOR JUDGMENT NOT WITHSTANDING THE VERDsICT AND TO DISREGARD JURY FINDINGS FILED BY THE KASSAsB DEFENDANTS Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Office of Michaerl A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) respond in opposition to The Kassab Defendants’ Motion for New Trial (the “Motion for New Trial”) and Motion for Judgment Not Withstanding the Verdlict and to Disregard Jury Findings (the “Motion for JNOV”) filed by Defendants Lance ChMristopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C., d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (collectively “Kassab”). I. INTRODUCTION Kassab’s Motion for New Trial and Motion for JNOV repeat Kassab’s arguments that the Court has previously considered and rejected. In these two motions, Kassab recycles arguments rejected at summary judgment, 166(g) hearings, pre-trial hearings, directed verdict, and otherwise. The Court’s judgcment and the jury verdict are supported by and consistent with ample evidence presented at trial. But Kassab would have the Court throw out a jury verdict supported by nearly two weeks’ worth of trial evidence. Because the issues that Kassab raises are without merit, the Court should deny Kassab’s Motion for New Trial and Motion for JNOV. II. STANDARDS A. Motion for New Trial “Jury trials are essential to our constitutionally provided method for resolving disputes,” and “a jury’s decision is not to be tampered with lightly, regardless of whether it favors the plaintiff or the defendant.” In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, Subsidiary, L.Pl., 290 S.W.3d 204, 211 (Tex. 2009) (citing Tex. Const. art. I, § 15, art. V, § 10); see generally Hterbert v. Herbert, 754 S.W.2d 141, 144 (Tex. 1988) (“long-establi… |
| 68 | 2024-02-02 | RSP | Pohl | Response to Mtn to Modify Judgment | Pohl's Response to Kassab's Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform Judgment, arguing all arguments are recycled and rejected, the jury properly awarded exemplary damages unanimously (Q17 answered per unanimity instructions, Q19 predicated on unanimous Q17, Kassab waived by not objecting before discharge), attorneys' fees from separate proceedings are recoverable actual losses under TUTSA's broad 'actual loss' definition and tort of another doctrine, damages are not duplicative (TUTSA expressly authorizes both actual loss and unjust enrichment), conspiracy is not preempted (it is a rule of joint liability, not an independent tort or conflicting remedy), and great-weight-and-preponderance arguments are meritless | Response filed February 2, 2024, opposing Kassab's Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform Judgment. Filed simultaneously with Pohl's response to the JNOV and New Trial motions. Incorporates prior briefing by reference. | POST-2 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2024-02-02_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-Mtn-to-Modify-Judgment_FILED.pdf | Denial of Kassab's Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform Judgment, and any other relief to which Pohl is entitled | 2/2/2024 4:20 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 84108335 By: Patricia Gonzalez Filed: 2/2/2024 4:20 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et. al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiffs, § V. § HARRIS COUNTY,k TEXAS § e LANCE CHRISTOPHER § C l KASSAB, et. al § § c Defendants. § 281ST JUDrICIAL DISTRICT POHL’S RESPONSE TO KASSAB’S MOTION TO MODIFY, CORRECT, OR REFsORM JUDGMENT Plaintiffs Michael A. Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (collectively “Pohl”) respond in opposition to Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab’s and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm’s (collectively “Kassab”) motion to modify, correct, or reform the judgment (“Motion to Modify”). a I. Summary. The Motion to Modify primareily consists of recycled arguments that Kassab has previously made and that the Court has prefviously rejected. On that ground alone, the motion should be denied. y Substantively, CKassab re-argues in shotgun fashion that all of the damages found by the jury and awarded bay the Court are not recoverable for various erroneous reasons. As Pohl has previously brieffed at length, however, both the actual damages and exemplary damages are reasonablUe and fully supported by the verdict, the evidence, and the law. For these and other reasons that we discuss next, the Motion to Modify should be denied. II. The Jury Properly Awarded Exemplary Damages, and Pohl is Entitled to Recover Them. Kassab contends that the award of exemplary damages is unsupported and improper because the jury allegedly did not unanimously answer “Yes” in response to Question 17. See Motion to Modify, p. 4. But that is not true. On its face, the jury charge shorws that the jury unanimously answered “Yes” to Question 17 after being instructed to only answer the question “Yes” if the finding was unanimous. See Charge of the Court, p. 24. Irfi Kassab believed that the certificate of unanimity was in conflict with the answers containDed in the jury verdict, he was obligated to request that the jury be … |
| 65 | 2024-01-19 | MJNOV | Kassab | Mtn for JNOV and Disregard Jury Findings | Kassab Defendants' Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and to Disregard Jury Findings, asserting 10 grounds for JNOV (no trade secret, no misappropriation evidence, limitations, unlawful acts doctrine, privilege to disclose, grievance immunity, judicial proceedings privilege, attorney immunity, unrecoverable damages, no causation), plus arguments that conspiracy is preempted by TUTSA and exemplary damages are improper due to non-unanimous Q17 finding | Post-judgment motion filed January 19, 2024, 28 days after entry of the Final Judgment on December 22, 2023. Kassab seeks JNOV on all claims or alternatively on exemplary damages and conspiracy claim. Filed simultaneously with Motion for New Trial. | POST-1 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2024-01-19_MJNOV_Kassab-Mtn-for-JNOV-and-Disregard-Jury-Findings_FILED.pdf | Judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of Kassab on all claims (take-nothing judgment), or alternatively: (1) JNOV on exemplary damages due to non-unanimous Q17 finding; (2) JNOV on conspiracy claim as preempted by TUTSA, eliminating joint and several liability; (3) disregard of jury findings | 1/19/2024 3:31 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 83597613 By: Rhonda Momon Filed: 1/19/2024 3:31 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al. § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al. § 281st JUDICIALk DISTRICT THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMCENT NOT WITHSTANDING THE VERDICT AND TO DISREGARD JURY FINDINGS Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Chtristopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”), files this Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and to Disregard Jurey Findings and would show as follows. u SUMMARY Pohl’s claims against Kassab are abarred as a matter of law. Therefor the Court should disregard the findings of the jury and enter a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of Kassab for aney one of the following reasons: 1. Pohl’s claims are ba rrfed as a matter of law because the information at issue is not a trade secret: • not Pohl’s trade secret because he does not own the information at issue; l • not Piohl’s (or anyone’s) trade secret because the information at issue dooes not have any independent economic value from not being generally known; • not Pohl’s (or anyone’s) trade secret because he made no reasonable measures to keep the subject information secret. 2. Pohl’s claims fail as a matter of law because there is no evidence that Kassab engaged in regular or willful misappropriation; specifically, there is no evidence that Kassab knew the information was Pohl’s trade secret or had been acquired by improper means. The jury’s finding that those associated with Precision, did not misappropriate anything precludes liability against Kassab. k 3. Pohl’s claims are barred by limitations because they accruedC, if at all, in the summer of 2014 when Precision engaged in the first acts of alleged misappropriation, or at the latest in the spring ofi 2015, when both Precision and Favre engaged in additional acts of alleged misappropriation. 4. Pohl’s claims are barred by the unlawful acts doctrine bec… |
| 66 | 2024-01-19 | MNT | Kassab | Motion for New Trial | Kassab Defendants' Motion for New Trial, filed in the alternative to the JNOV Motion, raising 22 grounds for new trial including: (1) newly discovered evidence of witness bribery/tampering (Walker 30% confession), (2-4) factual insufficiency on trade secret ownership and misappropriation, (5-6) jury charge errors on Q3 and proportionate responsibility, (7) limitations question error on Q5, (8) insufficiency on Q5 answer, (9-10) refusal to submit unlawful acts defense and immunity/privilege questions, (11) exclusion of barratry expert testimony, (12) Q6 attorney immunity question error, (13) insufficiency on Q6, (14) improper Q7(1) submission (attorney fees not TUTSA damages), (15) property owner rule error, (16) insufficiency on Q7(2)-(3), (17-18) insufficiency on willful/malicious and exemplary damages, (19) conspiracy preemption, (20) denial of responsible third party designations, (21) denial of abatement, (22) privilege/offensive use errors, and (23) dismissal of barratry counterclaims, plus insufficiency of attorney fees evidence | Post-judgment motion filed January 19, 2024, simultaneously with the JNOV Motion, within 30 days of the December 22, 2023 Final Judgment. Filed in the alternative — if Court does not grant JNOV, it should grant a new trial on any of 22 enumerated grounds. | POST-1 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2024-01-19_MNT_Kassab-Motion-for-New-Trial_FILED.pdf | New trial on all claims — vacate final judgment and order new trial. Alternatively, new trial on specific issues and/or remittitur of exemplary damages. | 1/19/2024 3:31 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 83597613 By: Rhonda Momon Filed: 1/19/2024 3:31 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al. § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al. § 281st JUDICIALk DISTRICT THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR NEWC TRIAL In the alternative to their Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and to Disregard Jury Findings (“the JNOV Motion”), Defenidants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”) file this Motion for New Trial and would respectfully show as follows. SUMMARY Pohl’s claims against Kassab are barlred as a matter of law, so the Court should grant the JNOV Motion. To the extenMt the Court does not disregard findings of the jury and enter a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of Kassab, it should grant a new trial for any one oif the following reasons: 1. Newly discovered evidence demonstrates that material witnesses engaged in poerjury and Pohl engaged in unlawful bribery and witness tamperinlg which resulted in the jury being deceived as to material issuesi. 2. Factually insufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding in Question 1 that Pohl owned a trade secret in (a) attorney-client fee contracts and (b) lists of Pohl’s actual, potential, or rejected clients. 3. The trial court erred by submitting Question 2, the misappropriation question, to the jury because it failed to sufficiently distinguish the acts of each defendant and included liability theories not supported by legally sufficient evidence. 4. Factually insufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding in Qukestion 2 that Kassab misappropriated Pohl’s alleged trade secreCt. 5. The Court improperly submitted Question 3 on Pohl’s “wrongful conduct” because it is not tied to the privilege quesition, proportionate responsibility question or anything else in the jury charge. 6. The Court erred by refusing to submit Kassab’s proposed jury question on immunity or privilege. 7. The … |
| 64 | 2023-12-22 | ORD | Court | FINAL JUDGMENT: $6,310,039.34 | Final Judgment entered by the 281st District Court, Harris County, Texas, awarding Pohl and LOMAP $6,310,039.34 against Kassab and LCKPC jointly and severally, including $1,453,040 in actual damages, $1,232,013 in trial attorneys' fees, $3,000,000 in exemplary damages, $624,986.34 in prejudgment interest, conditional appellate attorneys' fees escalating total to $6,685,039.34 if proceedings go through Supreme Court of Texas oral argument, and postjudgment interest at 8.5% compounded annually. Incorporates full jury charge and verdict as Exhibit 1. | Final judgment signed December 22, 2023 by Judge Christine Weems of the 281st District Court, Harris County, Texas, resolving all claims in Cause No. 2018-58419. The court granted Pohl's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment after considering the motion, responses, replies, other briefing, arguments of counsel, and the pleadings. Trial commenced August 21, 2023; jury rendered verdict August 31, 2023. | JDGMT-1 | $6.3M JUDGMENT | Phase 5 | 2023-12-22_ORD_Final-Judgment_SIGNED.pdf | ‘nity BD Slater eieee DEC 22 2023 «= Pas? - CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 Time:_____2 A oe VIONEX By pare AA- DC MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURS@F UC ~aTFex MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § 9A Plaintiffs, § § § @ | § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § ~~ Pg: 3 q LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § 6 Re THE KASSAB LAW FIRM § SN Defendants. § 281ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT FINAL JUDGMENT : : 1. On August 21, 2023, this case was called to trial? Plaintiff Michael Pohl (“Pohi’’) . and the Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC CLOMAR*pppere in person and through their - Q) attorneys and announced ready for trial. Detnda Lac Christopher Kassab (“Kassab”) and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassib La Firm (“LCKPC”) appeared in person and ( O, through their attorneys and announced ready fri The Court determined that it had jurisdiction over the subject matter of this lawsuitGnd the parties to this lawsuit. Thereafter, the Court instructed, empaneled, and an which heard the evidence and arguments of counsel. The Court submitted instructidas) efinitions, and questions to the jury, and in response, the jury ‘made findings that this Cassie filed, and entered of record. Counsel for Pohl and LOMAP orally moved for Bee Court to accept the jury’s verdict, which the Court granted on the record. . ( 2. The instructions, definitions, and questions submitted to the jury, and the jury’s uwS - . findings, are atached to this Final Judgment as Exhibit 1 and are incorporated into this Final Judgment, > 3. Prior to trial, Pohl and LOMAP settled with certain former defendants to this lawsuit for payments to Pohl and LOMAP that total $765,000.00 in the aggregate (the “Settlement Credit”). . . a EXHIBIT B oe RECORDER'S MEMORANDUM | This instrument is of poor quality \ { at the time of imaging ‘ 4, Pohl and LOMAP have filed a motion for judgment on the jury’s verdict (the “Motion”), which the Court has carefully considered and grants after considering the Motion, any ‘ response to the Motion, any reply to the re… | |
| 63 | 2023-10-23 | LTR | Pohl | Request for ruling on final judgment | Pohl's Request for a Ruling on Motion for Entry of Final Judgment, urging Court to expedite consideration of the pending motion and raising concerns about Kassab's continued harassment through Mississippi bar complaints filed using case materials | Request for ruling filed October 23, 2023, more than one month after the September 19, 2023 hearing on entry of judgment. The Motion for Entry of Final Judgment was filed promptly after the August 31, 2023 jury verdict and has been ripe for over a month without a ruling. | JDGMT-1 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2023-10-23_LTR_Pohl-Request-for-Ruling-on-Final-Judgment_FILED.pdf | That the Court expedite consideration and grant Pohl's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment, entering final judgment in Pohl's favor in the form attached to the Motion | 10/23/2023 5:36 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 80886597 By: Patricia Gonzalez Filed: 10/23/2023 5:36 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et. al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiffs, § V. § HARRIS COUNTY,k TEXAS § e LANCE CHRISTOPHER § C l KASSAB, et. al § § c Defendants. § 281ST JUDrICIAL DISTRICT POHL’S REQUEST FOR A RULING ON POHL’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAsL JUDGMENT Pohl requests that the Court expedite its consideration of Pohl’s Motion for Entry of Final Judgment (the “Motion”). The Motion has been ripe for a ruling for over a month, and while Pohl waits for entry of judgment on the jury verdict in his favor, it appears that Kassab is using materials from this lawsuit to continue to harass Pohl—adespite the jury’s verdict being inconsistent with Kassab’s barratry and unauthorized practice of law theories in this case. The Court should promptly enter a final judgment to gieve finality to the trial proceedings in this case. f I. BACKGROUND Kassab has unsucceyssfully accused Pohl of engaging in barratry and the unauthorized practice of law for the lCast six years. According to Kassab, Pohl allegedly obtained clients through barratry and the unaauthorized practice of law in Mississippi, and thus, Pohl did not have rightful, legal, or equitabfle title in any trade secret concerning Pohl’s clients. However, on August 31, 2023, theU jury rendered a verdict in Pohl’s favor, and found that, despite Kassab’s allegations of barratry and the unauthorized practice of law, Pohl owned the trade secrets concerning his clients. After the jury rendered their verdict, Pohl promptly filed the Motion requesting entry of judgment and set the Motion for a hearing on September 19, 2023. As the briefing and arguments at that hearing showed, Pohl is entitled to entry of a final judgment in his favor that gives effect to the jury’s findings of liability and damages. Since trial, Pohl has learned new information that suggests that Kassab is using materials from this case to continue to harass P… |
| 62 | 2023-09-22 | LTR | Pohl | Response to Kassab letter | Pohl's letter to Judge Christine Weems replying to Kassab's September 20, 2023 post-hearing letter brief, addressing exemplary damages burden of proof, recoverability of attorneys' fees, conspiracy preemption, and Precision's exoneration | Sur-reply letter brief filed September 22, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court, Harris County, Cause No. 2018-58419. Addressed to Judge Christine Weems. Filed two days after Kassab's post-hearing letter brief (September 20) and three days after the September 19 hearing on entry of judgment. Pohl notes his Reply was filed one business day after Kassab's Response. Signed by Harris Y. Wells and Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. | JDGMT-1 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2023-09-22_LTR_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-Letter-re-Final-Judgment_FILED.pdf | That the Court grant Pohl's Motion, enter judgment in the form attached as Exhibit B to the Motion, and overrule Kassab's objections to entry of judgment | 9/22/2023 9:53 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 79868932 By: Bonnie Lugo Filed: 9/22/2023 9:53 PM September 22, 2023 Via Electronic Filing Judge Christine Weems r Harris County Civil Courthouse l 201 Caroline, 14th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 c t RE: Michael A. Pohl et al. v. Lance Christopher Kassab et al.; Casutse No. 2018-58419; In the 281st Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. D i Reply to Kassab’s Post-Hearing Letter on Pohl’s Motion for Entry of Judgment (the “Motion”) Dear Judge Weems: e In Kassab’s September 20, 2023 letter (the “Leutter”), Kassab suggests that the timing of Pohl’s Reply brief entitles Kassab to further briefing. Pohl filed his Reply one business day after Kassab filed his Response. Because Kassab misstates both the law and facts in the Letter, Pohl files this reply letter. l DMISCUSSION A. The Jury Verdict shows thoe Jury unanimously awarded exemplary damages. Kassab makes two argumencts on the recovery of exemplary damages: he claims (1) it was Pohl’s burden to ensure the Jury fsigned a certificate of unanimity for Question 17, and (2) that various cases Pohl cited are “distinguishable for important reasons.” Letter at 1–2. Each argument fails. First, as the Supreme Cyourt of Texas held in USAA Tex. Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca, “the party who must rely on theo conflicting answer to avoid the effect of answers that establish liability . . . bore the burden to object.” 545 S.W.3d 479, 519 (Tex. 2018) (emphasis added). That is Kassab here. lSecond, any so-called distinguishing facts either are not distinguishing or are immaterial becaucsei the reasoning of those cases, applied to the facts of this case, shows Pohl is entitled to an awfard of exemplary damages. 1. It was Kassab’s burden to object because he seeks to set aside the Jury’s answers. Pohl obtained the necessary findings to support an award of exemplary damages against Kassab through the Jury’s answers to Questions 2, 17, and 19.1 Kassab asks the Court to ignore the Jury’s findings because he … |
| 61 | 2023-09-20 | LTR | Kassab | Letter to judge re final judgment | Kassab's letter brief to Judge Christine Weems responding to Pohl's Reply filed the night before the hearing on entry of final judgment, addressing new arguments on exemplary damages, attorneys' fees, TUTSA preemption of conspiracy, and Precision's exoneration | Post-hearing letter brief filed September 20, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court, Harris County, Cause No. 2018-58419. Addressed to Judge Christine Weems. Pohl's Reply was filed well after working hours the evening of September 18, 2023 — the night before the September 19, 2023 hearing on entry of final judgment. This letter responds to new arguments and authorities raised in that Reply. Written by Kevin Dubose (Alexander Dubose & Jefferson LLP, Board Certified Civil Appellate Law). | JDGMT-1 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2023-09-20_LTR_Kassab-Letter-to-Judge-re-Final-Judgment_FILED.pdf | That the Court refrain from signing Pohl's proposed final judgment and sustain Kassab's objections | 9/20/2023 3:18 PM Kevin Dubose Marilyn Burgess - D18is4tr4ic Ht aCrlvearkr dH Satrrreise Ct ounty kdubose@ adjtlaw.com Houston, TEenxvaes lo7p7e0 0N8o-.4 7394726 5300 By: Bonnie Lugo (713) 523-0667 www.adjtlaw.com Filed: 9/20/2023 3:18 PM Board Certified Civil Appellate Law September 20, 2023 The Honorable Christine Weems Judge 281st District Court 201 Caroline, 14th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Re: Cause No. 2018-58419; Michael A. Pohl, and Law Otffice of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC v. Lance Christopher Kassab and Lanrcie Christopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firm s Dear Judge Weems: s Pohl’s response to Kassab’s objections to the gproposed judgment were filed well after working hours the night before the hearing orn entry of judgment. Because that response raised some new arguments and authoriBties that Kassab has not had a chance to address, we file the following letter brief to addnress some of those new matters. A. Exemplary damages are not rercoverable because Question 17 was not answered unanimously. M Pohl relies on several cases noot previously addressed, and all are distinguishable for important reasons. e • Bruce v. Oscar Renda Cofntracting, 657 S.W.3d 453, 464 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2022, pet. filed). In Bruce there was no Additional Certificate in which the jury was instructed to certify whether certain jury questions were unanimous. Id. at 463. In the present case, there was an Additionaol Certificate in which the jury failed to certify that Question 17 was unanimous. C • Stover v. ADM Milling Co., No. 05-17-00778-CV, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 10883 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 28, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.). In Stover there was an Additional Certificfate, and the jury certified that the predicate question for exemplary damages (Qunestions 15 and 16 on fraud and malice) were answered unanimously. Id. at *12. In the prUesent case, the equivalent predicate question (Question 17 on willful and malicious misappropriation) was not certified as unanimous. • Bryan v. Papalia, 542 S.W.3d 676, 692–93 (Tex. App.—Houston … |
| 60 | 2023-09-18 | RPL | Pohl | Reply ISO Mtn for Final Judgment | Pohl's Reply in Support of Motion for Entry of Final Judgment, responding to Kassab's five objections to the proposed judgment regarding exemplary damages unanimity, attorneys' fees recoverability, overlapping damages, conspiracy preemption, and Precision's exoneration | Reply brief filed September 18, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court, Harris County, Cause No. 2018-58419. Filed three days after Kassab's September 15, 2023 objections to Pohl's September 5, 2023 Motion for Entry of Final Judgment. Addresses each of Kassab's five objections and argues the court must enter judgment consistent with the jury verdict. | JDGMT-1 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2023-09-18_RPL_Pohl-Reply-ISO-Mtn-for-Final-Judgment_FILED.pdf | That the Court overrule Kassab's objections and enter the Final Judgment in the form attached to the Motion as Exhibit B | 9/18/2023 8:21 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 79681130 By: Bonnie Lugo Filed: 9/18/2023 8:21 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r281ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT POHL’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT On September 5, 2023, Plaintiffs Michaell Pohl and Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl PLLC (collectively, “Pohl”) filed their motion foMr entry of a Final Judgment and to adjudge costs (the “Motion”). On September 15, 2023, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm’s (collectively, “Kassab”) filed Objections to Pohl’s Proposed Final Judgment (the “Response”). Kassab fails to demonstrate in the Response that the Court would commit error in any way by entering final judgment in the form requested by Pohl. OVERVIEW Kassab liscts five general objections to entry of judgment. None of the objections withstand scrutiny. • Kassab objects to the inclusion of exemplary damages in the judgment because he contends the Jury’s answer of “Yes” to Question 17 was not unanimous. But Kassab is factually incorrect because, on its face, the Jury Verdict shows that the Jury unanimously answered “Yes” to Question 17. The Court instructed the Jury to only answer “Yes,” in response to Question 17 if it was unanimous, and the Jury is presumed to have followed those instructions. Moreover, the Court instructed the Jury to answer Question 19 “only if you unanimously answered “Yes” to Question no. 17,” and the Jury answered Question 19. k • Kassab objects to the inclusion of attorneys’ fees from a p… |
| 59 | 2023-09-15 | OBJ | Kassab | Objection to proposed final judgment | Kassab's Objections to Pohl's Proposed Final Judgment, challenging exemplary damages, recoverability of attorneys' fees as actual damages, double recovery of unjust enrichment and market value, joint and several liability based on conspiracy, and indirect misappropriation theory | Filed September 15, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court, Harris County, Cause No. 2018-58419. Filed 10 days after Pohl's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment, objecting to specific elements of the proposed judgment while reserving right to file subsequent motions challenging jury findings on other grounds. New appellate counsel Kevin Dubose (Alexander Dubose & Jefferson LLP) appears for Kassab. | JDGMT-1 | N/A | Phase 5 | 2023-09-15_OBJ_Kassab-Objection-to-Pohl-Proposed-Final-Judgment_FILED.pdf | That the Court refrain from signing Pohl's proposed final judgment and exclude: (1) exemplary damages ($3,000,000) due to non-unanimous Q17 finding, (2) attorneys' fees from barratry cases and grievances as actual damages, (3) one of the duplicative damage measures ($250,000 market value or $200,000 development costs), (4) joint and several liability based on conspiracy, and (5) all damages given Precision's exoneration breaking the indirect misappropriation chain | 9/15/2023 1:38 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 79605741 By: Patricia Gonzalez Filed: 9/15/2023 1:38 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § k § e SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 281st JUDICCIAL DISTRICT KASSAB’S OBJECTIONS TO POHL’S PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMEtNT Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”) file these Objection teo the proposed Final Judgment submitted by Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and uLaw Office of Michael A. Pohl PLLC’(“Pohl”). INTRODUCTIOaN AND OVERVIEW Kassab will file subsequent motions challenging the jury findings against him on various grounds. But this filineg will be limited to objecting to elements of recovery in Pohl’s proposed judgmenft that are legally insupportable, even with these jury findings. Specifically: • The judgment should not include exemplary damages because one of the predicate ifindings for exemplary damages was not answered by the jury unanoimously. • The judgment should not include as actual damages attorney’s fees incurred by Pohl in actions against him by former clients and rejected potential clients who were victims of Pohl’s barratry. Attorney’s fees are not an element of recoverable damages under TUTSA. • The judgment should not include actual damages for both unjust enrichment of Kassab and the fair market value of the alleged trade secret misappropriated from Pohl because they are two impermissibly overlapping versions of the same loss. Pohl should have to elect one of those remedies rather than being awarded a double recovery. C • The judgment should not include joint and several liabili i ty under a conspiracy theory because conspiracy is pre-empted under TUTiSA or subject to Chapter 33’s proportionate responsibility scheme. • The judgment should not include any actual damages for theft of trade secrets because of the jury’s findings that Precision did not misappropriate trade secrets. Because Kassab acquired Plohl’s alleged trade se… |
| 58 | 2023-09-05 | MTN | Pohl | Mtn for Entry of Final Judgment | Pohl's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment following jury verdict, requesting court to enter judgment on approximately $6.3M award including actual damages, exemplary damages, attorneys' fees, prejudgment and postjudgment interest, and court costs | Post-trial motion filed September 5, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court, Harris County, Cause No. 2018-58419. Filed after jury returned verdict on August 31, 2023, in favor of Pohl on trade secret misappropriation and conspiracy claims against Kassab. Pohl seeks formal entry of final judgment consistent with jury findings. The 189th District Court had previously entered summary judgment against Kassab's barratry counterclaims on February 7, 2022. Trial commenced August 21, 2023 on three claims: theft of trade secrets, conversion, and conspiracy. Kassab's motion for directed verdict was denied on August 29, 2023. | JDGMT-1 | GRANTED | Phase 5 | 2023-09-05_MTN_Pohl-Mtn-for-Entry-of-Final-Judgment_FILED.pdf | Entry of Final Judgment in the form attached as Exhibit B, awarding: (1) $1,453,040 in actual damages (after $765,000 settlement credit); (2) $1,232,013 in attorneys' fees through trial; (3) conditional appellate attorneys' fees ($175,000 court of appeals, $55,000 petition for review, $85,000 merits briefing, $60,000 through oral argument); (4) $3,000,000 in exemplary damages; (5) $624,986.34 in prejudgment interest through September 18, 2023 (plus $338.38/day thereafter); (6) postjudgment interest at 8.50%; (7) all court costs against Kassab | 9/5/2023 6:40 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 79235207 By: Patricia Gonzalez Filed: 9/5/2023 6:40 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r281ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT POHL’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Offices lof Michael A. Pohl PLLC (collectively, “Pohl”) move for entry of a Final Judgment and to aMdjudge costs. In support thereof, Pohl would show the Court as follows: On February 7, 2022, the 189th District Court entered a traditional summary judgment against Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm’s (“Kassab”) counterclaims for civil barratry. The February 7 Order resolved the barratry counterclaims asserted by Kassab against Pohl. On Augusct 21, 2023, the case proceeded to trial on three claims filed by Pohl (theft of trade secrets, conversion, and conspiracy. This Court and the jury heard testimony from witnesses and experts presented by both Pohl and Kassab. On August 29, 2023, Kassab moved for a directed verdict and asserted, among other things, that Pohl’s damages were not recoverable or were not supported by sufficient evidence. The Court denied Kassab’s motion for directed verdict, implicitly ruling that Pohl’s requested damages were recoverable and were supported by evidence presented to the jury. I. THE JURY’S VERDICT After a trial on the merits, the Court submitted this case to the jury. On Akugust 31, 2023, the jury returned a verdict. Pohl attaches as Exhibit A the executed jury verdiclt. The jury verdict found in favor of Poh… |
| 56 | 2023-08-14 | ORD | Court | Order: RTP Designation GRANTED | Order Granting Kassab's Motion for Leave to Designate Favre and Precision as Responsible Third Parties | Signed August 14, 2023 by Judge Christine Weems in the 281st Judicial District Court (though header still references 189th District). Grants Kassab's motion (filing #51, filed March 2, 2023) to designate Scott Favre, Scott M. Favre PA, LLC, and Precision Marketing Group, LLC as responsible third parties. | RTP-2 | GRANTED | Phase 4 | 2023-08-14_ORD_Granting-Kassab-Leave-to-Designate-RTP_SIGNED.pdf | 3/2/2023 11:24:31 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No: 73272865 By: HERRINGTON, RACHEL R Filed: 3/2/2023 11:24:31 AM Pgs-1 CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 LD3PX MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th J UDICIAL. DISTRICT eS ORDER ) On this day the Court considered Defendants, Lance Chstopher Kassab and SS Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Motion for Leave to Designate Scott Favre, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC and Pregigion Marketing Group, LLC i) as Responsible Third Parties (“the Motion”). After cots ering the Motion, and having found that Plaintiffs either did not object to (85 designation or finding Plaintiffs’ objection to be without merit, the Court willgeant the Motion. It is therefore, & ORDERED that Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firm’s Motion for Leave to Designate Scott Favre, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC and Pression Marketing Group, LLC as Responsible Third Parties is in all things GRANTED and Scott Favre, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC and Precision Marketing code LLC are designated as responsible third parties in this matter. Re O Ae) Signed & Signed: & 8/14/2023 S Judge Christine Weems | |
| 57 | 2023-08-14 | RSP | Kassab | Response to Pohl Barratry MSJ | Kassab Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Rule 166(g) Motion on Barratry Liability and Specific Affirmative Defenses | Filed August 14, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court, Harris County, Cause No. 2018-58419. Kassab responds to Pohl's Rule 166(g) pretrial motion seeking to exclude evidence of barratry and eliminate ten of Kassab's affirmative defenses. Kassab argues barratry evidence is central to both Pohl's claims and Kassab's defenses, and that Rule 166(g) is procedurally improper for this purpose. | MSJ-3 | N/A | Phase 4 | 2023-08-14_RSP_Kassab-Response-to-Pohl-Partial-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Deny Plaintiffs' Rule 166(g) Motion on Barratry Liability and Specific Affirmative Defenses Asserted by the Kassab Defendants | 8/13/2023 12:21 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 78474030 By: Bonnie Lugo Filed: 8/14/2023 12:00 AM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § k § e SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 281st JUDICCIAL DISTRICT THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S RULE 166(g) tMOTION Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”) files this Reseponse to Plaintiffs’ Michael Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl PLLC’s (“Pohul”) Rule 166(g) Motion on Barratry Liability and Specific Affirmative Defenses Asserted by the Kassab Defendants (“the Motion”), and in support thereof, woulda show the following. SUMMARY Pohl asks the Court to rulee that the issue of whether Pohl committed barratry is irrelevant and should be efxcluded from evidence. Pohl is so concerned about this issue that he has made it the subject of several motions seeking similar relief. But barratry is central not only to Kassab’s defenses; it is central to Pohl’s own claims. As a preliiminary matter, Pohl’s latest motion is procedurally defective. Rule 166(g) is noot intended as a substitute for normal summary judgment practice. Indeed, Pohl previously moved for summary judgment on Kassab’s affirmative defenses, later withdrawing his request to have his summary judgment motion heard. The new Motion improperly tries to backdoor the same relief. More substantively, Pohl’s barratry is relevant to virtually every issue in the case. Take his trade secret claim. He must prove that he is the “rightful, legal, or equitable” owner of the alleged secrets. If Pohl himself obtained the alleged secrets illegally, he cannot enjoy the benefits of the trade secret statute. Moreover, for Pohl to recover his attorneys’ fees on his trade secret claim, he must provek “willful and malicious misappropriation.” In other words, Pohl’s claim dependsC on Kassab’s state of mind. Kassab is entitled to prove that his belief about Pohl’s barratry was well- … |
| 55 | 2023-03-29 | RSP | Pohl | Response to Amended MSJ | Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to the Amended Motions for Summary Judgment Filed by the Kassab Defendants | Filed March 29, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court (Judge Weems) by Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. Responds to Kassab's Amended MSJ (filing #50). Pohl argues the Amended Motion is a disguised motion to reconsider that reiterates the same arguments and evidence denied by the 189th District Court on October 31, 2022. Pohl objects to oral hearing under 281st Court Procedure I(I). | MSJ-4 | N/A | Phase 4 | 2023-03-29_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-Amended-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Deny Kassab's Amended Motions for Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment | 3/29/2023 5:09 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 74146534 By: Julia Adkins Filed: 3/29/2023 5:09 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et. al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiffs, § V. § HARRIS COUNTY,k TEXAS § e LANCE CHRISTOPHER § C l KASSAB, et. al § § c Defendants. § 281ST JUDrICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE AMENDED MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY THE KASsSAB DEFENDANTS Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) respond in opposition to the Amended Motions for Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment (the “Amended Motion”) filed by Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C., d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (coallectively “Kassab”). I. INTRODUCTION The Court should not entertaien motions to reconsider filed under another name, especially when such a motion fails to makef any statement about why reconsideration is warranted. Despite its name, the Amended Motiyon does not specify what prior motions it purports to amend. But, in substance, it seeks recoCnsideration of Kassab’s previous motions for summary judgment that the 189th District Courat denied. Kassab does not explain why those prior rulings were wrong, nor does he attemptf to explain whether the facts, arguments, or law have changed from the previously denied mUotions. Kassab has not demonstrated that the Court should reconsider or revisit those rulings, or that any prior ruling was erroneous. Thus, the Court should deny the Amended Motion. Pohl also objects to the hearing on Kassab’s Amended Motion. The vast majority of the Amended Motion is directly copied and pasted from Kassab’s prior motions for traditional and no- evidence summary judgment that were denied by the 189th District Court. Kassab seeks the same relief and uses the same arguments as contained in his denied motions. Thus, the Amended Motion is a motion to “reconsider” with a different title. Under this Court’s procedures, “[a]ll motions to reconsider are heard … |
| 54 | 2023-03-15 | RPL | Kassab | Reply ISO Mtn to Rule | Kassab Defendants' Reply in Support of Their Motion to Rule on Plaintiffs' Objections to Kassab's Deposition on Written Questions of Scott Favre | Filed March 15, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court before Judge Christine Weems. Kassab replies to Pohl's response (filing #53) opposing Kassab's motion to rule on objections to his DWQ of Scott Favre, arguing his questions are not leading, Pohl's own questions are leading, and Pohl's boilerplate objections are waived. | MSJ-2R | N/A | Phase 4 | 2023-03-15_RPL_Kassab-Reply-ISO-Mtn-to-Rule_FILED.pdf | Overrule Pohl's objections to Kassab's deposition on written questions of Scott Favre | 3/15/2023 5:09 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 73705718 By: Bonnie Lugo Filed: 3/15/2023 5:09 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § k § e SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 281st JUDICCIAL DISTRICT KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ REPLYIN SUPPORT OF THIER MOTION TO RULE ON PLAINTIFFS’ OBJEtCTIONS TO THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ NOTICEi TO TAKE DEPOSITION ON WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SCOTT FAVRE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE CHRISTINE WEEMeS: Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab aund Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firm (collectively “Knassab”) file this, their Reply In Support of Their Rule on Plaintiffs’ Objectionsa to the Kassab Defendants Notice to Take Deposition on Written Questions of Scott Favre and would respectfully show the following. e KASSAB DOES N OOT f AGREE THAT HIS QUESTIONS ARE LEADING, BUT POHL’S QUESTIONS TO FAVRE WERE Plaintiffs claimo “[t]here is no dispute that Kassab asked leading questions, nor does Kassab clontend that any of Pohl’s “leading” objections were directed at non-leading quiestions.”1 Pohl’s claim is false as none of the questions propounded by Kassab are leading in the first place and Kassab made that abundantly clear to Pohl’s counsel in an email, stating “[t]he objections are all meritless.”2 After stating that all the objections were meritless, Kassab stated “[a]dditionally, your clients’ 1 Exhibit F, p. 3 2 Exhibit A. leading objections are improper” for two other reasons: leading questions are permitted on cross examination and for hostile witnesses.3 Kassab’s motion to rule simply focused on Plaintiffs’ absurd argument—meaning even if Kassab’s questions were leading, which they are not, Favre should be treated as a hostile wkitness. One need only look to the questions Pohl served Favre to Csee that Pohl has persuaded Favre to contradict his prior testimony to help Pohl with his frivolous retaliatory lawsuit against Kassab. i For instance, Favre has already testified in an affidavit and in Federal Cour… |
| 53 | 2023-03-14 | RSP | Pohl | Response to Mtn to Rule | Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Kassab's Motion to Rule on Plaintiffs' Objections to Kassab's Deposition on Written Questions of Scott Favre | Filed March 14, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court by Pohl's counsel Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. Pohl opposes Kassab's motion seeking to overrule Pohl's objections to Kassab's deposition on written questions (DWQ) of Scott Favre. This is Kassab's second motion — the first version argued leading questions were 'cross examination' but was revised to remove that argument as directly contrary to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. | MSJ-2R | N/A | Phase 4 | 2023-03-14_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-Mtn-to-Rule_FILED.pdf | Deny Kassab's Motion to Rule and sustain Pohl's objections to the questions contained in Kassab's DWQ | 3/14/2023 9:54 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 73666907 By: Bonnie Lugo Filed: 3/14/2023 9:54 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et. al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiffs, § V. § HARRIS COUNTY,k TEXAS § e LANCE CHRISTOPHER § C l KASSAB, et. al § § c Defendants. § 281ST JUDrICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO KASSAB’S MOTION TO RULE Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Office of Michael As. Pohl PLLC (collectively “Pohl”) respond in opposition to Defendants Lance Christopher rKassab and Lance Christopher Kassab P.C.’s (collectively, “Kassab”) Motion to Rule on Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Kassab Defendants’ Notice to Take Deposition on Written Questions lof Scott Favre (the “Motion”).1 I. MBACKGROUND The parties have been unable to osecure an oral deposition of Scott Favre (“Favre”), and the parties have been told his capabilityc to appear is limited by his ongoing cancer treatment. Favre is a former co-defendant, and Pohl alleged Favre conspired with Kassab to misappropriate Pohl’s trade secrets and propertyp, including by selling that information to Kassab.2 Although Kassab admits that he made a six-figure, up-front payment to Favre, he contends the payment was made to hire Favre as anc e i xpert to assist Kassab with bringing barratry claims against Pohl.3 Pohl alleges the payment woas made in exchange for misappropriating Pohl’s confidential information.4 1 This is the second motion Kassab filed regarding Pohl’s objections. Kassab initially tried to argue that his leading questions were proper because they constituted “cross examination.” But Kassab filed a subsequent motion that removed that argument, as it was directly contrary to the wording of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Compare Kassab Defendants’ Motion to Rule on Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Kassab Defendants’ Notice to Take Deposition on Written Questions of Scott Favre, filed Feb. 28, 2023, with Motion (filed March 2, 2023). 2 See Pohl’s First Amended Petition ¶¶ 21–23. 3 See Deposition of… |
| 52 | 2023-03-08 | RSP | Pohl | Response to Mtn to Reconsider/Rule | Plaintiffs' Response in Partial Opposition to Kassab's Motion to Reconsider or Rule | Filed March 8, 2023 in the 281st Judicial District Court (Judge Weems) by Pohl's counsel Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. Response to Kassab's Motion to Reconsider or Rule (filing #49), which sought reconsideration of three prior orders by Judge Dollinger. Pohl partially opposes — agreeing the court should rule on the pending RTP motion but opposing reconsideration of the abatement and discovery compulsion rulings. | MSJ-2R | N/A | Phase 4 | 2023-03-08_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-Mtn-to-Reconsider-or-Rule_FILED.pdf | Deny Kassab's Motion in part; deny Kassab's Supplemental RTP Motion on the merits; decline to reconsider prior rulings on Kassab's Motion to Abate and Motion to Compel | 3/8/2023 7:39 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 73486867 By: Lewis John-Miller Filed: 3/8/2023 7:39 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et. al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiffs, § V. § HARRIS COUNTY,k TEXAS § e LANCE CHRISTOPHER § C l KASSAB, et. al § § c Defendants. § 281ST JUDrICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN PARTIAL OPPOSITION TO KASSAB’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER OR RULE s Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm (collectively, “Kassab”) filed the Motion to Reconsider or Rule (the “Motion”), and in it states he filed it in order to file a petition for writ of mandamus if the Motion is denied. Pohl partially opposes the relief Kassab requests in his Motion. Pohl does not oppose the Court ruling on Kassab’s pending motion to designate responsible third parties—although Pohl contends that motion should be denied when thee Court addresses it on the merits. However, Pohl does not agree that the Court should reconfsider or revisit the other two rulings mentioned in the Motion, and Kassab has not shown hyow any prior ruling was erroneous. C I. DISCUSSION Kassab asksa the Court to rule on one pending motion and to reconsider rulings on two other motions. Kassafb is not entitled to relief on the merits with respect to any of those three motions. First, the Court should rule on Kassab’s Supplemental Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties (“Kassab’s Supplemental RTP Motion”), but it should deny the relief Kassab requests. Kassab’s Supplemental RTP Motion does not fix the pleading defect that caused Judge Dollinger to deny Kassab’s first motion to designate responsible third parties. Second, Kassab provides no basis for why the Court should reconsider the denial of Kassab’s Motion to Abate Trial Setting (“Kassab’s Motion to Abate”), and the Court should not allow Kassab to delay trial. Third, the Court should not reconsider the denial of Kassab’s Motion to Compel Testimony and Documents Pursuant to the Offensive Use D… |
| 51 | 2023-03-02 | MTN | Kassab | Mtn to Designate Favre/Precision as RTP | Kassab Defendants' Motion for Leave to Designate Scott Favre, Scott M. Favre PA, LLC and Precision Marketing Group, LLC as Responsible Third Parties | Filed March 2, 2023 after Pohl inexplicably nonsuited Favre and Precision on November 21, 2022. No trial date has been set. This is a new RTP motion targeting the nonsuited former co-defendants specifically (distinct from the prior RTP motions targeting Walker, Ladner, Seymour, and others). Filed before Judge Christine Weems though the header still references the 189th Judicial District. | RTP-2 | GRANTED | Phase 4 | 2023-03-02_MTN_Kassab-Mtn-to-Designate-Favre-and-Precision-as-RTP_FILED.pdf | Grant leave to designate Scott Favre, Scott M. Favre PA, LLC, and Precision Marketing Group, LLC as responsible third parties | 3/2/2023 11:24 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 73272865 By: Joshua Herrington Filed: 3/2/2023 11:24 AM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIALk DISTRICT KASSAB DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO DECSIGNATE SCOTT FAVRE, SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, LLC AND PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, LLC AS RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTIES Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Cihristopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”), file this, their Motion for Leave to Designate Scott Favre, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC and Precision Marketing Group, LLC as Responsible Third Parties, and would respectfully show the following. SUMMlARY In this lawsuit, Plaintiffs MicMhael Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (“Pohl”) initially sued Scott Favre and Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC (collectively, “Favre”) and Precision Markieting Group, LLC (“Precision”) alleging Favre and Precision, along with Kassab, were all part of “a scheme pursuant to which they illegally obtained, moaintained, and used trade secrets and other confidential information and lproperty belonging to Pohl.”1 On November 21, 2022, Pohl inexplicably nionsuited Favre and Precision.2 Because Favre and Precision are alleged to have caused or contributed to causing the harm for which recovery of damages by Pohl is sought, Kassab files this motion requesting leave to designate Favre and Precision as responsible third parties and would ask that it be in all 1 Exhibit 1, Pohl’s First Amended Petition, at ¶ 2. 2 Exhibit 2, Pohl’s Nonsuit as to Favre and Precision. things granted. This motion is timely because there presently is no trial setting in this case. BACKGROUND Pohl alleges that he hired Precision – which was formallky owned by Mississippi residents Scott Walker and Kirk Ladner – “to providCe public relations services, to gather and preserve evidence, and to screen and liaise with Pohl’s clients/prospective clients.”3 However, the truth about whyi Pohl hired… |
| 50 | 2023-02-24 | MSJ | Kassab | Amended Trad + No-Evidence MSJ (3rd attempt) | Kassab Defendants' Amended Motions for Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment (Third Attempt) | Filed February 24, 2023 before Judge Christine Weems in the 281st Judicial District Court after the case was transferred from the 189th District Court. This is Kassab's third attempt at summary judgment, reiterating and expanding arguments from prior MSJs denied by Judge Dollinger on October 31, 2022. Kassab also adopts by reference co-defendant Nicholson's traditional MSJ filed August 19, 2022. | MSJ-4 | N/A | Phase 4 | 2023-02-24_MSJ_Kassab-Amended-Trad-and-No-Evid-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Grant Kassab's traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment and order that Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC take nothing on their claims against Lance Christopher Kassab and The Kassab Law Firm | 2/24/2023 1:36 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 73091211 By: Bonnie Lugo Filed: 2/24/2023 1:36 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 281st JUDICIALk DISTRICT THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED MOTIONCS FOR TRADITIONAL AND NO-EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE CHRISTINE WEEMS: t COME NOW, Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm and file theis, their Motions for Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment, and woulud respectfully show the following. PRELUDE This lawsuit is nothing more thaan a retaliatory suit brought by Michael A. Pohl and his law firm, Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (“Pohl”) against Lance Christopher Kassab and Lancee Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”). Kassab refpresented more than 400 clients in lawsuits against Pohl due to his illegal and unethical solicitation of these clients. It is undisputed that Pohl hired and paid runners more than five million dollars to illegally obtain clients stemminig from catastrophic auto accidents and the BP Deepwater Horizon litigation. o Based upon Pohl’s illegal and unethical solicitation of clients, Kassab filed four separate lawsuits against Pohl for civil barratry and negligence. In addition, as mandated by the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.03, Kassab filed and helped his clients initiate several grievance proceedings, causing the State Bar of Texas to investigate the alleged barratry, which is prohibited by the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and the Texas Penal Code. In response, Pohl filed this lawsuit against Kassab, alleging claims of conversion, theft of trade secrets and civil conspiracy, claiming Kassab conspired with okthers to steal Pohl’s property and solicit his former clients or prospective clienCts to sue him for barratry.1 Pohl claims his defense costs to defend against the barratry li… |
| 49 | 2023-02-23 | MTN | Kassab | Mtn to Reconsider or Rule | Kassab Defendants' Motion to Reconsider or Rule on Three Prior Orders by Judge Dollinger | Filed February 23, 2023 after the case was transferred from the 189th Judicial District Court (Judge Dollinger) to Judge Christine Weems's court on December 19, 2022. Kassab seeks reconsideration of three prior orders under Tex. R. App. P. 7.2(b) before challenging them via mandamus. | MSJ-2R | N/A | Phase 4 | 2023-02-23_MTN_Kassab-Mtn-to-Reconsider-or-Rule_FILED.pdf | Set the motion for hearing and, after hearing, reconsider the three orders by Judge Dollinger, vacate those orders, and grant the relief Kassab requested in each of them (abatement, RTP designation, and compelled discovery under offensive use doctrine) | 2/23/2023 2:10 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 73050165 By: Bonnie Lugo Filed: 2/23/2023 2:10 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § k § e SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICCIAL DISTRICT KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER OR RULE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE CHRISTINE WEEMS: i Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firm (collectively “Kassab”), and file this Motion to Reconsider or Rule, and would respectfully show the following. This case was transferred from the l189th Judicial District Court on December 19, 2022.1 Prior to transfer, Judge DMollinger entered orders that Kassab intends to challenge through petitions for writ of mandamus. However, under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.2(b), this Court must be given the opportunity to reconsider orders or actions of the predecessor judge that will be considered in the original proceeding. See Tex. oR. Civ. P. 7.2(b); In re Loomis Armored US, LLC, No. 01-21- 00027-CV, 2021 Tlex. App. LEXIS 1820, at *1 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 11, 2021, origi. proceeding) (mem. op.). Accordingly, Kassab files this motion requesting the Court to reconsider or rule on the following. 1 Although the order was signed on that date, it was not filed with the District Clerk until January 6, 2023. First, the Court should reconsider Judge Dollinger’s order denying Kassab’s motion to abate.2 As explained in Kassab’s motion to abate,3 this case is related to litigation that is currently pending against Pohl for civil barratry, which is the illegal and unethical solicitation of clients. See Cheatham v. Pohl, No. k01-20-00046- CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 6528 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] ACug. 30, 2022, pet. filed) (mem. op.). In this case, Pohl seeks from Kassab attorney’s fees for defending against the Cheatham case and other barratry litigatioin that Kassab brought against Pohl on behalf of his clients. Although the Cheatham case was d… |
| 48 | 2023-01-04 | MTN | Kassab | Mtn to Reconsider No-Evid MSJ | Kassab Defendants' Motion to Reconsider Traditional and No-Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment | Filed January 4, 2023 before Judge Tamika 'Tami' Craft after case transferred from Judge Dollinger (189th District Court). Kassab seeks reconsideration of the prior judge's October 31, 2022 denial of both traditional and no-evidence summary judgment motions on Pohl's claims of conversion, trade secret theft (TUTSA), and civil conspiracy. Kassab argues the denial was erroneous and cites new case law (Taylor v. Tolbert, 2022) requiring reconsideration of attorney immunity. 90 pages with extensive exhibits. | MSJ-2R | N/A | Phase 4 | 2023-01-04_MTN_Kassab-Mtn-to-Reconsider-No-Evid-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Reconsider and grant Kassab's traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment; dismiss Pohl's retaliatory lawsuit with prejudice; order Pohl take nothing on his claims against Kassab | 1/4/2023 12:12 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 71470463 By: DANIELLE JIMENEZ Filed: 1/4/2023 12:12 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIALk DISTRICT THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER CTRADITIONAL AND NO-EVIDENCE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE TAMIKA “TAMI” CRAFT: t Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm file this, their Motion to Reconsideer Traditional and No-Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment and would respuectfully show the following. BACKGROUND This lawsuit is nothing more thaan a retaliatory suit brought by Michael A. Pohl and his law firm, Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (“Pohl”) against Lance Christopher Kassab and Lancee Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”). Kassab refpresented more than 400 clients in lawsuits against Pohl due to his illegal and unethical solicitation of these clients. It is undisputed that Pohl hired and paid runners more than five million dollars to illegally obtain clients stemminig from catastrophic auto accidents and the BP Deepwater Horizon litigation. o Based upon Pohl’s illegal and unethical solicitation of clients, Kassab filed four separate lawsuits against Pohl for civil barratry. In addition, as mandated by the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.03, Kassab filed and helped his clients initiate several grievance proceedings, causing the State Bar of Texas to investigate the alleged barratry, which is prohibited by the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and the Texas Penal Code. In response, Pohl filed this lawsuit against Kassab, alleging claims of conversion, theft of trade secrets and civil conspiracy, claiming Kassab conspired with others tko steal Pohl’s property and solicit his former clients or prospective clients to sueC him for barratry.1 Pohl claims his defense costs to defend against the barratr… |
| 46 | 2022-11-30 | MSJ | Pohl | Partial MSJ on Barratry Liability | Plaintiffs' Rule 166(g) Motion on Barratry Liability and Specific Affirmative Defenses Asserted by the Kassab Defendants | Pre-trial motion filed November 30, 2022 by Pohl, five days before the December 5, 2022 trial setting. Seeks legal rulings under Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(g) to narrow trial issues by: (1) finding barratry is not legally relevant to this lawsuit, and (2) striking 10+ of Kassab's affirmative defenses as barred as a matter of law. | MSJ-3 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-11-30_MSJ_Pohl-Partial-MSJ-Barratry-Liability_FILED.pdf | Find that: (1) establishing whether barratry occurred is not legally relevant to this lawsuit; (2) Kassab's affirmative defenses of unlawful acts, illegality, criminal acts, in pari delicto, justification, immunity under Rule 17.09, unclean hands, release, accord and satisfaction, estoppel, subject to a valid contract, assumption of the risk, and contribution are barred as a matter of law | 11/30/2022 8:20 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 70589892 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 11/30/2022 8:20 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et. al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiffs, § V. § HARRIS COUNTY,k TEXAS § r LANCE CHRISTOPHER § l KASSAB, et. al § § c Defendants. § 189TH JUDrICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ RULE 166(g) MOTION ON BARRATRY LIDABILITY AND SPECIFIC AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ASSERTED BY THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166(g), Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl PLLC (collectively “Pohl”) file this Motion on the issues of the relevance of barratry liability and the legal viability of specific affirmative defenses asserted by the Kassab defendants (the “Motion”). Pohl requests tahat the Court find Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab P.C.’s (collectively, “Kassab”) theories regarding establishing barratry and certain otheer legal defenses fail as a matter of law. f I. STANDARD Under Texas Rule ofy Civil Procedure 166(g), this Court can decide legal issues at pretrial “to assist in the disposition of the case without undue expense or burden to the parties . . . .” See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(g). Allowing this trial to subsume the question of whether Pohl committed barratry, in connfection with clients whose information Kassab later misappropriated, would greatly extend the length of trial, and it would needlessly complicate the issues presented to the jury. A legal determination by this Court that whether barratry did in fact occur is immaterial to Pohl’s claims—whether as a matter of denial or as a defense—would assist in disposing of this case with less undue burden and expense. Furthermore, determining whether certain defenses fail as a matter of law is a set of legal questions the Court can decide to appropriately focus the trial in this case. II. DISCUSSION To prevent “undue expense” and additional “burden to the parties,” and to ensure that trial does not proceed for longer than is necessary, th… |
| 47 | 2022-11-30 | OBJ | Pohl | Objection to Kassab supp. RTP | Pohl's Objection to Kassab's Supplemental Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties | Filed November 30, 2022 in response to Kassab's Supplemental RTP Motion filed November 15, 2022. Judge Dollinger denied Kassab's original RTP Motion on October 31, 2022 (finding Pohl's objection was 'well taken') and gave Kassab 14 days to replead. Kassab filed 15 days later (one day late). Pohl argues the supplemental motion contains no new factual allegations. Pohl does not object to designation of Favre and Precision as RTPs. | RTP-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-11-30_OBJ_Pohl-Objection-to-Kassab-Supp-RTP_FILED.pdf | Deny Kassab's Supplemental RTP Motion without leave for Kassab to attempt to replead, as Kassab failed to plead sufficient facts after already being granted leave to replead | 11/30/2022 4:26 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 70583280 By: Ashley Lopez Filed: 11/30/2022 4:26 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et. al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiffs, § V. § HARRIS COUNTY,k TEXAS § e LANCE CHRISTOPHER § C l KASSAB, et. al § § c Defendants. § 189TH JUDrICIAL DISTRICT POHL’S OBJECTION TO KASSAB’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DESIGNATE RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTsIES Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl PLLC (collectively “Pohl”) file this Objection to Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm’s Supplemental Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties1 (the “Supplemental RTP Motion”) and would showa the Court as follows: Kassab’s Supplemental RTP Motion does not address the failings of the original RTP Motion. The Court denied Kassab’se first RTP Motion2 because Kassab failed to plead sufficient facts showing that the alleged resfponsible third parties were responsible for the harms underlying Pohl’s claims. Kassab was ygiven a chance to replead with sufficient new facts to demonstrate liability. However, thCe Supplemental RTP Motion contains the same factual allegations copied and pasted from the briefing before the Court when it denied the RTP Motion. Kassab tried to disguise this bfyf reordering and lightly paraphrasing or modifying the allegations. But Kassab 1 This Objection is primarily directed at Kassab’s Supplemental RTP Motion, filed Nov. 15, 2022. Kassab also filed a Second Supplemental Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties, filed Nov. 22, 2022 (“Second Supplemental RTP Motion”). Pohl does not object to the designation of Scott Favre and Precision Marketing Group, LLC as responsible third parties. However, Pohl objects to the Second Supplemental RTP Motion, on the same grounds as set forth in this briefing, to the extent that it seeks the same relief sought in the Supplemental RTP Motion or seeks to designate anyone as a responsible third party other than Scott Fav… |
| 45 | 2022-11-22 | MTN | Kassab | 2nd Supp. Motion to Designate RTP | Kassab Defendants' Second Supplemental Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties (Adding Scott Favre and Precision Marketing Group, LLC) | Filed November 22, 2022 before Judge Scot Dollinger, 189th Judicial District, Harris County, Texas. Filed 13 days before the December 5, 2022 trial date, after Pohl dismissed Favre and Precision as defendants on November 21, 2022. Kassab seeks good cause to designate newly dismissed parties as responsible third parties within 60 days of trial. | RTP-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-11-22_MTN_Kassab-2nd-Supp-Mtn-to-Designate-RTP_FILED.pdf | Grant leave to designate Favre and Precision Marketing Group, LLC as additional responsible third parties, in addition to the eight individuals from prior supplemental motion, plus all other relief in law or equity | 11/22/2022 3:51 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 70416484 By: Ashley Lopez Filed: 11/22/2022 3:51 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIAkL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS, LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LAlNCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. D/B/A THE KASSAB LAW FIRM’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DESIGNATE RcESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTIES r TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT DOLLINGER: D Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Chsristopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”), and file this, their Secornd Supplemental Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties. REQUEaSTED RELIEF 1. Kassab files this Second Supplemental Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties to add Scott Favre (Favre) aned Precision Marketing Group, LLC (Precision) as additional third parties. Favre and Precisionf were defendants in this lawsuit until Plaintiffs dismissed them on November 21, 2022, jusyt 14 days prior to trail. Thus, Favre and Precision are no longer parties to this suit. ThCus, there is good cause for designating Favre and Precision as responsible Third Parties withina 60 days of trial due to the timing of Plaintiffs nonsuit of these parties. 2. Ffavre and Precision are central to this litigation as they purchased all of the material Uand documents, which are the subject of Plaintiffs’ complaints, from Walker, Ladner and Seymour, who previously owned Precision. Favre and Precision then gave some of the material and documents to Kassab to notify Precision’s clients regarding Pohl’s illegal conduct and potential claims they may have against Pohl. Thus, Favre and Pohl are central to this litigation and are subject to potential third party liability, if there is liability at all. 3. Favre and Precision are outside of the subpoena power of this court. Although Kassab has attempted to depose Favre and Precision for more than a year, Kassab has been unsuccessful due to no fault of Kassab. Now that Plaintiffs have … |
| 44 | 2022-11-15 | MTN | Kassab | 1st Supp. Motion to Designate RTP | Kassab Defendants' Supplemental Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties (Shepherd, Walker, Seymour, Ladner, Dona Pohl, Jaimes, Talley, Santana) | Filed November 15, 2022 before Judge Scot Dollinger, 189th Judicial District, Harris County, Texas. Kassab's original RTP motion was filed May 13, 2022 (more than 60 days before the October 10, 2022 trial setting). Pohl objected May 30, 2022. Court denied the original motion on October 31, 2022 but gave Kassab an opportunity to replead. Trial reset to December 5, 2022. | RTP-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-11-15_MTN_Kassab-Supp-Mtn-to-Designate-RTP_FILED.pdf | Grant the Kassab Defendants' Amended Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties (George W. (Billy) Shepherd, Scott Walker, Steve Seymour, Kirk Ladner, Dona Pohl, Edgar Jaimes, Ken Talley, Magdalena Santana) and grant all other relief in law or equity | 11/15/2022 1:31 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 70189306 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 11/15/2022 1:31 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIAkL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS, LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LAlNCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. D/B/A THE KASSAB LAW FIRM’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DESIGNATE RESPONSIBLEc THIRD PARTIES TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT DOLLINGER: s Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”), and file this, their Amended Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties. REQUESTElD RELIEF 1. Kassab seeks to designate GMeorge W. (Billy) Shepherd (Shepherd), Scott Walker (Walker), Steve Seymour (Seymour) oand Kirk Ladner (Ladner), Dona Pohl (Dona), Edgar Jaimes (Jaimes), Ken Talley (Talley), Magdalena Santana (Santana) as responsible third parties in this litigation. Shepherd, Walker, Seymour, Ladner, Dona, Jaimes, Talley and Santana are all persons who are alleged to have caused or contributed to causing in any way the harm for which recovery of damages by Pohl is sought. Thus, they are all responsible third parties in this cause. TEX. CIV. PRAC. &c REM. CODE § 33.011(6). U FACTS 2. Pohl is a lawyer who commits barratry and has prayed on the less fortunate to earn a living. On October 18, 2014, three Mississippi residents, Scott Walker (“Walker”), Kirk Ladner (“Ladner”) and Steve Seymour (“Seymour”), and their related entities, including Precision Marketing Group, LLC (“Precision”), filed suit against Michael Pohl (“Pohl”) and others in Mississippi federal court (the “Mississippi Litigation”). There, Precision, Walker, Ladner and Seymour alleged that: (1) they had a joint venture with Pohl to sign up clients with economic loss claims stemming from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill and clients with personal injury claims; (2) that they successfully obtained these clients for Pohkl; and (3) that Pohl breached their agreement by … |
| 43 | 2022-11-14 | OA | Kassab | 8th Amended Answer (final) | Kassab Defendants' Eighth Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim (Final Pre-Trial Pleading) | Filed November 14, 2022 in Cause No. 2018-58419, 189th Judicial District, Harris County, Texas. This is Kassab's final amended answer asserting 23 affirmative defenses, responsible third-party designations (8 individuals), and a counterclaim for civil barratry based on assigned claims from 242 claimants. Filed approximately three weeks before the December 5, 2022 trial setting, after all four MSJs were denied on October 31, 2022. | PLEAD-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-11-14_OA_Kassab-8th-Amended-Answer-CC_FILED.pdf | That Pohl recover nothing on his claims; that Kassab recover on counterclaims including (i) actual and consequential damages, (ii) statutory damages, (iii) pre- and post-judgment interest, (iv) attorneys' fees and costs, and (v) all other appropriate relief | 11/14/2022 3:25 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 70152760 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 11/14/2022 3:25 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIArL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS, LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AtND LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. D/B/A THE KASSAB LAWi FIRM’S EIGHTH AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ANsD COUNTERCLAIM TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm and files this their Eighth Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim, and would respectfully show the Court as follows; a f I RULE 47 STATEMENT 1. The Kassab Deffendants, in their capacity as Counter-Plaintiffs, seek monetary relief of more than $1,000,000.00. C II l PARTIES 2. Plaiintiff, Michael A. Pohl is an individual lawyer residing in Colorado and is a paroty herein. 3. Plaintiff, Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl is a law firm set up for the practice of law in various states of the union, including Texas and is a party herein. 4. Defendant, Scott Favre is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi and is a party herein. 5. Defendant, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi and is a party herein. 6. Defendant, Precision Marketing Group, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi and is a party herein. k 7. Defendant, F. Douglas Montague III is a nonresident iCndividual residing in Mississippi. 8. Defendant, Montague, Pittman & Varnadoi, PA is a nonresident professional association located in Mississippi. 9. Defendant, Tina Nicholson is an individual residing in Texas and is a party herein. 10. Defendant, Baker Nicholson, lLLP, d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm is a limited liability partnership located inM Texas and is a party herein. 11. Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Lance Christopher Kassab is an individual residing in Texas anid is a … |
| 42 | 2022-10-31 | ORD | Court | Order: FOUR MSJs DENIED | Order Denying All Four Motions for Summary Judgment (Kassab Traditional MSJ, Kassab No-Evidence MSJ, Nicholson Amended Traditional MSJ, and Nicholson/Kassab TUTSA Preemption MSJ) | Court order signed October 31, 2022 by Judge Scot Dollinger and filed November 2, 2022, denying all four pending motions for summary judgment in a single order with no stated reasoning. | MSJ-2 | DENIED | Phase 3 | 2022-10-31_ORD_Denying-Kassab-Trad-and-No-Evid-MSJ_SIGNED.pdf | Filed 22 November 02 A10:22 Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Pgs-1 CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MFSJY POHL, MICHAEL, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff(s) § S VS. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS S FAVRE, SCOTT, § 189th JUDICIAL DISTRICT Defendant(s) § “ ORDER & SS Pending is THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ _ TRADITIONAL xipnion FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed August 29, 2022. & Motion DENIED. @ GP Pending is THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ NO-EYOENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed August 29, 2022. SS Motion DENIED. Pending is DEFENDANTS TINA NICHOL ( snp BAKER NICHOLSON, LLP D/B/A BAKER NICHOLSON LAW FIRM’S AMENDED TRAD AL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed August 29, 2022. ws Motion DENIED. © ® Pending is NICHOLSON b NDANTS AND KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ TRADITIONAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDG, TON TUTSA PREEMPTION filed August 2, 2022. Motion DENIED. -=\ ow Signed October 31, 2022. . It Hulda & Ae) Hon. SCOT DOLLINGER & Judge, 189th District Court & | |
| 41 | 2022-09-21 | NTC | Pohl | Filing evidence and request for leave | Pohl Plaintiffs' Notice of Filing of Evidence in Support of Claims of Privilege and Request for Leave | Notice filed September 21, 2022 pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.4, filing Pohl's declaration to support privilege claims in response to Kassab Defendants' Fifth Set of Written Discovery Requests and their related Motion to Compel. Filed before Judge Scot Dollinger, 189th Judicial District, Harris County, Texas. | MSJ-3 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-09-21_NTC_Pohl-Filing-Evidence-and-Request-for-Leave_FILED.pdf | Leave to file the declaration of Michael A. Pohl in support of privilege claims less than seven days in advance of the September 23, 2022 hearing on Kassab's Motion to Compel | 9/21/2022 9:03 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 68499533 By: Ashley Lopez Filed: 9/21/2022 9:03 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT THE POHL PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF FILING OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE AND REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT “DOaLLI” DOLLINGER: Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.4, Plaintiffs Michael A. Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC fieles and serves the attached declaration of Michael A. Pohl which will be used to support thfe claims of privilege made by Pohl in response to the Kassab Defendants’ Fifth Set of Wriytten Discovery Requests. This declaratioCn is being filed as a result of the Kassab Defendants’ Motion to Compel Removal of Pohl’sa Objections and Properly Respond to Discovery, filed Sept. 19, 2022 (the “Motion”)—whfich was set for hearing on Sept. 23, 2022. Given that the Motion was both filed and set for hearing less than seven days in advance of the hearing date, Pohl requests leave for the filing of this declaration less than seven days in advance of the hearing under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.4(a). The Kassab Defendants and the Montague Defendants do not oppose this request for leave. Dated: September 21, 2022 Respectfully submitted, REYNOLDS FRIZZELL LLP By: /s/ Jean C. Frizzell Jean C. Frizzell State Bar No. 07484650 k 1100 Louisiana St., Suite 3500 e Houston, Texas 77002 C l Tel. 713.485.7200 Fax 713.485.7250 c jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.rcom Attorney for PlaintifDfs Michael Pohl and Law Office ofs Michael A. … |
| 40 | 2022-09-19 | OBJ | Kassab | Objection to Pohl’s MSJ evidence | Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Evidence — joint filing by Kassab and Nicholson Defendants challenging admissibility of Pohl's summary judgment evidence including the Pohl Declaration (paragraphs 4, 6, 10-18, 20-32) and numerous exhibits, with additional deposition testimony offered under Rule 107 | Evidentiary objections filed September 19, 2022 at 8:16 AM by Kassab and Nicholson defendants jointly, on the morning of the summary judgment hearing. Challenges admissibility of Pohl's September 12, 2022 declaration and exhibits attached to both the traditional and no-evidence MSJ responses. Attaches complete depositions of Ladner, Seymour, and Walker under Rule 107. Addressed to Judge Scot 'Dolli' Dollinger. | MSJ-3 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-09-19_OBJ_Kassab-Objection-to-Pohl-MSJ-Evidence_FILED.pdf | Sustain all objections, strike objectionable portions of Pohl Declaration and exhibits, and grant summary judgment for Kassab and Nicholson defendants | 9/19/2022 8:16 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 68367189 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 9/19/2022 8:16 AM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIALk DISTRICT DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO C PLAINTIFFS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT “DOLLI” DOLLINGEtR: Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm (“the Kassab Defendeants”) and Tina Nicholson and Baker Nicholson, LLP (“Nicholson”) (both sets ouf Defendants collectively referred to as “Defendants”) file this, their Objections to Plaintiffs’ Summary Judgment Evidence, and would respectfully show athe following. OBJECTIONS TO POHL’S EVIDENCE IN RESPONSE TO TRADITIONAL MSJ Plaintiffs Michael A. Pohel and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (“Pohl”) attached to his summary judfgment responses as Exhibit A a declaration from Pohl dated September 12, 2022 with exhibits (“Pohl Declaration”). Defendants object to the following statements or paragraphs in the Pohl Declaration for the following reasons: i Paoragraph/Statement Objection/Basis ¶ 4 – “During the period that I Conclusory. Unsupported by factual or maintained office space in Mississippi, I legal basis. shared that space only with contractors and employees whom I employed full time and were treated for privilege and confidentiality purposes as functional employees of my law firm. ¶ 6 – “I was informed that Maxwell- Hearsay. Walker had retained Mississippi attorneys to advise it and confirm that its agreement with me as well as the public relations and marketing services it was anticipated to provide under the agreement were in compliance with Mississippi law.” e ¶ 10 – “Precision represented to me that Conclusory. Hearstay. Vague and their independent attorney or attorneys ambiguous as to whio at “Precision” made had reviewed and approved each of the alleged represtentations so this contracts I signed with them. In fact, inter… |
| 39 | 2022-09-18 | NTC | Pohl | Withdrawal of partial MSJ on aff. def. | Pohl Plaintiffs' Notice of Drawing Down from Hearing Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Defendants' Affirmative Defenses that Seek to Relitigate Failed Barratry Claims and No-Evidence Motion on the Remaining Affirmative Defenses | Notice submitted September 18, 2022 (filed by clerk September 19, 2022) withdrawing Pohl's own motion for partial summary judgment on affirmative defenses from the September 19, 2022 hearing before Judge Scot 'Dolli' Dollinger, while defendants' MSJs remained pending for the same hearing date. Filed by Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. | MSJ-3 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-09-18_NTC_Pohl-Withdrawal-of-Partial-MSJ-on-Aff-Def_FILED.pdf | Request that Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Defendants' Affirmative Defenses be drawn down from the September 19, 2022 hearing | 9/18/2022 5:42 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 68364897 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 9/19/2022 12:00 AM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT THE POHL PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF DRAWING DOWN FROM HEARING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFElNSES THAT SEEK TO RELITIGATE FAILED BARRATRY CLAIMS AGaAINST PLAINTIFFS AND NO-EVIDENCE MOTION ON THE REMAMINING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT “DOLLI” DOLLINGER: Plaintiffs Michael A. Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC file this notice to draw down Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses that Seek to Relitigate Failed Barratry Claims Against Plaintiffs and No-Evidence Motion on the Remaining Affirmative Defenses, filed on August 29, 2022. This motion is currently set for hcearing on September 19, 2022, and Plaintiffs request that it be drawn down from that hearing so that the motion is not heard at that time. Dated: September 18, 2022 Respectfully submitted, REYNOLDS FRIZZELL LLP By: /s/ Jean C. Frizzell Jean C. Frizzell State Bar No. 07484650 k 1100 Louisiana St., Suite 3500 e Houston, Texas 77002 C l Tel. 713.485.7200 Fax 713.485.7250 c jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.rcom Attorney for PlaintifDfs Michael Pohl and Law Office ofs Michael A. Pohl, PLLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct coply of this document was served on all counsel of record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Praocedure on this 18th day of September, 2022. o /s/ Jean C… |
| 37 | 2022-09-15 | DECL | D. Kassab | David Kassab’s declaration | Declaration of David Eric Kassab in Support of Kassab Defendants' Summary Judgment Motions and Discovery Objections — sworn declaration under penalty of perjury providing factual basis for discovery burden objections and documenting the voluminous materials received from Pohl in the Barratry Litigation | Evidentiary declaration filed September 15, 2022 in support of Kassab defendants' traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment. Provides factual basis for discovery burden objections by documenting the categories and volume of documents received from Pohl in the Barratry Litigation. | MSJ-2 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-09-15_DECL_David-Kassab-Declaration_FILED.pdf | E 4 H I . Zo : J , S , S | CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § § V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ae SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th SUDIGIAL DISTRICT DECLARATION OF DAVID ERIC KASSAB - 1. My name is David Eric Kassab. My date of birth Oetober 20, 1982. My business address is 1214 Elgin Street, Houses) Texas 77004. I declare under penalty of perjury that the statements of fact made herein are within my personal knowledge and true and correct. 2. Jaman attorney licensed to practice Law the State of Texas. I have been licensed to practice law by the State of Texas since 2010 and I am in good standing. & SS 3. Iam an attorney at Lance Chriesfphier Kassab, PC d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (“the Firm”). In thie suit I represent the Firm and its owner, my uncle and law part , Lance Kassab. 4. J was an attorney for the plaintiff in the following litigation (and any related appeals): (1) Catige No. 2017-38294, Dezzie Brumfield, et al. v. Jimmy iiamson ea , in the 189 Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas (“th umfield case”) (2) Cause No. 459,062-401, Alice Marie Gandy, et alyv. Jimmy Williamson, et al., In the Probate Court No. 2 of taco Texas (“the Gandy case”), (3) Cause No. 2017- 37567, Mae (Bey y, et al. v. Michael Pohl, et al., in the 113 Judicial District Cour (the “Berry case”). I am also currently counsel for plaintiffs in” Cause No. 2017-41110, Mark Cheatham, et al. v. Michael A. Po ee al., in the 55th Judicial District Court, Harris County Texas, and ignthe related appeal (“the Cheatham case’). I will refer to these & collectively as “the Barratry Litigation.” 5. The Berry case was filed on or about June 5, 2017, and ultimately included seven plaintiffs that were alleged to have been solicited by Precision Marketing Group (“Precision”) to hire Michael A. Pohl and his firm (“Pohl”) to pursue auto accident claims. The Cheatham case was filed on June 20, 2017, and ultimately included four plaintiffs who were alleged to have been solicited by Precision to hire Pohl to pursue… | |
| 38 | 2022-09-15 | RSP | Pohl | Pohl’s response to MTA | Plaintiffs' Response to the Kassab Defendants' Motion to Abate Trial Setting — opposes abatement of four-year-old case on eve of preferential trial setting, arguing future damages do not justify abatement and unlawful acts defense has been preempted | Response filed September 15, 2022 by Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP opposing Kassab's motion to abate the trial setting in a four-year-old case with a preferential trial setting. Incorporates by reference Pohl's September 12, 2022 responses to defendants' summary judgment motions. | MTA-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-09-15_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-MTA-Trial_FILED.pdf | Deny Kassab's Motion to Abate Trial Setting and allow the case to proceed to trial during its current preferential trial setting | 9/15/2022 5:08 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 68313271 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 9/15/2022 5:08 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § v. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § 189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, § r P.C. d/b/a THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, LLP § d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW FIRM; and § s DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and MONTAGUE § PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § g Defendants. § r HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ABATEy TRIAL SETTING Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Officaes of Michael A. Pohl (collectively, “Pohl”) file this this response to Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C.’s (collectively, “Kassab”) Motion to Abeate Trial Setting (the “Motion to Abate”). Pohl requests that the Court deny Kassab’s Motion fto Abate and allow this four-year-old case to be tried during its current preferential trial settiyng—a trial setting that Kassab appears to be trying to avoid. Kassab argues Cthat this case should be abated for two reasons: (1) Pohl is still incurring damages; and (2) the outcome of a separate lawsuit—the Cheatham case—will impact Kassab’s illegality (unlafwfful acts doctrine) defense. Neither argument has merit. First, the existence of future daUmages does not justify abatement. For Pohl to recover future damages, he must satisfy the ordinary standard of showing to the jury that he will sustain those damages with reasonable probability. Second, Kassab’s unlawful acts defense has been preempted and does not apply—a defense Kassab acknowledged in another case is “no longer good law.” I. BACKGROUND1 Kassab’s campaign of lawsuits and bar grievances against Pohl can only be described as a failure. Kassab facilitated the filing of seven separate grievances with the Texas State Bar and four law… |
| 33 | 2022-09-12 | DECL | Kassab | Lance Kassab’s declaration | Declaration of Lance Christopher Kassab in support of Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Pohl's MSJ — sworn testimony under penalty of perjury establishing Kassab's professional background, the joint venture with Montague and Nicholson, the source of client information from Precision Marketing, the four barratry lawsuits and their outcomes, and assertion of work product and attorney-client privilege over communications | Phase 3 evidentiary filing supporting Kassab's MSJ (Filing #30) and his Response to Pohl's No-Evidence MSJ (Filing #34). This is a sworn declaration under penalty of perjury providing foundational facts for Kassab's immunity and justification defenses. Filed September 12, 2022. | MSJ-2 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-09-12_DECL_Lance-Kassab-Declaration_FILED.pdf | 9/12/2022 3:28:03 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No: 68168171 By: LOPEZ, ASHLEY V Filed: 9/12/2022 3:28:03 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § § V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ae SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th SUDIGIAL DISTRICT DECLARATION OF LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB 1. My name is Lance Christopher Kassab. My date of. ~ is March 12, 1961. My business address is 1214 Elgin Street, H on, Texas 77004. I am of sound mind and have never been conWicted of a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude anda erwise competent to make this declaration. I declare under pe y of perjury that the statements of fact made herein are within personal knowledge and true and correct. 6) 2. Iam an attorney licensed to practice:iaie in the State of Texas. I have been licensed to practice law by theState of Texas since 1995 and I am in good standing. I graduated a a school with honors and was editor-in-chief of Law Review also licensed to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States District Court of Texas, Southern, Eastern and Western Dagens. I was formerly a Briefing Attorney for the First Judicial Disc ourt of Appeals in Houston, Texas and Iam a former intern for Texas Supreme Court and the First Judicial District Court of Appeals. pp ©) 3. For more thaw twenty-five (25) years I have been in private practice handling complex legal malpractice cases. I have been involved in and/or handled appvoximately 2,300 legal malpractice cases and have been alee numerous appeals regarding numerous legal malpractice issues Th e vast majority of these cases have been on the Plaintiff's side. Ho I have also handled the defense of legal malpractice cases. I have. andled cases for clients all over Texas and in numerous other states within the Union such as California, Utah, Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, Arkansas, Colorado, Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida and Mississippi. 4. I am the owner of Lance Christopher K… | |
| 34 | 2022-09-12 | RSP | Kassab | Kassab’s response to Pohl no-evid MSJ | Kassab's Response to Pohl's Motion for Partial Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment on Affirmative Defenses — opposes Pohl's attempt to eliminate Kassab's affirmative defenses of justification, unclean hands, illegality, unlawful acts, criminal acts, and in pari delicto, and challenges Pohl's global no-evidence motion as procedurally defective under Timpte Industries v. Gish | Phase 3 response brief filed September 12, 2022 (same day as Kassab's declaration, Filing #33). Responds to Pohl's motion seeking to eliminate Kassab's key affirmative defenses before trial. Incorporates by reference Kassab's own MSJs (June 8, 2021 and August 29, 2022, i.e. Filing #30), the Nicholson MSJ (August 19, 2022), and Nicholson's response to Pohl's motion (September 12, 2022). Addressed to Judge Scot 'Dolli' Dollinger. | MSJ-3 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-09-12_RSP_Kassab-Response-to-Pohl-No-Evid-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Deny Pohl's Motion for Partial Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgment on Affirmative Defenses; alternatively, grant continuance under Rule 166a(g) to allow completion of discovery on illegality defense; grant summary judgment against Plaintiffs ordering they take nothing on their claims against Kassab | 9/12/2022 6:16 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 68179652 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 9/12/2022 6:16 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIALk DISTRICT THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFSC’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL TRADITIONAL AND NO-EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT “DOLLI” DOLLINGEtR: Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”) file this, theeir Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Traditional and No-Evidence Suummary Judgment on Affirmative Defenses,1 and would respectfully show the following. INTRaODUCTION Pohl2 committed illegal and unethical barratry and he wants Kassab, who brought the barratry litigation aend grievances against Pohl on behalf of more than four hundred (400) of Pohl’fs illegally solicited clients, to pay for Pohl’s barratry defense costs. But Pohl’s claims are barred for several reasons, including based on several affirmative defenses. Pohl has filed the instant Motion, seeking partial traditional summiary judgment on the affirmative defenses of justification, unclean hands, illegoality, and unlawful acts. However, Pohl has not negated those defenses as a matter of law. As to the other defenses, Pohl attempts to dispose of them through a global and conclusory no-evidence challenge, which is insufficient. 1 The self-serving title of the pleading is “Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses that Seek to Relitigate Failed Barratry Claims Against Plaintiffs and No-Evidence Motion on the Remaining Affirmative Defenses.” 2 This refers collectively to Plaintiffs Michael A. Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC. Regardless, Kassab can demonstrate, either here or in incorporated summary judgment briefing, that each of the defenses applicable to him apply, and that evidence supports each of them. Accordingly, the Motion should be in a… |
| 35 | 2022-09-12 | RSP | Pohl | Pohl’s response to Kassab no-evid MSJ | Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to No-Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment Filed by Kassab and Nicholson Defendants — Pohl presents extensive evidence supporting all three claims (conspiracy, conversion, TUTSA) and rebuts defendants' challenges to ownership, protection, misappropriation, and damages elements | Response to no-evidence MSJs filed by Kassab and Nicholson defendants on August 29, 2022, in the third phase of litigation. Filed September 12, 2022 at 11:26 PM. Pohl incorporates by reference the discussion and evidence from his companion Response in Opposition to the Traditional Motions filed the same day. Filed by Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. Addressed to the 189th Judicial District Court of Harris County. | MSJ-2 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-09-12_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-No-Evid-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Deny the no-evidence motions for summary judgment filed by Kassab and Nicholson and allow all issues to be tried by a jury | 9/12/2022 11:26 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 68182775 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 9/12/2022 11:26 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE NO EVIDENCE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY THE KASSAB DEFENDANTSl AND THE NICHOLSON DEFENDANTS Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law OfMfice of Michael A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) respond in opposition to the No Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C., d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (collectively “Kassab”) and Tina Nicholson and Baker Nicholson, LLP d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm (collectively, “Nicholson”). Given the overlapping issues in the multiple summary judgment motions before the Court, Pohl also incorpcorates by reference the discussion and evidence included in his Response in Opposition to the Traditional Motions for Summary Judgment Filed by the Kassab Defendants and the Nicholson Defendants that is filed on the same day as this Response. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Pohl represented various persons and entities in claims arising from motor vehicle accidents and the British Petroleum Deepwater Horizon oil spill.1 Pohl engaged Precision Marketing Group, LLC (“Precision”) to provide public relations services, to gathker and preserve evidence, and to screen and liaise with Pohl’s clients and prospective clients.2 l While working for Pohl, Precision necessarily gained access to Pohl’s confidential and propcrietary information and property, including trade … |
| 36 | 2022-09-12 | RSP | Pohl | Pohl’s response to Kassab trad MSJ | Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Traditional Motions for Summary Judgment Filed by Kassab and Nicholson Defendants — comprehensive 38-page response opposing limitations, unlawful acts doctrine, attorney immunity, judicial proceedings privilege, release, TUTSA protection, ownership, and damages defenses | Response to traditional MSJs filed by Kassab (Aug. 29, 2022) and Nicholson (Amended, Aug. 29, 2022), four years into litigation. Filed September 12, 2022 at 11:55 PM. Incorporates arguments and evidence from companion no-evidence MSJ response filed same day. Filed by Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. Notes Court previously denied Kassab's first MSJ (limitations, res judicata, attorney immunity) on August 3, 2021. | MSJ-2 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-09-12_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-Trad-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Deny the traditional motions for summary judgment filed by Kassab and Nicholson in all respects | 9/12/2022 11:55 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 68182991 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 9/12/2022 11:55 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE TRADITIONAL MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY THE KASSAB DEFENDANTSl AND THE NICHOLSON DEFENDANTS Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law OfMfice of Michael A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) respond in opposition to the Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C., d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (collectively “Kassab”) and the Amended Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Tina Nicholson and Baker Nicholson, LLP d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm (collectively, “Nicholson,” and together with Kassab, the “Moving Defendants”). c I. INTRODUCTION On June 8, 2021, Kassab moved for traditional summary judgment on the grounds of limitations, res judicata, and attorney immunity. By order dated August 3, 2021, the Court denied Kassab’s motion. Although nothing has changed relative to the facts relating to the defenses of limitations and attorney immunity, Kassab reargues those issues to the Court. Nicholson likewise asserts limitations and immunity defenses. For the same reasons the Court rejected those defenses in Kassab’s original motions, the Court should reject those defenses again here. The Moving Defendants’ assertion of an “illegal acts” defense fails as both a matter of fact and a matter of law. Both Nicholson and Kassab expend countless breathless pakges and submi… |
| 32 | 2022-09-06 | MTA | Kassab | Motion to Abate Trial | Kassab's Motion to Abate Trial Setting pending resolution of the related Cheatham v. Pohl barratry case, which was reversed on appeal August 30, 2022 and remanded for further proceedings | Phase 3 procedural motion filed one week after the Traditional MSJ and Seventh Amended Answer. Kassab argues trial should be abated because the still-pending Cheatham case will determine the full extent of Pohl's alleged damages and may establish Pohl's barratry, which would bar his claims entirely. Addressed to Judge Scot 'Dolli' Dollinger. Counsel for Plaintiffs (Jean Frizzell) opposed. | MTA-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-09-06_MTA_Kassab-Mtn-to-Abate-Trial_FILED.pdf | Abate the trial setting in this case pending the resolution of the Cheatham v. Pohl barratry case | 9/6/2022 8:41 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 67958716 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 9/6/2022 8:41 AM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIALk DISTRICT THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ABATE TRIACL SETTING TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT “DOLLI” DOLLINGER: Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Lance Christopheir Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm files this, Motion to Abate Trial Setting, and would respectfully show the following. BACKGROUND Lance Kassab and his firm were hlired by more than 400 of Michael Pohl’s former clients to sue Pohl and othersM for barratry – the illegal solicitation of clients. Kassab v. Pohl, 612 S.W.3d 571, 575 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. denied). Kassab field four sieparate lawsuits against Pohl, two of which Pohl successfully dismissed on limitations. See Brumfield v. Williamson, 634 S.W.3d 170, 177 (Tex. App.—Houoston [1st Dist.] 2021, pet. denied) and Gandy v. Williamson, 634 S.W.3d 214 (Tlex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2021, pet. denied). Another of the cases settled, iwith Pohl paying a substantial sum of money to Kassab and his clients. The fourth case – the Cheatham case – was dismissed by the trial court but recently reversed by the Houston Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings. See Cheatham v. Pohl, No. 01-20-00046-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 6528, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 30, 2022, no pet. h.). In retaliation, Pohl filed this litigation against Kassab and others, alleging specious claims for conversion and misappropriation of trade secrets.1 Specifically, Pohl alleges that the runners he hired to commit the barratry “gained access to [Pohl’s] confidential and proprietary information and property, inckluding trade secret materials” and “work product” and “illegally misapCpropriated” that information and then allegedly “secretly sold [it] to Kassab”2 who then “solicited clients/prospective clients… |
| 30 | 2022-08-29 | MSJ | Kassab | Trad. + No-Evidence MSJ (2nd attempt) | Kassab's Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment — comprehensive 80+ page dispositive motion raising seven independent grounds for dismissal: Rule 17.09 immunity, judicial proceedings privilege, attorney immunity, limitations, conclusive negation of TUTSA (no secrecy and no ownership), illegal acts bar, and improper damages (American Rule) | Phase 3 dispositive motion filed alongside the Seventh Amended Answer. This is Kassab's second MSJ attempt, substantially more detailed than the first. It adopts and incorporates the Nicholson Motion filed August 19, 2022, and presents extensive evidentiary support including 60+ exhibits (depositions, declarations, contracts, financial records, correspondence). Addressed to Judge Scot 'Dolli' Dollinger. | MSJ-2 | DENIED | Phase 3 | 2022-08-29_MSJ_Kassab-Trad-and-No-Evid-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Grant traditional summary judgment dismissing all of Pohl's claims against Kassab; order that Pohl take nothing | 8/29/2022 5:07 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 67771690 By: Ashley Lopez Filed: 8/29/2022 5:07 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIALk DISTRICT THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ TRADITIONACL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT “DOLLI” DOLLINGEtR: Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm file this, their Traeditional Motion for Summary Judgment, and would respectfully show the follouwing. SUMMARY Pohl committed illegal and uneathical barratry and he wants Kassab, who brought the barratry litigation and grievances against Pohl, to pay for Pohl’s barratry defense costs. But Pohel’s claims against Kassab are barred as a matter of law because: f • Pohl’s claims are predicated on Kassab’s filing of a grievance against Pohl for whicoh Kassab has absolute and unqualified immunity pursuant to Rule 17.09 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. • Pohl’s claiims against Kassab are barred by the judicial proceedings privilegie because they arise out of communications that Kassab made in proospective (solicitation letters) and actual judicial proceedings (the barratry litigation and grievance process) and Pohl seeks defamation- like damages including loss of reputation to his law firm and defense costs incurred because of the statements that Kassab made. • Pohl’s claims against Kassab are barred by attorney immunity. Under the doctrine of attorney immunity, an attorney does not have a right of recovery, under any cause of action, against another attorney arising from conduct the second attorney engaged in as part of the discharge of his duties in representing a party. • Pohl’s claims are barred by limitations because they accrued in 2014 and Pohl did not file suit until more than three years later. • Pohl’s claims are conclusively negated. Pohl’s TUTSA claim is conclusively negated because his alleged trade secrets weere not ac… |
| 31 | 2022-08-29 | OA | Kassab | 7th Amended Answer | Kassab's Seventh Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim — adds Judicial Immunity (#16) and Immunity under Rule 17.09 (#17) as new affirmative defenses, expands Illegality to include 'Unlawful Acts Rule' (#13), bringing total to 23 defenses. Filed same day as Traditional MSJ. | Phase 3 amended pleading superseding the Sixth Amended Answer, filed the same day as the Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing #30). Expands affirmative defenses from 21 to 23, adding Judicial Immunity (#16), Rule 17.09 disciplinary immunity (#17), and expanding #13 to include the Unlawful Acts Rule. This becomes the live answer going into the MSJ hearing. | PLEAD-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-08-29_OA_Kassab-7th-Amended-Answer-CC_FILED.pdf | That Pohl recover nothing; that Kassab recover (i) actual and consequential damages, (ii) statutory damages, (iii) pre- and post-judgment interest, (iv) attorneys' fees and costs, and (v) all other just relief | 8/29/2022 4:43 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 67770941 By: Ashley Lopez Filed: 8/29/2022 4:43 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIArL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS, LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AtND LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. D/B/A THE KASSAB LAWi FIRM’S SEVENTH AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ANsD COUNTERCLAIM TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm and files this their Seventh Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim, and would respectfully show the Court as follows; a f I RULE 47 STATEMENT 1. The Kassab Deffendants, in their capacity as Counter-Plaintiffs, seek monetary relief of more than $1,000,000.00. C II l PARTIES 2. Plaiintiff, Michael A. Pohl is an individual lawyer residing in Colorado and is a paroty herein. 3. Plaintiff, Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl is a law firm set up for the practice of law in various states of the union, including Texas and is a party herein. 4. Defendant, Scott Favre is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi and is a party herein. 5. Defendant, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi and is a party herein. 6. Defendant, Precision Marketing Group, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi and is a party herein. k 7. Defendant, F. Douglas Montague III is a nonresident iCndividual residing in Mississippi. 8. Defendant, Montague, Pittman & Varnadoi, PA is a nonresident professional association located in Mississippi. 9. Defendant, Tina Nicholson is an individual residing in Texas and is a party herein. 10. Defendant, Baker Nicholson, lLLP, d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm is a limited liability partnership located inM Texas and is a party herein. 11. Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Lance Christopher Kassab is an individual residing in Texas anid is a pa… |
| 29 | 2022-08-02 | OA | Kassab | 6th Amended Answer | Kassab's Sixth Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim — adds 21st affirmative defense (TUTSA preemption under § 134A.007(a)) and attorney's fees claim for bad faith TUTSA prosecution under § 134A.005; otherwise substantively identical to the Fifth Amended Answer | Phase 3 amended pleading superseding the Fifth Amended Answer. Key additions over Filing #27: (1) new affirmative defense #21 for preemption under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A.007(a), and (2) new section claiming attorney's fees under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A.005 for bad faith TUTSA claims by Pohl. All prior content maintained including 20 affirmative defenses, factual background, and barratry counterclaim. | PLEAD-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-08-02_OA_Kassab-6th-Amended-Answer-CC_FILED.pdf | That Pohl recover nothing; that Kassab recover (i) actual and consequential damages, (ii) statutory damages, (iii) pre- and post-judgment interest, (iv) attorneys' fees and costs, and (v) all other just relief | 8/2/2022 4:00 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 66899970 By: Ashley Lopez Filed: 8/2/2022 4:00 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIrAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS, LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. D/B/A THE KASSAB LAW FIRM’S SIXTH AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNtTERCLAIM TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm and files this their Sixth Armended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim, and would respectfully show the Court as follows; iIl RULE 47a STATEMENT 1. The Kassab Defendantso, in their capacity as Counter-Plaintiffs, seek monetary relief of more than $1,000,000.00. y PARTIES 2. Plaintiff, Michael A. Pohl is an individual lawyer residing in Colorado and is a party herein. c i 3. oPlaintiff, Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl is a law firm set up for the practice of law in various states of the union, including Texas and is a party herein. 4. Defendant, Scott Favre is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi and is a party herein. 5. Defendant, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi and is a party herein. 6. Defendant, Precision Marketing Group, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi and is a party herein. k 7. Defendant, F. Douglas Montague III is a nonresident indilvidual residing in Mississippi. c 8. Defendant, Montague, Pittman & Varnado, PA is sa nonresident professional association located in Mississippi. 9. Defendant, Tina Nicholson is an individual residing in Texas and is a party herein. 10. Defendant, Baker Nicholson, LLP, d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm is a limited liability partnership located in Texas and is a party herein. 11. Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Laance Christopher Kassab is an individual residing in Texas and is a party herein.… |
| 28 | 2022-05-31 | OBJ | Pohl | Pohl’s objection to RTP designation | Pohl's Objection to Kassab's Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties, arguing the designated persons did not cause or contribute to the harms underlying Pohl's tort claims and that Kassab failed to satisfy pleading requirements | Phase 3 response to Kassab's RTP motion. Pohl objects on grounds that the designated persons are not responsible for the specific harms underlying Pohl's conversion and TUTSA claims, distinguishing between harm to Pohl and general connection to events. Also argues Kassab failed to timely disclose RTP identities in discovery. Filed by Reynolds Frizzell LLP. | RTP-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-05-31_OBJ_Pohl-Objection-to-Kassab-RTP-Designation_FILED.pdf | Deny Kassab's Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties with leave for Kassab to attempt to replead | 5/31/2022 5:00 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 64998436 By: cassie combs Filed: 5/31/2022 5:00 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § r SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § D LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT POHL’S OBJECTION TO KASSAB’S MOTION TO DESIGNATE RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTIES Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Officae of Michael A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) file this Objection to Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm’s Motion to Desiegnate Responsible Third Parties (the “Motion”) and would show the Court as follows: f y I. INTRODUCTION The Court shouCld deny Kassab’s Motion because he fails to allege facts showing how the alleged responsiblea third parties are responsible for the harms underlying Pohl’s tort claims. Kassab seeks tfo designate eight different allegedly responsible third parties—Billy Shepherd (“ShepheUrd”), Scott Walker (“Walker”), Steve Seymour (“Seymour”) Kirk Ladner (“Ladner”), Dona Pohl (“Dona”), Edgar Jaimes (“Jaimes”), Ken Talley (“Talley”), and Magdalena Santana (“Santana”) (collectively, the “Alleged RTPs”). None of the Alleged RTPs “caused or contributed to causing” the harms underlying Pohl’s claims. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 33.011(6). Reading Kassab’s Motion, one might be forgiven for thinking that a responsible third party is any person who bears some (or any) connection with events related to a lawsuit and whose actions could allegedly have impacted the amount of damages suffered by a claimant. See generally Motion. But Texas has not adopted a “butterfly effect” theory okf proportionate… |
| 26 | 2022-05-13 | MTN | Kassab | Motion to Designate RTP | Kassab's Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties seeking to add eight non-party individuals to the verdict form for proportionate responsibility allocation | Phase 3 procedural motion filed after counterclaims were dismissed and before trial, seeking to designate eight individuals as responsible third parties under Texas proportionate responsibility statute to reduce potential damages allocation against Kassab. | RTP-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-05-13_MTN_Kassab-Mtn-to-Designate-RTP_FILED.pdf | Designate George W. (Billy) Shepherd, Scott Walker, Steve Seymour, Kirk Ladner, Dona Pohl, Edgar Jaimes, Ken Talley, and Magdalena Santana as responsible third parties for proportionate responsibility allocation, and grant all other relief in law or equity | 5/13/2022 6:22 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 64509093 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 5/13/2022 6:22 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIAkL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LAlNCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. D/B/A THE KASSAB LAW FIRM’S MOTION TO DESIGNATE RESPONSIBLE THIRD PcARTIES TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT DOLLINGER: s Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”), and file this, their Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties. REQUESTED R ELIEF 1. Kassab seeks to designate Georgel W. (Billy) Shepherd (Shepherd), Scott Walker (Walker), Steve Seymour (Seymour) andM Kirk Ladner (Ladner), Dona Pohl (Dona), Edgar Jaimes (Jaimes), Ken Talley (Talley), Moagdalena Santana (Santana) as responsible third parties in this litigation. Shepherd, Walker, Seymour, Ladner, Dona, Jaimes, Talley and Santana are all persons who are alleged to have caused or contributed to causing in any way the harm for which recovery of damages by Pohl is sought. Thus, they are all responsible third parties in this cause. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 33.011(6). c II f FACTS 2.U Pohl is a lawyer who commits barratry and has prayed on the less fortunate to earn a living. On October 18, 2014, three Mississippi residents, Scott Walker (“Walker”), Kirk Ladner (“Ladner”) and Steve Seymour (“Seymour”), and their related entities, including Precision Marketing Group, LLC (“Precision”), filed suit against Michael Pohl (“Pohl”) and others in Mississippi federal court (the “Mississippi Litigation”). There, Precision, Walker, Ladner and Seymour alleged that: (1) they had a joint venture with Pohl to sign up clients with economic loss claims stemming from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill and clients with personal injury claims; (2) that they successfully obtained these clients for Pohl; and (3) that Pohl breached their agreement by not paying them wh… |
| 27 | 2022-05-13 | OA | Kassab | 5th Amended Answer | Kassab's Fifth Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim — live pleading asserting 20 affirmative defenses, general and specific denials, detailed factual background of Pohl's barratry scheme, and counterclaim for civil barratry on behalf of 242 assigned claimants | Phase 3 amended pleading filed simultaneously with the Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties. This is Kassab's fifth iteration of his answer, expanding affirmative defenses and maintaining the barratry counterclaim based on assigned claims from 242 of Pohl's former clients. | PLEAD-1 | N/A | Phase 3 | 2022-05-13_OA_Kassab-5th-Amended-Answer-CC_FILED.pdf | That Pohl recover nothing; that Kassab recover (i) actual and consequential damages, (ii) statutory damages, (iii) pre- and post-judgment interest, (iv) attorneys' fees and costs, and (v) all other just relief on counterclaims | 5/13/2022 6:22 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 64509093 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 5/13/2022 6:22 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIrAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS, LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. D/B/A THE KASSAB LAW FIRM’S FIFTH AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNtTERCLAIM TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm and files this their Fifth Armended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim, and would respectfully show the Court as follows; iIl RULE 47a STATEMENT 1. The Kassab Defendantso, in their capacity as Counter-Plaintiffs, seek monetary relief of more than $1,000,000.00. y PARTIES 2. Plaintiff, Michael A. Pohl is an individual lawyer residing in Colorado and is a party herein. c i 3. oPlaintiff, Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl is a law firm set up for the practice of law in various states of the union, including Texas and is a party herein. 4. Defendant, Scott Favre is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi and is a party herein. 5. Defendant, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi and is a party herein. 6. Defendant, Precision Marketing Group, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi and is a party herein. k 7. Defendant, F. Douglas Montague III is a nonresident indilvidual residing in Mississippi. c 8. Defendant, Montague, Pittman & Varnado, PA is sa nonresident professional association located in Mississippi. 9. Defendant, Tina Nicholson is an individual residing in Texas and is a party herein. 10. Defendant, Baker Nicholson, LLP, d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm is a limited liability partnership located in Texas and is a party herein. 11. Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Laance Christopher Kassab is an individual residing in Texas and is a party her… |
| 25 | 2022-02-07 | ORD | Court | Order: Counterclaims DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE | Order granting Pohl's motion for summary judgment on Kassab's counterclaims, dismissing all counterclaims with prejudice | Phase 2 ruling on Pohl's motion for summary judgment targeting Kassab's counterclaims. This is a dispositive order eliminating Kassab's affirmative claims against Pohl within this lawsuit. Other defendants' counterclaims are not addressed by this order. | CC-1 | GRANTED | Phase 2 | 2022-02-07_ORD_Dismissing-Kassab-Counterclaims_SIGNED.pdf | 12/7/2021 4:11:54 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No: 59800424 By: QUINTANILLA, OZUQUI M Filed: 12/7/2021 4:11:54 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 past 11C MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § § V. § : vs SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § NZ) LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and _ § & LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § S THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § , eS NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § & LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE IIT and § & MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § ® Defendants. § <A89TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ORDER On this day came to be heard Pai’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants’ SN Counterclaims (the “Motion”) against RetGians Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C., d/b/a The KassabsLaw Firm (collectively “Kassab”). The Court, having reviewed the Motion, any coon replies, the pleadings, the evidence submitted in support thereof, and the arguments of odunsel, if any, finds that the Motion should be GRANTED. It is therefore ORDERED. ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Motion is © GRANTED. It is further.) Ge onpEng Kassab’s counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice. SS & SIGNED Sw) ,202. . SF Signed: (ot 2/7/2022 JUDGE PRESIDING | |
| 24 | 2022-02-04 | RPL | Pohl | Pohl’s reply ISO MSJ on counterclaims | Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants' Counterclaims for Civil Barratry | Pohl's reply brief supporting his MSJ on Kassab's barratry counterclaims, filed February 4, 2022. This is the final brief in the CC-1 motion chain before the court's ruling (which ultimately granted Pohl's motion). Attorney: Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. | CC-1 | N/A | Phase 2 | 2022-02-04_RPL_Pohl-Reply-ISO-MSJ-on-CC_FILED.pdf | Grant summary judgment dismissing Kassab's counterclaims for civil barratry | 2/4/2022 3:45 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 61466983 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 2/4/2022 3:45 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIMS Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Officae of Michael A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) file this Reply in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants’ Counterclaims for Civil Barratry. e In his Response to Plfaintiffs’ Motion (the “Response”) Kassab admits that the Assignments1 underlying hisy counterclaims were shams that altered nothing about the ownership of the claims and wereC made explicitly for the purpose of circumventing the statute of limitations and fomenting otherwise barred litigation. See Response, at 6 (“Seeing Pohl’s retaliatory suit as a means to potenftfially revive the barratry claims dismissed on limitations in Brumfield and Gandy, Kassab aUnd his clients executed 242 Limited Assignments.”); see also Declaration of Lance Kassab ¶ 12, Ex. 5 to the Response (after purported “assignment,” clients retained 60% interest in claims and Kassab retained 40% contingent fee interest). These admissions demonstrate the 1 Terms defined in Plaintiffs’ Motion carry the same meaning in this Reply. invalidity of the Assignments and therefore the Counterclaims. In addition to effectively admitting that the Assignments are shams, Kassab’s Response fails to rebut any of the other bases on which Pohl moved for summary judgment. The Court can resolve Pohl’s Motion based on a s… |
| 23 | 2022-01-31 | RSP | Kassab | Kassab’s response to Pohl MSJ on CC | The Kassab Parties' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants' Counterclaims for Civil Barratry | Kassab's opposition brief responding to Pohl's Motion for Summary Judgment seeking dismissal of Kassab's barratry counterclaims. Filed January 31, 2022, approximately 55 days after Pohl's motion. This is the response in the CC-1 motion chain. Attorneys: Lance Christopher Kassab, David Eric Kassab, and Nicholas R. Pierce of The Kassab Law Firm. | CC-1 | N/A | Phase 2 | 2022-01-31_RSP_Kassab-Response-to-Pohl-MSJ-on-CC_FILED.pdf | Deny Pohl's Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants' Counterclaims | 1/31/2022 3:03 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 61310680 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 1/31/2022 3:03 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIALk DISTRICT THE KASSAB PARTIES’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MCOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIMS Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs Lance Christophter Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm (collectively, “Kassab”), files this, their Response to Plaintiff and Counter-Defeendants Michael Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC’s Motion for Suummary Judgment on Defendants’ Counterclaims, and would respectfully show the following. SUaMMARY The Motion filed by Michael A. Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (“Pohl”) should be denied. Res jeudicata does not apply because facts have changed and the relationship betweefn the parties has been altered. Specifically, Pohl sued Kassab arising from the same transaction where the barratry occurred, and the clients assigned the barratry claims to Kassab to be brought as counterclaims in this action, thuis allowing Section 16.069 to revive the otherwise time-barred barratry cloaims. Section 16.069 plainly applies because Pohl’s claims against Kassab and the barratry counterclaims arise from the same transaction in which Precision Marketing Group, LLC (“Precision”) solicited clients for Pohl and obtained the alleged confidential information that Kassab is alleged to have obtained. The clients’ assignments of their barratry counterclaims against Pohl to Kassab are not invalid, either as a matter of law or for purported non-compliance with the Disciplinary Rules. Regardless, the law is clear that technical non-compliance with the Disciplinary Rules is insufficient to void otherwise valid contracts like the Assignments. k BACKGROUND C On October 8, 2014, Scott Walker, Kirk Ladner, and their company Precision sued Pohl and his law firm for breach of contract and fra… |
| 22 | 2021-12-07 | MSJ | Pohl | Pohl’s MSJ on Kassab Counterclaims | Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants' Counterclaims for Civil Barratry | Pohl's dispositive motion seeking traditional summary judgment on Kassab's counterclaims for civil barratry based on 242 assigned claims. Filed December 7, 2021, after Kassab's Fourth Amended Answer. This is the principal motion in the CC-1 chain, which was ultimately granted. Attorney: Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. | CC-1 | GRANTED | Phase 2 | 2021-12-07_MSJ_Pohl-MSJ-on-Kassab-Counterclaims_FILED.pdf | Grant summary judgment dismissing Kassab's counterclaims for civil barratry | 12/7/2021 4:11 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 59800424 By: Ozuqui Quintanilla Filed: 12/7/2021 4:11 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIMS Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Officae of Michael A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) move for summary judgment on the Defendants’ counterclaims for civil barratry. SU e MMARY OF ARGUMENT Defendants Lance Christfopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C., d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (collectiveyly “Kassab”) assert counterclaims that have already been adjudicated. Kassab’s clients previoCusly brought these very claims and lost them. Kassab’ counterclaims fail because they are barred by res judicata, they are not revived by the savings provision of the Texas Civil Practice fafnd Remedies Code and are accordingly time-barred, and because the purported assignmeUnts of the claims are invalid and unenforceable. After purchasing Pohl’s stolen client lists and contact information, Kassab solicited Pohl’s clients to bring barratry claims. When courts (including this one) found those barratry claims to be barred by limitations, Kassab obtained purported “assignments” of those claims and asserted them as counterclaims in this action, contending they had been “revived” pursuant to the savings provision of Civil Practices and Remedies Code section 16.069. The statutory requirements of section 16.069 are not met for multiple reasons, and Kassab’s effort to revitalize the stale claims fails. In addition, civil barratry… |
| 21 | 2021-10-18 | OA | Pohl | Pohl’s response and special exceptions | Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants Pohl's Verified Original Answer and Special Exceptions to Kassab's Fourth Amended Answer, Counterclaim, and Designation of Responsible Third Parties | Pohl's responsive pleading to Kassab's Fourth Amended Answer and Counterclaim filed on October 13, 2021. Filed October 18, 2021, five days after Kassab's amended pleading. Challenges Kassab's legal capacity to assert assigned barratry claims through verified denials and seeks clarification of the counterclaim through special exceptions. Attorney: Jean C. Frizzell of Reynolds Frizzell LLP. | PLEAD-1 | N/A | Phase 2 | 2021-10-18_OA_Pohl-Response-and-Special-Exceptions_FILED.pdf | That the Court render judgment that Kassab take nothing; dismiss Kassab's counterclaim for barratry on its merits; and grant such other and further or alternative relief (legal and equitable) to which Pohl may be entitled | 10/18/2021 5:07 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 58297712 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 10/18/2021 5:07 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS–COUNTER DEFENDANTS MICHAEL POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC’S VERIFIED ORIGINAL ANSWERl AND SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS Plaintiffs–Counter Defendants MichMael Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (collectively “Pohl”), file this Verified Original Answer and Special Exceptions to Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm’s Fourth Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim, and Designation of Responsible Third Parties, filed October 13, 2021 (the “Counterclaim”), and would show as follows: I. Verified Denials Pursuant tco Rules 93(1) and 93(2) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Pohl denies that Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (collectively “Kassab”) has legal capacity to sue or recover in the capacity in which he sued. Kassab purports to assert barratry claims assigned to him by his clients. Such assignments of barratry claims (whether complete or partial) are void, and Kassab both lacks legal capacity to sue and to recover. Pohl’s Verification is attached as Exhibit A. II. Answer Pursuant to Rule 92, Pohl generally denies each and every, all and singular, of the allegations made in Kassab’s Counterclaim, and demands strict proof thereof. Pohl hereby pleads the following affirmative defenses: k i. Statute of limitations; l ii. L… |
| 20 | 2021-10-13 | OA | Kassab | 4th Amended Answer — adds RTP designations | Defendants Kassab's Fourth Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Counterclaim, and Designation of Responsible Third Parties | Kassab's fourth amended pleading filed October 13, 2021, after denial of his traditional MSJ. Adds responsible third party designations and reasserts counterclaims for civil barratry based on 242 assigned claims. Relies on Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.069 to revive otherwise time-barred counterclaims. Filed during Phase 2 of litigation. Two sets of counsel: Lance and David Kassab for defense; Murray Fogler for affirmative claims. | PLEAD-1, RTP-1 | N/A | Phase 2 | 2021-10-13_OA_Kassab-4th-Amended-Answer-CC_FILED.pdf | That Pohl recover nothing on his claims; actual and consequential damages on counterclaims; statutory damages; pre- and post-judgment interest; attorneys' fees and costs; and all other relief to which Kassab may be justly entitled | 10/13/2021 12:33 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 58144098 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 10/13/2021 12:33 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIrAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS, LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. D/B/A THE KASSAB LAW FIRM’S FOURTH AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNtTERCLAIM, AND DESIGNATION OF RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTIES TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: s COMES NOW, Defendants, Lance Christopher Kgassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm and files this theBir Fourth Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim, and Designation of Ryesponsible Third Parties, and would respectfully show the Court as follows; a RULfE 47 STATEMENT The Kassab Defendants, in teheir capacity as Counter-Plaintiffs, seek monetary relief of more than $1,000,000.00. f y PARTIES Plaintiff, Michael A. Pohl is an individual lawyer residing in Colorado and is a party herein. Plaintiff, Laawl Offices of Michael A. Pohl is a law firm set up for the practice of law in various states of ithe union, including Texas and is a party herein. Defendant, Scott Favre is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi and is a party herein. Defendant, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi and is a party herein. Defendant, Precision Marketing Group, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi and is a party herein. Defendant, F. Douglas Montague III is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi. Defendant, Montague, Pittman & Varnado, PA is a nonresident professioknal association located in Mississippi. l Defendant, Tina Nicholson is an individual residing in Texas and cis a party herein. Defendant, Baker Nicholson, LLP, d/b/a Baker Nicholson Lasw Firm is a limited liability partnership located in Texas and is a party herein. Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Lance Christophe… |
| 19 | 2021-08-03 | ORD | Court | Order: Kassab’s Traditional MSJ DENIED | Order Denying Kassab's Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment | Court ruling on Kassab's dispositive Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment. Denied in full in a brief one-page order with no stated reasoning. Allows Pohl's claims against Kassab to proceed to further litigation. | MSJ-1 | DENIED | Phase 2 | 2021-08-03_ORD_Denying-Kassab-Traditional-MSJ_SIGNED.pdf | Pohl v. Favre District Court of Texas, 189th Judicial District, Harris County August 3, 2021, Decided; August 3, 2021, Filed CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 Reporter 2021 Tex. Dist. LEXIS 5999 * POHL, MICHAEL, Plaintiff(s) v. FAVRE, SCOTT, Defendant(s) Judges: [*1] Hon. SCOT DOLLINGER, Judge, 189th District Court. Opinion by: SCOT DOLLINGER Opinion ORDER Pending is LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, PC'S TRADITIONAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Motion DENIED. Signed August 3, 2021. /s/ Scot Dollinger Hon. SCOT DOLLINGER Judge, 189th District Court End of Document | |
| 18 | 2021-08-02 | RPL | Kassab | Kassab’s reply ISO Traditional MSJ | Kassab's Objections to Pohl's Response and Reply in Support of Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment, with extensive evidentiary objections and rebuttal arguments on all three grounds | Reply brief filed one week after Pohl's response (July 26, 2021) to Kassab's Traditional MSJ. Filed August 1-2, 2021. Contains two major sections: (1) detailed paragraph-by-paragraph evidentiary objections to Pohl's Declaration (Exhibit A) seeking to strike key paragraphs and exhibits as conclusory, hearsay, or lacking foundation; (2) substantive reply arguments on limitations, res judicata, and attorney immunity. Kassab represents himself pro se with David Eric Kassab. | MSJ-1 | N/A | Phase 2 | 2021-08-02_RPL_Kassab-Reply-ISO-Traditional-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Sustain all evidentiary objections; strike Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of Pohl's Declaration and Exhibits 1-2; grant Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment ordering that Plaintiffs take nothing | 8/1/2021 7:39 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 55892722 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 8/2/2021 12:00 AM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIALk DISTRICT THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFCFS’ RESPONSE AND REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT “DOLLI” DOLLINGEtR: Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm file this, their Objections to Plaeintiffs’ Response and Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment uand would respectfully show the following. BJECTIONS Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm i(collectively, “Kassab”) object to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A, the sworn declaration of Michael A. Pohl, because statements contained in this declaration are concluosory, contain hearsay and contain no foundation or predicate to support personall knowledge, and thus, constitute no evidence at all. Conclusiory affidavits do not raise fact issues and are incompetent evidence as a matter of law. Ryland Group, Inc. v. Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120, 122 (Tex. 1996); Stephens v. Precision Drilling Oilfield Servs. Corp., No. 01-11-00326-CV, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 5700, at *19 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 9, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.). “A conclusory statement is one that does not provide the underlying facts to support the conclusion.” Dolcefino v. Randolph, 19 S.W.3d 906, 930 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). Moreover, an affidavit is conclusory when it expresses “a factual inference without stating the underlying facts on which the inference is based.” E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Shell Oil Cok., 259 S.W.3d 800, 809 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied). ThusC, bare conclusions are not evidence and are not probative of any facts. See Bavishi v. Sterling Air Conditioning, Inc., No. 01-10-00610-CV, 2011 Tex. App.i LEXIS 6271, at *24-… |
| 17 | 2021-07-26 | RSP | Pohl | Pohl’s response to Kassab MSJ | Pohl's Response in Opposition to Kassab's Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment, addressing all three grounds (limitations, res judicata, attorney immunity) | Response brief filed in Phase 2 opposing Kassab's dispositive Traditional MSJ. Pohl argues Kassab's motion recycles the same arguments and limited evidence from the TCPA motion and interlocutory appeal, and was filed prior to responding to any discovery. Filed July 26, 2021, approximately 7 weeks after Kassab's MSJ. | MSJ-1 | N/A | Phase 2 | 2021-07-26_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-Traditional-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Deny Kassab's Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment in all respects | 7/26/2021 2:51 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 55701585 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 7/26/2021 2:51 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, PC’S TRADITIONAL MOTION FOlR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law OfMfice of Michael A. Pohl (collectively “Pohl”) respond in opposition to the Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C., d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (collectively “Kassab”). Kassab’s Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”), which Kassab filed prior to responding to any discovery, relies on the same arguments and (very limited) evidence previously presented to this Court and the First Court of Appeals in Kassab’s motion under the TCPA.c Kassab’s arguments were not persuasive then, nor is his recycled assertion of them persuasive now. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Pohl is a lawyer who represented various persons and entities in claims arising from motor vehicle accidents and the British Petroleum Deepwater Horizon oil spill.1 Pohl engaged Precision 1 Sworn Declaration of Michael A. Pohl (the “Pohl Declaration”) ¶ 3, attached as Exhibit A. Marketing Group, LLC (“Precision”) to provide public relations services, to gather and preserve evidence, and to screen and liaise with Pohl’s clients and prospective clients.2 While working for Pohl, Precision naturally gained access to Pohl’s confidential and proprietary informat… |
| 16 | 2021-06-08 | MSJ | Kassab | Kassab’s Traditional MSJ | Kassab's Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment asserting three independent grounds: statute of limitations, res judicata, and attorney immunity doctrine | Filed June 8, 2021 in Cause No. 2018-58419, 189th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. Dispositive motion filed in Phase 2, approximately 2.5 years after the original petition. Filed before Kassab responded to any discovery, relying on traditional summary judgment rule permitting filing 'at any time after the adverse party has appeared or answered.' Relies on arguments and evidence previously presented in the TCPA motion and interlocutory appeal. Case is before Judge Scot 'Dolli' Dollinger. District Clerk is now Marilyn Burgess. | MSJ-1 | DENIED | Phase 2 | 2021-06-08_MSJ_Kassab-Traditional-MSJ_FILED.pdf | Traditional summary judgment ordering that Pohl take nothing on all claims against Kassab and The Kassab Law Firm | 6/8/2021 2:44 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 54215119 By: Ozuqui Quintanilla Filed: 6/8/2021 2:44 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIALk DISTRICT LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LANCE CHRISTOPCHER KASSAB, PC’S TRADITIONAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SCOT “DOLLI” DOLLINGEtR: Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Feirm files this, their Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment, and would respeuctfully show the following. SUMMlARY Plaintiffs Michael A. Pohl andM Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (“Pohl”) sued Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firmi (“Kassab”) and others for conversion, theft of trade secrets and civil conspiracy. The Court should grant summary judgment on Pohl’s claims against Kassabo for any one of three independent reasons: • First, Polhl’s claims are barred by limitations. Pohl testified that discoveiry in federal litigation filed in 2014 revealed that his alleged tradei secrets and confidential information had been stolen from his ofofice in Gulfport, Mississippi. Pohl testified that Kassab was involved in that alleged misappropriation that occurred in 2014, and that he knew it, but he did not file suit because he “did not want to do anything precipitous.” Because Pohl waited more than three years later to bring his claims against Kassab, the claims are barred by limitations. • Second, the claims are barred by res judicata. Pohl previously brought similar claims against alleged co-conspirators in Mississippi federal litigation, wherein Pohl contends that Kassab allegedly purchased his stolen trade secrets. Yet, Pohl never brought Kassab into that lawsuit and instead paid approximately $1 million to settle the dispute against Kassab’s alleged co- conspirators resulting in a final judgment. Pohl’s claims against Kassab… |
| 15 | 2018-12-26 | RSP | Pohl | Pohl’s response to supp. TCPA motion | Pohl's combined notice of mandatory stay, response in opposition to motion for leave to file late TCPA motion, and response in opposition to Favre/Precision's TCPA Motion to Dismiss | Filed December 26, 2018 in Cause No. 2018-58419, 189th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. Filed after Kassab's TCPA motion was denied by operation of law and Kassab noticed an interlocutory appeal on December 18, 2018. Pohl argues a mandatory stay bars consideration of the Favre/Precision TCPA motion. This response addresses both the timeliness of the Favre/Precision motion (filed after the 60-day TCPA deadline) and the merits of the TCPA dismissal arguments. | TCPA-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-12-26_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Supp-MTD-TCPA_FILED.pdf | Deny the Motion for Leave to file late TCPA motion; deny the Motion to Dismiss as untimely and on the merits; deny attorney's fees | 12/26/2018 11:52 AM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 29957412 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 12/26/2018 11:52 AM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § D LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS MICHAEL POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. POHL’S NOTICE OF MANDATORY STAY OF ALL PROCEEDINGS, RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVEl TO FILE MOTION TO DISMISS, AND RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO aDEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Offices of Michael A. Pohl (collectively, “Pohl”) provide this notice that all proceedings are staeyed, respond in opposition to the Motion for Leave to File a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defenfdants Scott Favre (“Mr. Favre”), Scott M. Favre Public Adjuster, LLC (“Favre”), and Precisioyn Marketing Group, LLC (“Precision”) (collectively, “Defendants”), and respond in oppositCion to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”). In light of the filing of an interlocutory appeal, this case is currently subject to a mandatory stay, precludinfgf the Court’s consideration of the Motion. In addition, the Motion was not timely filed andU should be denied for that reason. Finally, the Motion purports to find its basis in the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 27.001 et. seq. (“TCPA”), but the TCPA does not apply to Pohl’s claims, and even if it did, the Motion would fail. THIS CASE IS SUBJECT TO A MANDATORY STAY OF ALL PROCEEDINGS Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”) moved to dismiss the claims agai… |
| 14 | 2018-11-30 | AP | Pohl | Pohl’s 1st Amended Petition | Pohl's First Amended Petition asserting four causes of action (breach of contract, conversion, TUTSA violations, civil conspiracy) against all defendants | Filed November 30, 2018 in Cause No. 2018-58419, 189th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. Amended pleading filed approximately three months after the original petition (August 28, 2018). Filed during the pendency of Kassab's TCPA motion to dismiss. Adds detail to factual allegations and refines causes of action. This is the operative petition in Phase 1. Jury trial demanded. | PLEAD-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-11-30_AP_Pohl-1st-Amended-Petition_FILED.pdf | Judgment against all defendants; actual damages within jurisdictional limits; injunctive relief under § 134A.003; exemplary damages under §§ 41.001 et seq. and 134A.004(b); attorney's fees under §§ 38.001 et seq. and 134A.005; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; trial by jury | 11/30/2018 9:45 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 29415016 By: ARIONNE MCNEAL Filed: 11/30/2018 9:45 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS MICHAEL POHL AND LAW OyFFICE OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC’S FIRST AMENDiED PETITION fSUMMARY 1. Plaintiffs Michael Pcohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (sometimes collectively “Pohl”) sue DefendOants Scott Favre and Scott M. Favre PA, LLC (collectively “Favre”); Precision Marketing Groupp, LLC (“Precision”); Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firm (collectively “Kassab”); Tina Nicholson and Baker Nicholson, LLP Di/B/A Baker Nicholson Law Firm (collectively “Nicholson”); and F. Douglas Montague III oand Montague Pittman & Varnado, P.A. (collectively “Montague”). Favre, Precision, Kassab, Nicholson, and Montague are collectively called “Defendants.” 2. Defendants engaged in a scheme pursuant to which they illegally obtained, maintained, and used trade secrets and other confidential information and property belonging to Pohl. Favre and Precision’s actions are in breach of a settlement agreement to which Pohl, Favre, and Precision are parties, and all Defendants’ actions constitute the torts of conversion and violations of the uniform trade secrets act, as well as conspiracy. 3. More specifically, Favre and Precision executed a settlement agreement with Pohl pursuant to which they agreed to return to Pohl certain information in their andk their counsel’s possession, custody, or control; to permanently delete such electr… |
| 13 | 2018-11-19 | MTD | Kassab | Supplemental TCPA Motion to Dismiss | Kassab's Supplement to TCPA Motion to Dismiss incorporating Favre co-defendants' statute of limitations arguments | Filed November 19, 2018 in Cause No. 2018-58419, 189th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. Supplemental briefing filed in support of Kassab's original TCPA Motion to Dismiss (filed October 24, 2018). Incorporates arguments from co-defendant Favre's separately filed TCPA motion. Addressed to the Honorable Judge Bill Burke. | TCPA-1 | DENIED | Phase 1 | 2018-11-19_MTD_Kassab-Supp-TCPA_FILED.pdf | Dismissal of Pohl's claims with prejudice; attorney's fees as previously requested in Kassab's original Motion to Dismiss; sanctions of a minimum of $50,000 against Pohl and his counsel Frizzell to deter future frivolous and retaliatory filings | 11/19/2018 10:48 AM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 29125236 By: ARIONNE MCNEAL Filed: 11/19/2018 10:48 AM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIAkL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS, LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LANCE CHlRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. D/B/A THE KASSAB LAW FIRM’S SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS CITIZENS PARTICcIPATION ACT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE BILL BURKE: s Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm (Kassab) files this, their Supplement to Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to the Texas Citizens Participation Act set forth in Chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. This is a retaliatory lawsuit filed by Plaintiff, Michael A. Pohl and his law firm, Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (“ePohl”) that is based on, related to, and in response to the rights to free speech, petition andf association, and should therefore be dismissed pursuant to the Texas Citizens Participationy Act (the “TCPA”). Additionally, Pohl’s claims must be dismissed pursuant to Chapter 2C7 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code because, even if Pohl could establish a parima facie case on each element of each of his causes of action, the TCPA provides that thfe trial court must still dismiss his claims if, based upon a preponderance of the evidence,U each essential element of a valid defense is established. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE, § 27.005(d). Kassab files this supplement to Kassab’s Motion to Dismiss simply to incorporate the arguments and Exhibits outlined in paragraphs 35 through 42 of Scott Favre, Scott M. Favre Public Adjuster, LLC and Precision Marketing Group, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss. The arguments and Exhibits clearly show that Pohl’s claims were filed far beyond the statute of limitations. Thus, not only is there a preponderance of the evidence establishing each essential element of a statute of limitations … |
| 12 | 2018-11-07 | OA | Kassab | 3rd Amended Answer | Kassab's Third Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Counterclaim, and Designation of Responsible Third Parties | Filed November 7, 2018 in Cause No. 2018-58419, 189th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. The day after the Second Amended Answer. Third amended responsive pleading, further expanding counterclaims from 235 to 242 assigned barratry claimants. Adds additional detail to the Designation of Responsible Third Parties section regarding Shepherd's knowledge of Favre's document transfers to third parties prior to the Federal Litigation settlement. | PLEAD-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-11-07_OA_Kassab-3rd-Amended-Answer-CC_FILED.pdf | Plaintiffs take nothing; Kassab recovers on counterclaims and against third-party defendants including actual and consequential damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other just relief | 11/7/2018 4:22 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 28873961 By: ARIONNE MCNEAL Filed: 11/7/2018 4:22 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIrAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS, LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. D/B/A THE KASSAB LAW FIRM’S THIRD AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNtTERCLAIM, AND DESIGNATION OF RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTIES TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: s COMES NOW, Defendants, Lance Christopher Kgassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm and files this thBeir Third Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim, and Designation of Ryesponsible Third Parties, and would respectfully show the Court as follows; a RULfE 47 STATEMENT The Kassab Defendants, in teheir capacity as Counter-Plaintiffs, seek monetary relief of more than $1,000,000.00. f y PARTIES Plaintiff, Michael A. Pohl is an individual lawyer residing in Colorado. Plaintiff, Laawl Offices of Michael A. Pohl is a law firm set up for the practice of law in various states of ithe union, including Texas. Defnendant, Scott Favre is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi. Defendant, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi. Defendant, Precision Marketing Group, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi. Defendant, F. Douglas Montague III is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi. Defendant, Montague, Pittman & Varnado, PA is a nonresident professional association located in Mississippi. Defendant, Tina Nicholson is an individual residing in Texas. k Defendant, Baker Nicholson, LLP, d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm ils a limited liability partnership located in Texas. c Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Lance Christopher Kassab is an sindividual residing in Texas. Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm is a professional corporation … |
| 11 | 2018-11-06 | OA | Kassab | 2nd Amended Answer | Kassab's Second Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Counterclaim, and Designation of Responsible Third Parties | Filed November 6, 2018 in Cause No. 2018-58419, 189th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. The day after the reply brief on the TCPA motion. This is the second amended responsive pleading, expanding the counterclaims from 150 to 235 assigned barratry claimants and adding a Designation of Responsible Third Parties (Billy Shepherd, Scott Walker, Steve Seymour, Kirk Ladner). Addressed to the Honorable Judge of said Court. | PLEAD-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-11-06_OA_Kassab-2nd-Amended-Answer-CC_FILED.pdf | Plaintiffs take nothing; Kassab recovers on counterclaims and against third-party defendants including actual and consequential damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other just relief | 11/6/2018 2:08 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 28831260 By: ARIONNE MCNEAL Filed: 11/6/2018 2:08 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIrAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS, LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. D/B/A THE KASSAB LAW FIRM’S SECOND AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNtTERCLAIM, AND DESIGNATION OF RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTIES TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: s COMES NOW, Defendants, Lance Christopher Kgassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm and files this theBir Second Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim, and Designation of Ryesponsible Third Parties, and would respectfully show the Court as follows; a RULfE 47 STATEMENT The Kassab Defendants, in teheir capacity as Counter-Plaintiffs, seek monetary relief of more than $1,000,000.00. f y PARTIES Plaintiff, Michael A. Pohl is an individual lawyer residing in Colorado. Plaintiff, Laawl Offices of Michael A. Pohl is a law firm set up for the practice of law in various states of ithe union, including Texas. Defendant, Scott Favre is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi. Defendant, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi. Defendant, Precision Marketing Group, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi. Defendant, F. Douglas Montague III is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi. Defendant, Montague, Pittman & Varnado, PA is a nonresident professional association located in Mississippi. Defendant, Tina Nicholson is an individual residing in Texas. k Defendant, Baker Nicholson, LLP, d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm ils a limited liability partnership located in Texas. c Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Lance Christopher Kassab is an sindividual residing in Texas. Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm is a professional corporation… |
| 10 | 2018-11-05 | OBJ | Kassab | Objections to Pohl’s TCPA response evidence | Kassab's Objections to Plaintiffs' Response Evidence and Reply in Support of TCPA Motion to Dismiss | Filed November 5, 2018 as a combined objection and reply brief in further support of Kassab's TCPA Motion to Dismiss. Responds to Pohl's November 1, 2018 opposition, challenging the admissibility of Pohl's evidence and arguing the commercial speech exception does not apply. Filed in Cause No. 2018-58419, 189th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. Addressed to the Honorable Judge Bill Burke. | TCPA-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-11-05_OBJ_Kassab-Objections-to-Pohl-Response_FILED.pdf | Grant the TCPA Motion to Dismiss; strike Shepherd affidavit and all attached documents; strike Pohl's declaration paragraphs 3-9; order Plaintiffs take nothing; award reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and costs as required by the statute | 11/5/2018 8:03 AM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 28779207 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 11/5/2018 8:03 AM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIAkL DISTRICT THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTlIFFS’ RESPONSE AND REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE BILL BURKE: r Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Lance Christopher Kassab Dand Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”) file this reply asnd objections in further support of their Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to the Texas Citizens Parrticipation Act. OBJECTIONS A. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A (Affidavait of Billy Shepherd) Kassab objects to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A, the alleged affidavit of Billy Shepherd (“Shepherd”) and all exhibits attacheed thereto. Specifically, Shepherd’s affidavit fails as an affidavit on its face because itf is not based upon “personal knowledge” or state that the statements therein are “true yand correct”, thus perjury does not attach, and therefore, the alleged affidavit is nothing moCre than a statement by Pohl’s “interested” counsel. An affidavit must be based on the affianta’s personal knowledge and must state that the facts in it are true. Humphreys v. Caldwell, 88 8f S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. 1994); see TEX. R. EVID. 602 (evidence must show the witness hUas personal knowledge); Radio Station KSCS v. Jennings, 750, S.W.2d 760, 761-62 (Tex. 1988). An affidavit must contain direct and unequivocal statements that, if false, would be grounds for perjury. Burke v. Satterfield, 525 S.W.2d 950, 955 (Tex. 1975); Hall v. Stephenson, 919 S.W.2d 454, 466 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, writ denied). Additionally, Shepherd’s statement appears to attempt to prove up business records, but this attempt fails. To introduce a business record through a witness, a party must prove the following: (1) the record is a memorandum, report, other compilation of data; (2) the witness is the custodian or another quali… |
| 9 | 2018-11-01 | RSP | Pohl | Pohl’s response opposing TCPA MTD | Pohl's Response in Opposition to Kassab's TCPA Motion to Dismiss | Filed November 1, 2018 in response to Kassab's October 24, 2018 TCPA Motion to Dismiss. Pohl opposes dismissal on three grounds: (1) the TCPA does not apply to his claims, (2) even if it did, the commercial speech exception bars application, and (3) Pohl has established a prima facie case. Includes alternative motion for continuance and discovery. Filed in Cause No. 2018-58419, 189th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. | TCPA-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-11-01_RSP_Pohl-Response-to-Kassab-MTD-TCPA_FILED.pdf | Deny the TCPA Motion to Dismiss in all respects; award Pohl costs and fees of $33,352; alternatively, grant continuance and permit discovery under §§ 27.004(c) and 27.006(b) | 11/1/2018 7:18 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 28744115 By: Deandra Mosley Filed: 11/1/2018 7:18 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC, § Plaintiffs, § V. § k § e SCOTT FAVRE and SCOTT M. FAVRE PA, § C l LLC; PRECISION MARKETING GROUP, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LLC; LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB and § c LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. d/b/a § r THE KASSAB LAW FIRM; TINA § s NICHOLSON and BAKER NICHOLSON, § LLP d/b/a BAKER NICHOLSON LAW § s FIRM; and DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III and § s MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A., § Defendants. § r189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS MICHAEL POHL AND LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. POHL’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS CITlIZENS PARTICIPATION ACT Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law OfMfices of Michael A. Pohl (collectively, “Pohl”) respond in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C., d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm (collectively, “Kassab”). Kassab’s Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) purports to find its basis in the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act, TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODEo § 27.001 et. seq. (“TCPA”), but as set forth below the TCPA does not apply to Pohl’s claims, and even if it did, the Motion would fail. c I. INTRODUCTION Kassab paid $250,000 to obtain the stolen names, addresses, and in some instances actual client files of Pohl’s former clients and potential clients so that Kassab could solicit those clients to assert barratry claims. Kassab attempted to disguise the purchase as the engagement of a putative “expert witness,” whom he agreed to indemnify in the event that Pohl asserted claims for the theft. Now that Pohl has asserted the anticipated claims, Kassab asks the Court to hold that his actions and communications in purchasing and using the stolen materials are protected by the TCPA. Despite having advocated directly inconsistent positions regarding the kTCPA in other litigati… |
| 5 | 2018-10-24 | DEPO | Kassab | Pohl deposition filed by Kassab (TCPA exhibit) | Excerpts from the Oral Videotaped Deposition of Michael A. Pohl taken May 15, 2018 in Cheatham v. Pohl (Cause No. 2017-41110), filed as Exhibit 23 in connection with Kassab's TCPA motion in Pohl v. Kassab | Deposition taken in a related case (Cheatham v. Pohl, Cause No. 2017-41110, 55th Judicial District, Harris County) on May 15, 2018, subsequently filed as an exhibit (Exhibit 23) in the Pohl v. Kassab TCPA proceedings. The deposition was taken by Lance Kassab as counsel for the Cheatham plaintiffs, with Pohl represented by Billy Shepherd. Only pages 85-93 and 318-319 are included in this exhibit. | TCPA-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-10-24_DEPO_Pohl-Deposition_FILED.pdf | E »< H I BIT 23 iA Michael Pohl 5/15/2018 CAUSE NO. 2017-41110 MARK KENTRELL CHEATHAM, ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT SR., AND LUELLA MILLER, ) INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ) WRONGFUL DEATH ) N= BENEFICIARIES OF LADONNA ) oe CHEATHAM, DESTINY CHEATHAM) ) AND MARKUS CHEATHAM, ) DECEASED ) , & ) Ss vs. ) HARRIS counry,, TEXAS ) ©) MICHAEL A. POHL, DONALDA ) & POHL, LAW OFFICE OF ) @ MICHAEL POHL, PLLC, ROBERT) @ AMMONS AND THE AMMONS LAW ) Le) FIRM, LLP ) STR gMDICIAL DISTRICT ORAL VIDEOTAPED pebosrz0n OF MICHAEL BS OHL May Be 2018 ©) ORAL VIDEOTAPED BRPOSTTION OF MICHAEL A. POHL, produced as a witedee at the instance of the Plaintiff and ox sworn, was taken in the above-styled and numbered cause on May 15, 2018, from 9:26 a.m. to 5:05 p-m., before Laurie Carlisle, Certified ‘Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of SS Texas, Feported by computerized machine shorthand, at the 6éfices of Shepherd Prewett, 770 South Post Oak Lane, Suite 420, Houston, Texas, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the provisions stated on the record or attached hereto. Omni Litigation 713-864-4443 Michael Pohl 5/15/2018 85 1 malicious act by an unethical lawyer, and I don't 2 think anything should be -- further should be 3 submitted by you. 4 Q. Okay. And you think I'm an unethical ee a 5 lawyer? G 6 A. Yes. You stole my files. You robed me. 7 You tried to destroy my practice. So I believe 8 you should submit any more materials, popVicularty 9 false affidavits that have been retracted by the 10 witnesses who made them and othe erifiably false 11 accusations. And you've soticiead my clients like 12 Mr. Cheatham, and you've told hin lies to get him to 13 sue me. LV 14 Q. Okay. And you State on the record under 15 oath, subject to pesiey, that I stole your files, 16 | right? O 17 A. You and your co-counsel and your team of 18 thieves. ou 19 OR. L. KASSAB: Objection, nonresponsive. 20 Q. ‘< that a yes to my question? 21 os MR. SHEPHERD: Form. 22 A. That's what I said it was. 23 Q. I just need a yes or no, sir. Is thata 24 yes? 25 MR.… | |
| 6 | 2018-10-24 | EX | Kassab | Exhibit: bar grievance pleadings against Pohl | State Bar of Texas Grievance filed by Lance Christopher Kassab against Michael Pohl (File No. 201801825), including grievance form, detailed Exhibit 'A' statement of facts and violations, and two supplemental letters to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel dated July 3 and July 20, 2018 | Bar grievance filed by Kassab against Pohl with the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas, pursuant to Rule 8.03(a) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Filed on behalf of approximately 10,000 alleged victims. Companion grievance No. 201801826 filed against Cyndi Rusnak. Subsequently filed as Exhibit 21 in the Pohl v. Kassab TCPA proceedings. | TCPA-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-10-24_EX_Grievance-Pleadings-Against-Pohl_FILED.pdf | Disciplinary action against Michael Pohl by the State Bar of Texas for violations of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and Texas Penal Code barratry and commercial bribery statutes | EXHIBIT 21 . & aS & @ & & S & & < OFFICE OF THE CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL STATE BAR OF TEXAS GRIEVANCE FORM I. GENERAL INFORMATION Before you fill out this paperwork, there may be a faster way to resolve the isgue-you are currently having with an attorney. @ If you are considering filing a grievance against a Texas attorney for any ofthe following reasons: 5 G S ~ You believe your attorney is neglecting your case. XZ) ~ Your attorney does not return phone calls or keep you informed <a the status of your case. ~ You have fired your attorney but are having problems getting you ile back from the attorney. You may want to consider contacting the Client-Attorne Aséistance Program (CAAP) at 1-800-932-1900. & CAAP was established by the State Bar of Texas to help people resolve these kinds of issues with attorneys quickly, without the filing of a formal-griévance. CAAP can resolve many problems without a grievance being filed by prov information, by suggesting various self- help options for dealing with the situation, or byeon cting the attorney either by telephone or letter. > I have Ihave not X __ wc Client-Attorney Assistance Program. II. INFORMATION ABOUT YOu -- Praase KEEP CURRENT wS COMPLAINANT # 1: & 1. Name and address: ©) Lance Christophe Kassab, pursuant to Rule 8.03 (a) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of rrofessional Co ct and on behalf of approximately 10,000 victims surrounding the Gulf Coast. & Re, Lance topher Kassab THE AB LAW FIRM 1 abama ton, Texas 77004 2. Employer and address: The Kassab Law Firm 1420 Alabama Houston, TX 77004 3. Telephone number: Residence: | Work: 713-522-7400 4. Drivers License # NA Date of Birth: NA 5. Name, address, and telephone number of person who can always reach you. Ne EN Lance Christopher Kassab NZ) THE KASSAB LAW FIRM © 1420 Alabama, Houston, Texas 77004 Re Telephone: 713-522-7400 “GO Facsimile: 713-522-7410 XG 6 @ 6. Do you understand and write in the English language? Yes ©) . ® If no, what is your primary language? GP Who helped you prepare this form? © Lance Chri… |
| 7 | 2018-10-24 | MTD | Kassab | TCPA Motion to Dismiss | Kassab's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to the Texas Citizens Participation Act (Anti-SLAPP), filed October 24, 2018 | Filed simultaneously with Kassab's First Amended Answer on October 24, 2018, before Judge Bill Burke, 189th Judicial District. This is an early dispositive motion seeking dismissal of all of Pohl's claims under the TCPA's anti-SLAPP framework. The motion was ultimately denied. | TCPA-1 | DENIED | Phase 1 | 2018-10-24_MTD_Kassab-TCPA_FILED.pdf | Dismiss all of Pohl's claims under the TCPA; award Kassab $36,750 in attorney's fees ($31,500 for Kassab at $450/hr for 70 hours, $5,250 for associate at $350/hr for 15 hours); conditional appellate fees totaling $90,000; and sanctions of at least $50,000 against Pohl and his counsel Reynolds Frizzell | 10/24/2018 2:11 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 28523758 By: ARIONNE MCNEAL Filed: 10/24/2018 2:11 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIAkL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LANCE CHlRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. D/B/A THE KASSAB LAW FIRM’S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS CITIZENS PARTICIPATION AcCT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE BILL BURKE: s Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm files this, their Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to the Texas Citizens Participation Act set forth in Chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. SUMMlARY This is a retaliatory lawsuit filed bMy Plaintiff, Michael A. Pohl and his law firm, Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (“Poohl”) that is based on, related to, and in response to the rights to free speech, petition and association, and should therefore be dismissed pursuant to the Texas Citizens Participation Act (the “TCPA”). Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a/ The Kassab Law Firm (“Kassab”) represent more than 400 clients who were illegally and unethically personally solicited to hire Pohl for representation of them in claimcs stemming from catastrophic auto accidents or the BP Deepwater Horizon litigation. Kassab filed four separate lawsuits against Pohl on behalf of these clients alleging claims for civil barratry. In addition, Kassab filed and initiated several grievance proceedings on behalf of these clients, causing the State Bar of Texas to investigate the alleged barratry, which is prohibited by the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and the Texas Penal Code. In response, Pohl filed this lawsuit against Kassab, alleging claims of conversion, theft of trade secrets and civil conspiracy, claiming Kassab conspired with others to steal Pohl’s property and solicit his former clients or prospective clients… |
| 8 | 2018-10-24 | OA | Kassab | 1st Amended Answer with Counterclaims | Kassab's First Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim for Civil Barratry, filed October 24, 2018 simultaneously with TCPA Motion to Dismiss | Filed October 24, 2018 simultaneously with the TCPA Motion to Dismiss. This amends Kassab's original answer (Filing #2) by adding res judicata as a 17th affirmative defense. Maintains general denial, 17 affirmative defenses, specific denials regarding conditions precedent, and counterclaims for civil barratry on behalf of 150 assigned claimants. | PLEAD-1, CC-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-10-24_OA_Kassab-1st-Amended-Answer-CC_FILED.pdf | Plaintiffs take nothing on their claims; Kassab recovers on counterclaims including actual and consequential damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other just relief | 10/24/2018 2:33 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 28526297 By: ARIONNE MCNEAL Filed: 10/24/2018 2:33 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIrAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS, LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. D/B/A THE KASSAB LAW FIRM’S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNtTERCLAIM TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm and files this their First Armended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim, and would respectfully show the Court as follows; RULE 47 SiT l ATEMENT The Kassab Defendants, in their caMpacity as Counter-Plaintiffs, seek monetary relief of more than $1,000,000.00. o PARTIES Plaintiff, Michael A. PoOhl is an individual lawyer residing in Colorado. Plaintiff, Law Offipces of Michael A. Pohl is a law firm set up for the practice of law in various states of the union, including Texas. Defendant, iScott Favre is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi. Defenodant, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi. Defendant, Precision Marketing Group, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi. Defendant, F. Douglas Montague III is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi. Defendant, Montague, Pittman & Varnado, PA is a nonresident professional association located in Mississippi. Defendant, Tina Nicholson is an individual residing in Texas. Defendant, Baker Nicholson, LLP, d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm is a klimited liability partnership located in Texas. l Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Lance Christopher Kassab is an indicvidual residing in Texas. Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C.s d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm is a professional corporation located in Texas. JURISDICTION AND VENUE This matter is within the jurisdictional limitsu of t… |
| 3 | 2018-10-15 | AFF | Pohl | Pohl’s affidavit in support of claims | Affidavit of Michael Pohl filed as Exhibit 24, sworn June 19, 2018 in Montgomery County, Texas, in response to Kassab's State Bar grievance (File No. 201801825), providing Pohl's version of facts regarding his relationship with PR Consultants and denying barratry allegations | Sworn affidavit prepared by Pohl in the State Bar of Texas grievance proceeding (No. 201801825, Kassab as Complainant, Pohl as Respondent), later filed in the Pohl v. Kassab litigation as Exhibit 24 in connection with TCPA proceedings. Sworn June 19, 2018. | TCPA-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-10-15_AFF_Pohl-Affidavit_FILED.pdf | EXHIBIT 24 Ne oe SS Iw se & @ Ke) & & © 2G S S& ¢ NO. 201801825 LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, § STATE BAR OF TEXAS Complainant. § § MIKE A. POHL, § Respondent. § GRIEVANCE : COMPLAINT NS AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL POHL G Rey THE STATE OF TEXAS § ~S COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY § ; & BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared ) Michael Pohl, who upon being duly sworn, deposes says: SN 1. My name is Michael Pohl. I am eighteen years old and am fully capable of making this affidavit. I have pergonal knowledge of the facts addressed SN herein except as otherwise specifically eo and they are true and correct. 2. Iam a lawyer. My law Geta was at all times material to the allegations herein called the Law Office, ‘Gf Michael A. Pohl (sometimes referred to as eS “LOMAP”). & 3. I was introduced to Scott Walker (“Walker”) and Robbie Maxwell, the © | principals of Maxwell W alker Consulting Group, LLC (“Maxwell-Walker”), as well as Terry Robinsoi, and Steve Seymour (“Seymour”) in April 2012. I was introduced SS to Kirk Lady Laine’ approximately six to eight weeks later. These parties all held theiasdlves out to me as professional, experienced marketing consultants who had prior experience providing marketing and client-relations services on behalf of lawyers and law firms generally and in connection with claims asserted against British Petroleum arising from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (“BP claims”) in particular. Robinson’s father-in-law, who Pohl was informed by Walker, Robinson and Seymour was a prominent local attorney who advised their group, met with Pohl on one occasion to discuss the services to be provided. 4. I initially contracted with Maxwell-Walker for it to prove exclusive © public-relations and client-liaison services in connection with existing and potential BP claims by signing what was represented by Walker tobe Maxwell-Walker’s customary services agreement. I was informed that Magiwell-Walker had retained Mississippi attorneys to advise it and confirm that its agreement with me as well a… | |
| 4 | 2018-10-15 | OA | Montague | Montague’s answer subject to special appearance | Defendants F. Douglas Montague III and Montague Pittman & Varnado, P.A.'s Original Answer Subject to Their Special Appearance, including general denial, 12 affirmative defenses, and request for disclosure | Montague Defendants' initial responsive pleading filed October 15, 2018, subject to their previously filed Special Appearance challenging personal jurisdiction. This answer preserves their jurisdictional objection while also responding to the merits of Pohl's Original Petition. | PLEAD-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-10-15_OA_Montague-Answer-Subject-to-Appearance_FILED.pdf | Grant of special appearance dismissing Montague Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction; alternatively, denial of all relief against Montague Defendants with a take-nothing judgment; costs of court; and all other relief to which they may be justly entitled | 10/15/2018 10:49 AM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 28273574 By: ARIONNE MCNEAL Filed: 10/15/2018 10:49 AM NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL POHL, ET AL § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiffs, § v. § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS LANCE KASSAB, ET AL § r § C l Defendants. § 189TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS F. DOUGLAS MONTAGUE IItI AND MONTAGUE PITTMAN & VARNADO, P.A.’S ORDIGiINAL ANSWER SUBJECT TO THEIR SPECIAL APPEARANCE Subject to the their previously filed Special Appearance, Defendants F. Douglas Montague III and Montague Pittman & Varnado, P.AB. (“Defendants”) file this Original Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Petition and respectfully show the following: aI. GENERAL DENIAL 1.1. Pursuant to Rule 92, Defendants denies the material allegations made in the Plaintiffs’ Original Petition and aniy petition that may be filed hereinafter by way of amendment or supplement, and demand strict proof thereof by a preponderance of the evidence at trial. o II. AFFIRMATIVE AND ADDITIONAL DEFENSES Defendancts further assert the following additional and affirmative defenses in the alternative subject to their special appearance: 2.1. In the alternative, Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by a lack of standing. Specifically, Plaintiff did not have an attorney-client relationship with the Defendants nor were these Defendants a party or an attorney for a party to the underlying Pohl litigation with Favre and Precision. Therefore, these Defendants owe no duty to Plaintiffs. Moreover, the referral of cases to specialists are the type of professional services that routinely and commonly fall within the services that an attorney would provide and that the Defendants do provide, which would thereby provide immunity to these Defendants from liability. Consequently, there is no basis to assert a claim of liability whether by way of conversion, theft of trade secrets, conspiracky or otherwise against attorneys who are simply discharging traditional legal tasks. l 2.2. In the alternative, Plaintiffs’ claims for conspiracy and reclat… |
| 2 | 2018-10-08 | OA | Kassab | Kassab’s initial answer with counterclaims | Kassab Defendants' Original Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim for Civil Barratry, including general denial, 16 affirmative defenses, specific denials, and counterclaims based on assigned barratry claims | Kassab's initial responsive pleading to Pohl's Original Petition, filed October 8, 2018, approximately six weeks after suit was commenced. Includes both defensive pleading (general denial, 16 affirmative defenses, specific denials) and offensive counterclaims for civil barratry based on assigned claims from Pohl's former clients. | PLEAD-1, CC-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-10-08_OA_Kassab-Answer-and-CC_FILED.pdf | That Plaintiffs recover nothing on their claims; actual and consequential damages on counterclaims; statutory damages; pre- and post-judgment interest; attorneys' fees and costs; and all other relief to which Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs may be justly entitled | 10/8/2018 1:34 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 28104847 By: Brianna Denmon Filed: 10/8/2018 1:34 PM CAUSE NO. 2018-58419 MICHAEL A. POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT V. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS SCOTT FAVRE, et al § 189th JUDICIrAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS, LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB AND LANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB, P.C. D/B/A THE KASSAB LAW FIRM’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIM t TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Defendants, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm and files this their Origirnal Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim, and would respectfully show the Court as follows; RULE 47 SiT l ATEMENT The Kassab Defendants, in their caMpacity as Counter-Plaintiffs, seek monetary relief of more than $1,000,000.00. o PARTIES Plaintiff, Michael A. PoOhl is an individual lawyer residing in Colorado. Plaintiff, Law Offipces of Michael A. Pohl is a law firm set up for the practice of law in various states of the union, including Texas. Defendant, iScott Favre is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi. Defenodant, Scott M. Favre, PA, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi. Defendant, Precision Marketing Group, LLC is a nonresident limited liability company located in Mississippi. Defendant, F. Douglas Montague III is a nonresident individual residing in Mississippi. Defendant, Montague, Pittman & Varnado, PA is a nonresident professional association located in Mississippi. Defendant, Tina Nicholson is an individual residing in Texas. Defendant, Baker Nicholson, LLP, d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm is a klimited liability partnership located in Texas. l Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Lance Christopher Kassab is an indicvidual residing in Texas. Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C.s d/b/a The Kassab Law Firm is a professional corporation located in Texas. JURISDICTION AND VENUE This matter is within the jurisdictional limitsu of this Court and Plaint… |
| 1 | 2018-08-28 | OP | Pohl | Original Petition — breach of settlement, conversion, TUTSA, conspiracy | Plaintiffs' Original Petition asserting breach of settlement agreement, conversion, TUTSA trade secret misappropriation, and civil conspiracy against multiple defendants | Initial filing commencing the lawsuit. Pohl and his law firm sue Favre, Precision, Kassab, Nicholson, and Montague for conduct arising from alleged theft and misuse of confidential client information and trade secrets. Filed August 28, 2018, assigned to the 189th District Court of Harris County, Texas, Cause No. 2018-58419. | PLEAD-1 | N/A | Phase 1 | 2018-08-28_OP_Pohl-Original-Petition_FILED.pdf | Judgment in Pohl's favor against all Defendants on all counts; actual damages within jurisdictional limits; injunctive relief under TUTSA § 134A.003; exemplary damages under §§ 41.001 et seq. and 134A.004(b); attorney's fees under §§ 38.001 et seq. and 134A.005; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; trial by jury; and all other legal and equitable relief to which Pohl may be entitled | 8/28/2018 5:05 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 27116535 - . By: Walter Eldrid 2018-58419 / Court: 189 ried ate at Cause No. MICHAEL POHL, et al § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § Plaintiff, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § § NG LANCE KASSAB, et al § © Defendants. § JUDICIAE DISTRICT a, PLAINTIFFS MICHAEL POHL’S AND LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. POHL, PLLC’S ORIGINAL PETITION © SUMMARY” Y 1. Plaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Ome of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC (sometimes 8 collectively “Pohl”) sue Defendants Scott Favre and cott M. Favre PA, LLC (collectively “Favre”); Precision Marketing Group, LLC crisis Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher © Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab ae (collectively “Kassab”); Tina Nicholson and Baker Nicholson, LLP D/B/A Baker Nso Law Firm (collectively “Nicholson”); and F. Douglas Montague III and Montague ear & Varnado, P.A. (collectively “Montague’”). Favre, Precision, Kassab, Nicholson, and Montague are collectively called “Defendants.” 2. Defendait engaged in a scheme pursuant to which they illegally obtained, 2~O maintained, and asd trade secrets and other confidential information and property belonging to Pohl. Favre'sand Precision’s actions are in breach of a settlement agreement to which Pohl, Favre, and Precision are parties, and all Defendants’ actions constitute the torts of conversion and violations of the uniform trade secrets act, as well as conspiracy. 3. More specifically, Favre and Precision executed a settlement agreement with Pohl pursuant to which they agreed to return to Pohl certain information in their and their counsel’s possession, custody, or control; to permanently delete such electronically-stored information; and not to cause any claim to be made or filed against Pohl. Favre and Precision also warranted that they had not caused any suit or action to be filed against Pohl. At the time, Ene and Precision had possession, custody, or control of all such information that they had previously provided to S Kassab and/or Montague because Favre’s and Preci… |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE filings (
filing_id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
date TEXT,
doc_type TEXT,
party TEXT,
description TEXT,
doc_type_detail TEXT,
procedural_posture TEXT,
chain TEXT,
outcome TEXT,
phase TEXT,
filename TEXT,
relief_requested TEXT,
full_text TEXT
);