filings: 21

68 public court filings with full text and structured metadata

Data license: Public court records

This data as json

filing_id date doc_type party description doc_type_detail procedural_posture chain outcome phase filename relief_requested full_text
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. Laches;  iii. Lack of standing; c iv. Illegality; t v. Res judicata; i vi. Estoppel;  vii. Failure to mitigate; and s viii. Waiver. III. Special Exceptions Pohl specially excepts to the Counterclaim on the grounds of obscurity and lack of fair notice. As currently pled, Pohl is unable to ascrertain the nature and basic issues presented by the Counterclaim in order to adequately defend himself. See Counterclaim, at 12. “An opposing party should usee special exceptions to identify defects in a pleading so that they may be cured, if possible, bfy amendment.” Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. v. Auld, 34 S.W.3d 887, 897 (Tex. 2000y). “The purpose of a special exception is to compel clarification of pleadings when the pleadings are not clear or sufficiently specific or fail to plead a cause of action.” Baylor Univ. v. Sonanichsen, 221 S.W.3d 632, 635 (Tex. 2007). Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Garza, 164 S.W.3d 607, 61f7 (Tex. 2004) (“Had SWBT been in doubt about Garza’s claims, it could have sought clarification through special exceptions.”). Special exceptions are “‘the appropriate vehicle . . . by which an adverse party may force clarification of vague pleadings,’ thereby narrowing the range of facts that will be of consequence in the action.” In re Mem’l Hermann Hosp. Sys., 464 S.W.3d 686, 708 (Tex. 2015) (citation omitted). -2- Clarification regarding the nature and basis of Kassab’s counterclaim for barratry is necessary. In his Counterclaim, Kassab appears to be more concerned with attacking Pohl than articulating the basis of a claim or claims that Kassab is entitled to assert against Pohl. Kassab does not identify the specific cause of action asserted, who the original owners kof the assigned claims are, or any facts that give rise to his barratry counterclaim. l Without identifying the cause of action, Kassab asserts generic c“counterclaims” against Pohl “based upon express assignments,” and then states that he “has bseen assigned barratry claims on behalf of 242 claimants.” See Counterclaim, at 12. He does snot identify who the assignors are, nor does Kassab state any facts that give rise to the allegedly assigned barratry claims. See id. To the extent that Kassab argues that the “Factual Background” section is incorporated into his barratry counterclaim, it further demonstrates the need for clarification. See id. at 4–12. The facts discussed in that portion of the Countercalaim lead up to Kassab stating that: “more than four hundred clients who were illegally solicited contacted the Kassab Law Firm and requested Kassab to represent them in litigation againset Pohl and his partners. Kassab filed lawsuits on behalf of these clients in four different coufrts in Harris County.” Id. at 11. If those facts give risey to Kassab’s barratry counterclaim, are the claims asserted by Kassab in this lawsuit the samCe as those asserted by Kassab’s clients in prior litigation? If so, it raises serious questions about Kassab’s barratry counterclaim, including whether it is barred by res judicata. The nfefed for clarification and fair notice is apparent, and the Court should require Kassab to clarifyU the basis of the counterclaim and provide Pohl with fair notice. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Pohl prays that the Court render judgment that Kassab take nothing by reason of his allegations; dismiss Kassab’s counterclaim for barratry on its merits; and for such other and further or alternative relief (legal and equitable) to which Pohl may be entitled. -3- Dated: October 18, 2021 Respectfully submitted, REYNOLDS FRIZZELL LLP By: /s/ Jean C. Frizzell Jean C. Frizzell State Bar No. 0748465k0 1100 Louisiana St., Suite 3e500 Houston, Texas 77002 l Tel. 713.485.7200 Fax 713.485.7250 c jfrizzell@reynoldsrfrizzell.com Attorney for PDlaintiffs Michael Pohl and Law Osffice 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 18th day of October, 2021. a /s/ Jean C. Frizzell M Jean C. Frizzell -4- 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. Suni Blue on behalf of Jean Frizzell Bar No. 7484650 sblue@reynoldsfrizzell.com r Envelope ID: 58297712 Status as of 10/19/2021 7:47 AM CST Case Contacts r i Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Jean C.Frizzell jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.com s10/18/2021 5:07:28 PM SENT Todd Taylor ttaylor@jandflaw.com g10/18/2021 5:07:28 PM SENT Scott M.Favre scott@favrepa.com u 10/18/2021 5:07:28 PM SENT Lance Kassab eserve@kassab.law  10/18/2021 5:07:28 PM SENT Murray JFogler mfogler@foglerbrar.cyom 10/18/2021 5:07:28 PM SENT Andrew J. Sarne asarne@krcl.coma 10/18/2021 5:07:28 PM SENT Larry Newsom lnewsom@krcl.com 10/18/2021 5:07:28 PM SENT Jason M.Ciofalo jason@cioofalolaw.com 10/18/2021 5:07:28 PM SENT Misty Davis mdavis@reynoldsfrizzell.com 10/18/2021 5:07:28 PM SENT Harris Wells hweflls@reynoldsfrizzell.com 10/18/2021 5:07:28 PM SENT Kathryn Laflin KLaflin@KRCL.com 10/18/2021 5:07:28 PM SENT Dale Jefferson 10607900pjefferson@mdjwlaw.com 10/18/2021 5:07:28 PM SENT Raul Herman Suazo 24003C021 suazo@mdjwlaw.com 10/18/2021 5:07:28 PM SENT Kevin Graham Cain 24a01l2371 cain@mdjwlaw.com 10/18/2021 5:07:28 PM SENT Solace Southwick ssouthwick@reynoldsfrizzell.com 10/18/2021 5:07:28 PM SENT Felicia Grace o fgrace@krcl.com 10/18/2021 5:07:28 PM SENT Chris C.PappaUs cpappas@krcl.com 10/18/2021 5:07:28 PM SENT Todd Taylor ttaylor@jandflaw.com 10/18/2021 5:07:28 PM SENT David R.Wade lawyerwade@hotmail.com 10/18/2021 5:07:28 PM SENT

Links from other tables