filing_id,date,doc_type,party,description,doc_type_detail,procedural_posture,chain,outcome,phase,filename,relief_requested,full_text
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 Pohl on his theft of trade secrets and conspiracy cclaims against Kassab.
Specifically, the jury answered and found, among other things (the fsollowing is not an exclusive
list), as follows: 
• Question 1: Yes, Pohl owned trade secrets in the form of (a) attorney client fee contracts
between Pohl and his clients, and (b) any list of the identities and contact information
of Pohl’s actual, potential or rejected clients.
• Question 2: Yes, the jury unanimaously found that Kassab, Favre,1 Nicholson,2 and
Montague3 misappropriated the trade secrets found in response to Question 1.
• Question 4: The jury assigened the percentage of fault for the injury found in response
to Question 2 as follfows: Kassab at 70%; Favre at 10%; Nicholson at 10%; and
Montague at 10y%. The jury followed the Court’s instructions, expressing the
percentagesC in whole numbers. It assigned 0% fault to Pohl and Precision Marketing
Group, LLC.
• Quefstion 7(1): $1,768,040 is the sum of money that, if paid now in cash, would fairly
Uand reasonably compensate Pohl for his damages incurred in the form of reasonable
1 “Favre” means Scott Favre and Scott M. Favre PA, LLC.
2 “Nicholson” means Tina Nicholson and Baker Nicholson, LLP d/b/a Baker Nicholson Law Firm.
3 “Montague” means Doug Montague and Montague, Pittman & Varnado, P.A.
and necessary attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs that Pohl incurred in connection with
the lawsuits, appeals, and grievances that Kassab filed against Pohl.
• Question 7(2): $250,000 is the price that a willing buyer and a willing seller would
have agreed on, at the time of the misappropriation, as a fair price for kKassab’s use of
the trade secrets. C l
• Question 7(3): $200,000 is the value of the development costsc that Kassab avoided by
misappropriating Pohl’s trade secrets.
• Question 8: Yes, the misappropriation of Pohl’s tradse secrets by Kassab was a willful
and malicious misappropriation. g
• Question 9: The jury found the followingB are the reasonable fees for the necessary
services of Pohl’s attorneys: (1) $1,23y2,013 for representation in the trial court, (2)
$175,000 for representation throuagh appeal to the court of appeals, (3) $55,000 for
representation at the petition ffor review stage in the Supreme Court of Texas, (4)
$85,000 for representation at the merits briefing stage in the Supreme Court of Texas,
and (5) $60,000 foOr frepresentation through oral argument and the completion of
proceedings in the Supreme Court of Texas.
• Question 15 C : Yes, Kassab was in a conspiracy with Favre, Nicholson, and Montague.
• Questioin 17: Yes, the jury unanimously found that the misappropriation of Pohl’s trade
seocrfets by Kassab was willful and malicious.
• Question 19: Because the jury unanimously answered “Yes,” to Question 17, the jury
followed the Court’s instructions and answered this question. The jury found that
$3,000,000 in exemplary damages should be assessed against Kassab for the conduct
found in response to Question 2.
Consistent with the Court’s orders and the jury verdict, Pohl moves the Court to enter the
form of Judgment attached hereto as Exhibit B.
II. AWARD OF DAMAGES
The Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“TUTSA”) provides a non-exhaukstive list of the
types of damages that are recoverable, which “can include both the actulal loss caused by
misappropriation and the unjust enrichment caused by misappropriatiocn that is not taken into
account in computing actual loss.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § s134A.004(a).
Because the jury found in Question 15 that Kassab was part of a conspiracy with Favre,
Nicholson, and Montague with respect to the conduct at issue in Question 2, Kassab is jointly and
severally liable for the damages the jury found in response to Question 7. Thus, the amount of
damages that the jury found in Question 7, with respect to the conduct at issue in Question 2, does
not need to be adjusted by the percentages of responsibility the jury found in Question 4.
The amounts the jury found in its answers to Question Nos. 7(1)(a) through 7(1)(f) (totaling
$1,768,040); Question No. 7(2) (amoeunting to $250,000); and Question No. 7(3) (amounting to
$200,000) are recoverable underf TUTSA as Pohl’s actual losses and for unjust enrichment not
accounted for in calculating yPohl’s actual losses. The sum of these amounts, less the Settlement
Credit,4 is $1,453,040.C Accordingly, Pohl is entitled to recover actual damages of $1,453,040.
a III. AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES
The juryf verdict determined that Pohl is entitled to recover $1,232,013 in reasonable and
necessary attorneys’ fees for the prosecution of this matter through judgment. In a theft of trade
secrets case, recovery of attorneys’ fees is statutorily authorized if a “willful and malicious
misappropriation exists.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 134A.005(3). In response to Question
4 Prior to trial Pohl settled with certain former defendants to this lawsuit for payments to Pohl that total $765,000 in
the aggregate (the “Settlement Credit”).
8, the jury found the existence of a willful and malicious misappropriation, which permits the
Court to award Pohl the reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees the jury found in response to
Question 9. Accordingly, Pohl is entitled to recover all the reasonable and necessary attorneys’
fees that the jury awarded. Pohl is also entitled to the conditional award of appekllate attorneys’
fees that the jury found in response to Question 9. l
IV. AWARD OF COURT COSTS c
On the issue of the award of court costs: Texas Rule of Civil Psrocedure 131 provides “The
successful party to a suit shall recover of his adversary all costs incurred therein, except where
otherwise provided.” Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 303 further provides “When a counterclaim
is pleaded, the party in whose favor final judgment is rendered shall also recover the costs.”
Here, Pohl prevailed on its claims against Kassab. Kassab did not prevail on any of its
counterclaims or affirmative defenses. Consistent with the Court’s orders and the jury verdict,
Pohl moves the Court to enter an order that Kassab pay all court costs as taxed by the clerk
following the parties’ submissions ofe court costs to the clerk.
V. fAWARD OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST
Section 304.001 of tyhe Texas Finance Code states that “prejudgment interest accrues on
the amount of a judgment” starting no later than “the date the suit is filed and ending on the day
preceding the date jaudgment is rendered.” TEX. FIN. CODE § 304.104. “The prejudgment interest
rate is equal to tfhe postjudgment interest rate applicable at the time of judgment.” Id. § 304.103.
Pursuant to Texas Finance Code § 304.003(c)(1), the postjudgment interest rate is 8.50% a year,
because the prime rate as published by the Federal Reserve is 8.50%.5 Thus, the prejudgment
interest rate is 8.50% a year.
Pohl filed this lawsuit on August 28, 2018. See Pohl’s Original Petition, filed Aug. 28,
2018. Thus, prejudgment interest of 8.50% a year accumulated on the amount of kthe judgment in
Pohl’s favor from August 28, 2018, through the day preceding the datel this Court enters
judgment—at least September 18, 2023. See TEX. FIN. CODE § 304.104. c
There are 1,847 days where interest accrued between August s28, 2018, and September 18,
2023. Simple interest at an 8.50% annual rate is the equivalent osf daily interest at 0.0233%.6 Thus,
simple interest at an 8.50% annual rate (daily interest of 0.0233%) on $1,453,040, from August
28, 2018, through September 18, 2023, is equal to $624,986.34.7 For each day after September
19, 2023, until the Court signs the judgment, Pohl is entitled to $338.38 in additional prejudgment
interest.8 In the event that the Court does nota sign the attached Final Judgment on the date of the
hearing, Pohl respectfully requests that Court provide notice of the date it intends to render
judgment so that Pohl can provide ane updated calculation for use in the Final Judgment.
VI. AfWARD OF POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST
Section 304.001 of tyhe Texas Finance Code states a “money judgment of a court in this
state must specify thCe postjudgment interest rate applicable to that judgment.” Because
postjudgment intereast is mandated by statute, it is recoverable on any state-court money judgment.
Postjudgment infterest is compensation for the use or detention of money, computed from the date
of the sigUning of the judgment until the state of its satisfaction. Phillips v. Branlett, 407 S.W.3d
5 Pohl requests the Court take judicial notice that the prime rate was 8.50% on September 5, 2023. See Selected
Interest Rates (Daily), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/ (last accessed Sept. 5, 2023).
6 Calculated as follows: 8.50% / 365 = 0.0233%.
7 Calculated as follows: $1,453,040 * (0.0233% * 1,847) = $624,986.34.
8 Calculated as follows: $1,453,040 * (0.0233% * 1) = $338.38.
229, 238 (Tex. 2013). As noted above, pursuant to Texas Finance Code § 304.003(c)(1), the
postjudgment interest rate is 8.50% a year, because the prime rate as published by the Federal
Reserve is 8.50%.
VII. CONCLUSION k
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Pohl requests that the Court entelr a Final Judgment
in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B, and for such other and further rcelief at law or in equity,
to which Pohl may be entitled. s
Dated: September 5, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
REYNOLBDS FRIZZELL LLP
By: /s/ Jean C. Frizzell
lJean C. Frizzell
a State Bar No. 07484650
M1100 Louisiana St., Suite 3500
Houston, Texas 77002
oTel. 713.485.7200
e Fax 713.485.7250
jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.com
f Attorney for Plaintiffs Michael Pohl
and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document was served on all counsel of
record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this 5th day of September 2023.
/s/ Jean C. Frizzell k
Jean C. Frizzell e
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Monica Orand on behalf of Jean Frizzell
Bar No. 7484650
morand@reynoldsfrizzell.com r
Envelope ID: 79235207
Filing Code Description: Motion (No Fee)
Filing Description: Pohl's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment t
Status as of 9/6/2023 7:46 AM CST i
Case Contacts D
Name BarNumber Email e TimestampSubmitted Status
Jean C.Frizzell jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.com 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
Andrew Johnson ajohnson@Bthompsoncoe.com 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
Benjamin Ritz britz@thnompsoncoe.com 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
Murray JFogler mfoglielr@foglerbrar.com 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
Murray Fogler mfogler@fbfog.com 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
Jean C.Frizzell jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.com 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
Todd Taylor ttaylor@jandflaw.com 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
Dale Jefferson 10607900 jefferson@mdjwlaw.com 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
Raul Herman Suazo 2O4003021 suazo@mdjwlaw.com 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
Harris Wells y hwells@reynoldsfrizzell.com 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
Todd Taylor o ttaylor@jandflaw.com 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
Scott M.Favre scott@favrepa.com 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
Lawyer Wade lawyerwade@hotmail.com 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
Chris C.Pappas f i cpappas@krcl.com 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
Non-Party Witness Billy Shepherd bshepherd@spcounsel.com 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
Non-Party Dona Pohl DonaLyann@yahoo.com 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
Non-Party Edgar Jaimes edgarsroom@gmail.com 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
Andrea Mendez andrea@kassab.law 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
Lance Kassab lance@kassab.law 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
David Kassab david@kassab.law 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
Nicholas Pierce nicholas@kassab.law 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
Lance Kassab eserve@kassab.law 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Monica Orand on behalf of Jean Frizzell
Bar No. 7484650
morand@reynoldsfrizzell.com r
Envelope ID: 79235207
Filing Code Description: Motion (No Fee)
Filing Description: Pohl's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment t
Status as of 9/6/2023 7:46 AM CST i
Case Contacts D
Kevin Graham Cain 24012371 cain@mdjwlaw.com 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
L Kassab lance@kassab.law 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
Murray J. Fogler 7207300 mfogler@foBglerbrar.com 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
Kelly Skelton receptionn@kassab.law 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
Murray J. Fogler 7207300 mfoglielr@foglerbrar.com 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
Thallia Malespin tmalespin@reynoldsfrizzell.com 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
Misty Davis mdavis@reynoldsfrizzell.com 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
Harris Wells hwells@reynoldsfrizzell.com 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
D Kassab david@kassab.law 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
Harris Wells O hwells@reynoldsfrizzell.com 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT
Harris Wells y hwells@reynoldsfrizzell.com 9/5/2023 6:40:58 PM SENT"