filings: 26

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
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 what was owed, including thekir agreed share of Pohl’s attorney’s fees. l 3. The evidence presented in the Mississippi Litigationc established that Pohl engaged in barratry. See TEX. PEN. CODE § 38.12 (defining barratrsy generally as the improper solicitation of clients). During that litigation, Walker testified that Pohl retained him and Precision to “provide marking services to auto accident victims[.]” Walker testified that although he and Pohl called it “marketing services” or “marketing money,” it was “clear to [him] it was barratry.” In fact, Walker considered himself and his company “a pass-through for barratry money.” All told, Walker, Ladner and Precaision received over $5 million in “barratry pass- through money” from Pohl and other lawyers to solicit potential clients, both auto-accident victims and those involved in the BeP litigation. They would use this money to pay contract workers to solicit clients. They wfould locate and instruct contract workers on how to accomplish the solicitation. They traineyd “40 or 50 people” on how to “go out and solicit contracts.” 4. Walker Cand his team at Precision were first retained by Pohl to “recruit clients” with losses resultinag from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. When that litigation dwindled, Pohl shifted his focufs to auto accident cases, knowing that the group at Precision could go out and get him thosUe types of clients. To accomplish this task, individuals at Precision would receive “Google alerts” or leads from Pohl on recent catastrophic auto accidents. Walker testified that he, Ladner, or someone working for them would go to the victims of the auto accident to “do marketing” by letting them know “there were attorneys [who] could help.” In exchange, these runners – whoever visited the victims – where paid between $2,500 and $5,000 to solicit the client. These payments flowed from Pohl through his wife’s wholly owned company, “Helping Hands Financing,” to Precision, to each individual runner. Walker would simply submit to Pohl the amount that Precision paid its runners and Pohl would reimburse Precision. 5. One of the runners, Santana, testified to the barratry in her Septekmber 24, 2016 affidavit filed in the Mississippi Litigation. She testified that Pohl sent helr on “dozens and dozens of car wreck cases all over the country.” Pohl would email Sacntana the link of news coverage depicting the accident and ask her “to go to the victim or thse victim’s family and try to get them to sign up with him.” Pohl offered to pay Santana “$5,000 per case that [she] signed, plus a percentage of his attorney’s fees.” Santana was advised by Pohl to “be persistent even if the family ... rejected [her].” Santana was instructed by Pohl to “approach the victims and their families while they were vulnerable, in the emergency room, their hospital rooms or at the funerals.” Id. Pohl told Santana that minoritieas “were especially vulnerable since they tended not to know that the law prohibited barratry.”  According to Pohl, they “were easier to sign up.” 6. Pohl would pay Santaena “money to give to the victims or their families” but “only if they agreed to sign a Pohl reprefsentation contract.” Pohl advised Santana that the money was a “foot in the door” but instruycted Santana not to mention that she was there on behalf of a lawyer “until after they agreedC to take the money.” “If the client agreed to hire Pohl, then [Santana] was to have the client siagn a ‘Helping Hands’ contract.” Pohl would then give Santana the money to pay the client “ffrom his own Helping Hands company.” When Santana questioned this, Pohl told Santana tUhat it “was illegal for him to pay [her] directly for cases, and that’s why the money had to go through some company.” 7. Santana further confirmed the barratry in her deposition taken in the Mississippi Litigation. She testified that she was hired by Pohl to solicit auto accident cases, the first one was an accident where a woman and her unborn child lost their lives. Santana was instructed by Walker, who was instructed by Pohl, to personally visit the mother of the deceased and sign her up to sue the tire manufacturer and, if she succeeded, Pohl would pay her $5,000. Santana visited the funeral of the deceased and got the family to feel comfortable with her. Although the mother was grieving, Pohl told Santana: “take no prisoners, this is a cut-throat business, kyou get in there and you do whatever it takes to get this client.” The solicitation was successlful after Pohl gave Santana $2,000 to “give to the client to convince her into signing over wicth the firm.” 8. Pohl later requested Santana to sign an agreement prosmising not to go to any law enforcement, including various State Disciplinary boards regarding any wrongdoing, criminal or unethical conduct. In fact, it is undisputed that Pohl paid Santana $50,000 in cash to sign this agreement, which was delivered to her in Florida by Pohl’s paralegal, Jaimes. Santana confirmed this in an affidavit and Jaimes confirmed this in his deposition. Santana signed the statement and received the cash, although she believed she waas “forced to sign” it while “under duress”. 9. Another runner, Talley, also testified in the Mississippi Litigation about the barratry. Talley solicited over 20 auteo accident cases for Pohl, including two families who hired Kassab to sue Pohl for barratry. fTalley testified that he was first hired in relation to BP claims to find “folks that lost money dyue to the oil spill” and “sign them up” and “get a fee for it.” Talley solicited and signed upC more than 800 BP claims for Pohl and was paid between $75 and $350 per client. a 10. Tfalley eventually transitioned to soliciting auto accident victims, “calling on folks that had Ubad accidents.” Talley recalls that the first client he solicited was in “the hospital in intensive care.” Talley maintained $1,000 in cash to pay the accident victims to “help them with problems” and influence them to hire a lawyer, because the victims received the money only if they “were signed up.” Talley would advise the victims that he had attorneys who could help them, and that one of those attorneys was Pohl. For each auto accident case he solicited, Talley was paid a fee of $1,400 plus his expenses by Pohl, through Walker and Precision. On some cases, Talley was to receive a portion of Pohl’s attorney’s fees, and even discussed with Pohl the “percentage of settlements” he was to receive. When asked whether Pohl knew he was getting paid to “contact vehicle accident victims,” Talley responded, “the money waks coming from Edgar [Jaimes] who worked for him.” 1CR301. Although his paycheck was frlom Precision, “the funding came by way of Edgar [Jaimes].” Talley testified that both he acnd Pohl knew what they were doing was illegal. s 11. In May of 2016, during the Mississippi Litigation, an insurance adjuster named Scott Favre (“Favre”) purchased Precision and all the company’s assets, including client lists, marketing lists, documents, files, computers, etc. from Walker, Seymore and Ladner. Included in the purchase was the Mississippi Litigation, thus, Precision’s claims against Pohl in the Mississippi Litigation were assigned to Favare. Favre and Precision were represented in the Mississippi Litigation by Texas lawyer, Tina Nicholson and her firm, Baker Nicholson, LLP (“Nicholson”). Pohl asserted counteer claims in the Mississippi Litigation alleging that Walker and Precision (and other unknofwn defendants) converted his property. Pohl then moved to dismiss the claims against hyim, arguing, among other things, that the agreements between him and the runners were iCllegal and unenforceable. More specifically, Pohl argued that under both Texas and Mississiappi law “it is illegal for a non-lawyer to accept or agree to accept money to improperly solicfit clients for a lawyer.” The Mississippi federal court rejected Pohl’s contention, stating thUat the agreements to solicit clients would only be a violation of Texas law and Texas disciplinary rules, which did not apply to Precision, a Mississippi company, and Walker and Ladner, Mississippi residents. Having failed to obtain summary dismissal, Pohl settled the Mississippi Litigation with all parties, including Favre, hoping to forever conceal his barratry operation. Although Pohl had already paid the runners approximately $5,000,000 in barratry money, Pohl paid the runners an additional $1,000,000 to settle the Mississippi Litigation. 12. Kassab heard about the allegations being made by the runners in the Mississippi Litigation. Kassab searched PACER, the federal court’s online system, obtaininkg a plethora of information related to the Mississippi Litigation. Kassab met with Favrle and Precision’s counsel, Nicholson. Kassab obtained information directly from them, icncluding the names and addresses of Pohl’s former clients or prospective clients from Precsision’s marketing and client lists. Precision, through Favre, informed Kassab that it owned all of its marketing lists and information and also informed and verified that Precision was the main Plaintiff suing Pohl in the Mississippi Litigation. Thereafter, Kassab used Precision’s marketing and client lists to notify individuals who he believed may have been victims of Pohl’s barratry. Hundreds of individuals responded, indicating that they haad been personally solicited to hire Pohl in their auto accident or BP claims. Kassab agreed to represent these clients, and more than 400 individuals hired Kassab to represent them agaienst Pohl and other lawyers involved in the illegal barratry scheme. f 13. Kassab filed yfour petitions on behalf of these barratry victims in Harris County, Texas (the “barratry laCwsuits”). The barratry lawsuits communicated matters of public concern: that Pohl conspiread to commit barratry. After reviewing the evidence obtained from the Mississippi Litifgation, Kassab believed he had a duty to file a grievance against Pohl pursuant to Rule 8.03U of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct,1 and he did. Kassab also filed a grievance against Pohl on behalf of one of his clients. In the grievances, Kassab and his 1 See TEX. DISC. R. PROF’L COND. 8.03(a) (except in circumstances which do not apply here, “a lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a violation of applicable rules of professional conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate disciplinary authority.”). client expressed matters of public concern relating to Pohl’s legal services in the marketplace and petitioned the State Bar of Texas to reprimand and discipline Pohl in order to protect the public as is mandated by Rule 8.03. 14. Unfortunately, in direct retaliation to the lawsuits and grievanceks filed against Pohl, Pohl filed this retaliatory litigation against Kassab, Precision, Nichlolson, Favre and Montague, alleging breach of contract, theft of trade secrets, conversiocn and civil conspiracy. Specifically, Pohl alleged that these parties were “acting in cosmbination with the agreed objective” to misappropriate his trade secrets and convert the marketing lists and attorney-client contracts that Pohl hired Precision to obtain. Pohl alleges Favre and Precision, with Nicholson’s assistance, converted this property and provided it to Kassab and Montague in order to solicit Pohl’s former clients “to bring cases against Pohl for alleged barratry and other claims.” aIII AMRGUMENT 15. A responsible third paorty is someone “who [is] alleged to have caused or contributed to causing in any way the harm for which recovery of damages is sought, whether by negligent act or omission . . . [or] by other conduct or activity that violates an applicable legal standard,” making them responsible third parties in this cause. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 33.011(6). Shepherd, Walker, Seymour, Ladner, Dona, Jaimes, Talley and Santana are all persons who havce caused or contributed to causing the harm for which Pohl seeks to recover damages. 16. Shepherd knew that Walker, Seymour and Ladner had sold Precision to Favre and knew that Walker, Seymour and Ladner had legally transferred Precision’s assets, including the subject matter of Pohl’s conversion and theft of trade secrets claims, to Favre. Shepherd further knew that Favre and/or his counsel had given documents to third parties, including Kassab and others prior to negotiating a settlement in the Mississippi Litigation. 17. Shepherd negotiated the settlement in the Federal Litigation between Walker, Seymour, Ladner, Favre and Precision on the one hand and Pohl on the other hankd. If Pohl now complains in this lawsuit that he was entitled to the return and/or dlestruction of said assets/property, Shepherd, as Pohl’s attorney in the Mississippi Liticgation wholly failed to protect Pohl by ensuring that all subject property was gathered from sall third parties and returned to Pohl or destroyed as part of the any settlement agreement, if in fact Pohl owned and/or desired to safeguard the subject property. 18. Shepherd’s malfeasance was either negligent or intentional. If Shepherd knew that the subject assets/property were a point of contention in the Mississippi Litigation and knew that the assets/property could be used by ouatside third parties to garner clients to sue Pohl, as Pohl alleges, Shepherd may have intentionally failed to protect Pohl’s interest so that he could secure future lucrative employment feor himself and his law firm for years to come by continuing to represent Pohl in litigation to fbe brought against Pohl after the subject property was used to garner clients to sue Pohl yas Pohl alleges. Thus, Shepherd is a person who is caused or contributed to causing Cin any way the harm for which recovery of damages is sought by Pohl. 19. Walkaer, Seymour and Ladner sold Precision to Favre. Walker, Seymour and Ladner also tranfsferred the subject assets/property of Precision to Favre. Walker testified under oath thatU he, Seymour and Ladner, through Precision, owned all the assets/property, including computers and documents that were transferred to Favre. Walker also testified that he had the legal right and authority, through Precision, to sell and transfer all the subject assets/property to Favre. Moreover, Walker, Seymour and Ladner certified that they owned all of the subject property/assets and had authority to transfer all of the subject property/assets to Favre. If Walker, Seymour and Ladner did not have the legal right to transfer all of the subject assets/property to Favre, then they caused or contributed to causing any alleged harm for which recovery of damages is sought by Pohl. 20. Additionally, if Walker, Seymour, Ladner, Dona, Jaimes, Talley kor Santana had an agreement and/or duty to safeguard any property allegedly owned bly Pohl, they are responsible for failing to safeguard the property. Additionally, Walker, Sceymour, Ladner, Dona, Jaimes, Talley and Santana routinely placed Pohl’s alleged trade sescrets and documents in the public domain, circulating Precision’s marketing lists and other documents allegedly belonging to Pohl to numerous third parties rather than safeguard these documents and lists. Therefore, Shepherd, Walker, Seymour, Ladner, Dona, Jaimes, Talley, Santana are persons who caused or contributed to causing any alleged harm for which recovery of damages is sought by Pohl. Their conduct caused or contributed to causing in paart (if not entirely) the harm for which recovery of damages is sought by Pohl, and that conduct violated an applicable legal standard and/or constitutes negligence. See Tex. Civ.e Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.011(6). Therefore, the jury should be permitted to consider apportiofning fault in this case to Shepherd, Walker, Seymour, Ladner, Dona, Jaimes, Talley, Sanytana. Their designation as responsible third parties is factually justified and legally apCpropriate.2 2 It is also of no concern here that the Court might be unable to exert personal jurisdiction over either Walker, Seymour, Ladner, Talley, Dona, Jaimes or Santana. In its 2003 revision of Chapter 33, the Legislature abolished the predecessor law, which had defined responsible third parties to be only those over whom the court could exercise jurisdiction, thus allowing the designation of those “who are not subject to the court’s jurisdiction or who are immune from liability to the claimant.” See, e.g., In re Unitec Elevator Serv. Co., 178 S.W.3d 53, 58 & n. 5 (Tex. App.-- Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, orig. proceeding); accord Hix-Hernandez v. Ford Motor Co., No. 1:20-cv-29-RP, 2021 WL 7632564, at *1 (W.D. Tex. May 6, 2021) (“A defendant may designate a responsible third party despite the fact that the party has a defense to liability, cannot be joined as a defendant, or both. Even parties who are outside the court’s jurisdiction or are immune from liability may be designated responsible third parties.”) (internal citations omitted). PRAYER For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants, Counter-Plaintiffs, Lance Christopher Kassab and Lance Christopher Kassab, P.C. D/B/A The Kassab Law Firm ask the Court to grant this Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties and grant all other reelief in law or in equity as the Court sees fit and as Defendants, Counter-Plaintiffs will ever pray. Respectfully submitted, THE KASSAeB LAW FIRM rLANCE CHRISTOPHER KASSAB M Texas State Bar No. 00794070  lance@kassab.law o DAVID ERIC KASSAB e Texas State Bar No. 24071351 c david@kassab.law f f NICHOLAS R. PIERCE Texas State Bar No. 24098263 y nicholas@kassab.law 1214 Elgin Street Houston, Texas 77004  Telephone: 713-522-7400 a Facsimile: 713-522-7410 f ATTORNEYS FOR THE KASSAB DEFENDANTS 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument has been forwarded to all known parties and/or counsel of record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this, the 13th of May, 2022. / s / Lance Christopher Kalssab Lance Christopher Kassab 11 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. David Kassab Bar No. 24071351 david@kassab.law r Envelope ID: 64509093 Status as of 5/16/2022 7:55 AM CST Case Contacts r i Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Todd Taylor ttaylor@jandflaw.com s5/13/2022 6:22:10 PM SENT Scott M.Favre scott@favrepa.com g5/13/2022 6:22:10 PM SENT Lance Kassab eserve@kassab.law u 5/13/2022 6:22:10 PM SENT Murray JFogler mfogler@foglerbrar.com 5/13/2022 6:22:10 PM SENT Murray Fogler mfogler@fbfog.comy 5/13/2022 6:22:10 PM SENT Andrew Johnson ajohnson@thomapsoncoe.com 5/13/2022 6:22:10 PM SENT Larry Newsom lnewsom@krcl.com 5/13/2022 6:22:10 PM SENT Jason M.Ciofalo jason@cioofalolaw.com 5/13/2022 6:22:10 PM SENT Andrew J. Sarne asarne@krcl.com 5/13/2022 6:22:10 PM SENT Kathryn Laflin KLafflin@KRCL.com 5/13/2022 6:22:10 PM SENT Zandra EFoley zfoley@thompsoncoe.com 5/13/2022 6:22:10 PM SENT Dale Jefferson 10607900pjefferson@mdjwlaw.com 5/13/2022 6:22:10 PM SENT Raul Herman Suazo 24003C021 suazo@mdjwlaw.com 5/13/2022 6:22:10 PM SENT Kevin Graham Cain 24a01l2371 cain@mdjwlaw.com 5/13/2022 6:22:10 PM SENT Harris Wells hwells@reynoldsfrizzell.com 5/13/2022 6:22:10 PM SENT Solace Southwicko ssouthwick@reynoldsfrizzell.com 5/13/2022 6:22:10 PM SENT E. MarieJamisUon jamison@wrightclosebarger.com 5/13/2022 6:22:10 PM SENT Chris C.Pappas cpappas@krcl.com 5/13/2022 6:22:10 PM SENT Todd Taylor ttaylor@jandflaw.com 5/13/2022 6:22:10 PM SENT David R.Wade lawyerwade@hotmail.com 5/13/2022 6:22:10 PM SENT Katie Budinsky kbudinsky@krcl.com 5/13/2022 6:22:10 PM SENT Jessica Z.Barger barger@wrightclosebarger.com 5/13/2022 6:22:10 PM SENT Jean C.Frizzell jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.com 5/13/2022 6:22:10 PM SENT

Links from other tables