filings: 4

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
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 reclated torts are barred in whole or in part for failure to state a claim on which relief can be sgranted. Under Texas law, “[i]f the defendant’s liability for the alleged underlying tort is fosreclosed as a matter of law, there is no claim for conspiracy.” Frankoff v. Norman, 448 S.W.3d 75, 87 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.). In this instance, Plaintiffs’ only link to the Montague Defendants for each pled tort hinges on the bald assertion that the Montague Defendants “knew it (confidential information) had been stolen.” In fact, Plaintaiffs have no basis to allege this as to the Montague Defendants. And, the Montague Defendants were not parties to the Pohl settlement agreement let alone the underlying case. Becauese the referral of a possible case is not an unlawful act, there is no basis to assert the tort claimfs against these Defendants. 2.3. In the alternaytive, Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of comparative responsCibility and/or contributory negligence. In particular, Plaintiffs’ are barred by their own actions and decisions, which were not reasonable under all of the circumstances involved and cfhfarted the course for this dispute. Defendants assert their rights under Chapter 33 of the TeUxas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, including the reduction of liability based on the comparative responsibility of Plaintiffs or other Defendants in the instant case, any subsequent settling Defendant and/or any responsible third parties. 2.4. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of excuse, legal justification, and good faith. 2.5. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because it has suffered no legally cognizable damages and/or Plaintiff failed to mitigate damages. k 2.6. The Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the flailure to satisfy all necessary conditions precedent. c 2.7. The Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, bsy the defense of estoppel. 2.8. The Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in psart, by the defense of waiver. 2.9. The Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the defense of unclean hands. 2.10 The Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the defense of illegality. 2.11 The Plaintiffs’ claims are barread, in whole or in part, by the defense of the statute of limitations.  2.12. Defendants assert theier rights under Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code including the limfitations on exemplary damages. y III. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE Subject to thleir special appearance, pursuant to Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plainitiffs are requested to disclose, within thirty (30) days of service of this request, the informantion or material described in Rule 194.2. Defendants specifically request Plaintiffs produce all responsive documents and information at the undersigned law office within thirty (30) days of service of this request. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Defendants respectfully pray that this Court grant their special appearance or, alternatively, if denied, deny all relief sought against these Defendants and render a take nothing judgment against Plaintiffs as well as awarding the Defendants their costs and all such other relief to which they may be justly entitlekd. Respectfully submitted, l MARTIN, DISIERE, JEFFERSOcN & WISDOM, L.L.P. /s/ Dale Jefferson i Dale Jefferson  Texas State Bar Nso. 10607900 jefferson@mdjwlaw.com Raul H. Suazor Texas StatBe Bar No. 24003021 suazo@nmdjwlaw.com Kevin G. Cain Texras State Bar No. 24012371 Mcain@mdjwlaw.com 808 Travis Street, 20th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 632-1700 Telephone f i (713) 222-0101 Facsimile y ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS F. DOUGLAS MONTAGUE III AND MONTAGUE PITTMAN & C VARNADO, P.A. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served upon all counsel of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, on the 15th day of October, 2018 as follows: Jean C. Frizzell r Reynolds Frizzell LLP C l 1100 Louisiana St., Suite 3500  Houston, Texas 77002 Via Electronic Filing and Email: jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.comt /s/ Dale Jeffersson Dale Jeffersong

Links from other tables