filings: 47

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
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 Favre and Precision Marketing Group, LLC. 2 See Kassab’s Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties, filed May 13, 2022 (the “RTP Motion”); see also Court Order, dated Oct. 31, 2022 (denying the RTP Motion). provided no new factual allegations since the Court ruled on the RTP Motion, and thus, the Court should deny the Supplemental RTP Motion for the same reasons it denied the RTP Motion. I. BACKGROUND Kassab seeks the same relief in the Supplemental RTP Motion as he soukght in the RTP Motion—he seeks to designate eight allegedly responsible third parties—Billly Shepherd, Scott Walker (“Walker”), Steve Seymour (“Seymour”) Kirk Ladner (“Ladncer”), Dona Pohl, Edgar Jaimes, Ken Talley, and Magdalena Santana (collectively, the “Allesged RTPs”). See generally RTP Motion; Supplemental RTP Motion.  After Kassab filed the RTP Motion, on May 31, 2022, Pohl timely filed his Objection to Kassab’s Motion to Designate Responsible Third Parties (“Pohl’s Original RTP Objection”). It clearly laid out how the allegations in Kassab’s original RTP Motion were deficient, and how none of the Alleged RTPs “caused or contributed to causing” the harms underlying Pohl’s claims. See generally Pohl’s Original RTP Objection (quoting TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 33.011(6)). The Court was required to designate tehe Alleged RTPs as responsible third parties unless the Court found that Pohl’s Original RTP Ofbjection demonstrated that Kassab had failed to “plead sufficient facts concerning the alleged yresponsibility of the person to satisfy the pleading requirement of the Texas Rules of Civil PCrocedure.” See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 33.004(g)(1). Kassab waiated until September 2022, to request a ruling on this issue. See generally Kassab’s Motiofn to Rule on Plaintiffs’ Objection to Designation of Responsible Third Parties (“MotionU to Rule”), filed Sept. 22, 2022. After Kassab’s Motion to Rule was filed, the Court held an oral hearing, and the Court found that Pohl’s Original RTP Objection was “well taken,” and denied Kassab’s RTP Motion. See Court Order, dated Oct. 31, 2022. Kassab was given leave to “replead and seek the relief sought in the” RTP Motion “within 14 days of this ORDER.” Id. Despite the Court’s deadline, Kassab took 15 days to file the Supplemental RTP Motion,3 and he then requested a continuance in part on the basis that responsible third parties had not been designated. But even though he took 15 days, rending the request untimely, Kassab chose to make no new material factual allegations when repleading. All of the factual akllegations in the Supplemental Motion were contained in the RTP Motion and the Motion to Rulle. Thus, there are no new factual allegations before the Court that the Court did not have in cfront of it when it denied Kassab’s RTP Motion last month. s II. COMPARISON OF THE ORIGINAL (ALREADY DENIEDs) RTP MOTION TO KASSAB’S SUPPLEMENTAL RTP MO s TION To assist the Court in understanding how Kassarb failed to plead new facts to justify designating the Alleged RTPs as responsible third parties—and instead just copied and rearranged prior allegations—Pohl provides the following dliscussion of how Kassab’s Supplemental RTP Motion differs (or does not differ) from tMhe RTP Motion. The original RTP Motion and the Supplemental RTP Motion are collectivoely referred to as the “Motions.” The Motions are word-for-wcord identical for their first six and a half pages—excluding references to the respective titles of the Motions. Compare RTP Motion, 1–7, with Supplemental RTP Motion, 1–7. The “Facts” sections of both Motions are 100% identical to each other. See id. The first set of real differences between the Motions are the opening three paragraphs of the Supplementalc RTP Motion’s “Argument” section. These paragraphs discuss legal standards and how the Court permitted Kassab to replead after the Court denied the RTP Motion. See Supplemental RTP Motion ¶¶ 15–17. There are no new relevant factual allegations concerning any Alleged RTP in these paragraphs. See id. Although these three paragraphs are not contained 3 The day before Kassab filed the Supplemental RTP Motion, Kassab filed an eighth amended answer containing the same copied and pasted allegations found in his prior briefing. But Kassab did not replead and “seek the relief” he sought in the RTP Motion until he filed the Supplemental RTP Motion after the Court-ordered deadline. in the RTP Motion, they were copied almost word-for-word from Kassab’s Motion to Rule. Compare id., with Motion to Rule, at 2–3.4 The only real addition of factual allegations comes with paragraph 18, which is not directly copied and pasted from the prior RTP Motion. Compare Supplemental RTP Moktion ¶ 18, with RTP Motion. This paragraph focuses exclusively on three Alleged RTPs—Wallker, Seymour, and Ladner—it does not address the lack of allegations against other Alleged RcTPs. See Supplemental RTP Motion ¶ 18. Furthermore, it is copied nearly word-for-word frosm Kassab’s brief asking the Court to rule on the RTP Motion. Compare id., with Motion to sRule, at 3–4.5 The remaining seven paragraphs (paragraphs 19–25) of the Supplemental RTP Motion are either directly copied from the RTP Motion, or they are lightly modified or paraphrased versions of what was previously pled in the RTP Motion: • Compare Supplemental RTP Maotion ¶ 19, with RTP Motion ¶ 19 (showing same factual allegations were copMied and/or paraphrased). • Compare Supplemental RoTfP Motion ¶ 20, with RTP Motion ¶ 17 (same). • Compare Supplementeal RTP Motion ¶ 21, with RTP Motion ¶¶ 16–17 (same). • Compare Supplemfeintal RTP Motion ¶ 22, with RTP Motion ¶ 18 (showing same factual allegatioOns were copied and pasted with a few words deleted). • Compare Supyplemental RTP Motion ¶ 23, with RTP Motion ¶ 20 (showing same factual allegations were copied and/or paraphrased). • Compare Supplemental RTP Motion ¶ 24, with RTP Motion ¶ 20 (showing same factuaall allegations were copied and pasted with minor alterations or omissions). • Co c mpare Supplemental RTP Motion ¶ 25, with RTP Motion ¶ 20 (showing same ffactual allegations were copied and pasted with minor alterations). 4 Almost every word of these three paragraphs of the Supplemental RTP Motion was directly copied from the Kassab’s Motion to Rule, other than a sentence noting that the Court denied the RTP Motion and granted leave to replead. See Supplemental RTP Motion ¶ 16. This statement is not material. 5 The last clause of paragraph 18 adds: “as had Walker, Ladner and Seymour not stolen Pohl’s alleged trade secrets as he alleges, they could not have sold the alleged trade secrets to Favre and thus, Favre could not have given the alleged trade secrets to Kassab.” See Supplemental RTP Motion ¶ 18. However, this is not a new factual allegation, as it simply lightly synthesizes other prior factual allegations. See generally RTP Motion. There is one exception regarding those seven paragraphs. Paragraph 25 of the Supplemental RTP Motion appears to be a combination of two different paragraphs—one from the RTP Motion, and one from the Motion to Rule. Compare Supplemental RTP Motion ¶ 25 (containing new legal arguments and citations), with RTP Motion ¶ 20, and Motion to Rule, at 4–5. Thkus, there are no new substantive factual additions in the Supplemental RTP Motion. All thle facts alleged are contained in the briefing that was before the Court when it ruled on the RcTP Motion. III. DISCUSSION s Resolution of Kassab’s Supplemental RTP Motion is easy. Despite the factual allegations contained in the RTP Motion and the Motion to Rule, on October 31, 2022, this Court ruled that Kassab had failed “plead sufficient facts concerning the alleged responsibility of the person to satisfy the pleading requirement of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.” See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.004(g)(1). Nothing has chaanged since the Court made this ruling. Because this Court already found that Pohl’s Original RTP Objection demonstrated that Kassab’s allegations were deficient uender the rules, it should also be sufficient as an objection to the substantively identical Supplefmental RTP Motion. Pohl therefore incorporates by reference, in its entirety, Pohl’s Originayl RTP Objection. The Court should reject Kassab’s “butterfly effect” theory of proportionateC responsibility and deny Kassab’s Supplemental RTP Motion for the same reason it denied Kaassab’s prior RTP Motion—because Kassab fails to allege facts showing how the alleged respfonsible third parties are responsible for the harms underlying Pohl’s tort claims. U IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons stated in Pohl’s Original RTP Objection, Pohl objects to Kassab’s Supplemental RTP Motion and request that the Court deny the Supplemental RTP Motion without leave for Kassab to attempt to replead, as Kassab failed to plead sufficient facts after being granted leave to replead. Dated: November 30, 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 l Tel. 713.485.7200 Fax 713.485.7250 c jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.rcom Attorney for PlaintifDfs Michael Pohl and Law Office of Michael A. Pohl, PLLC CERTIFICATE OF SERrVICE 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 30th day of November, 2022. M /s/ Jean C. Frizzell  Jean C. Frizzell 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: 70583280 Status as of 12/1/2022 8:15 AM CST Case Contacts r i Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Solace Southwick ssouthwick@reynoldssfrizzell.com 11/30/2022 4:26:40 PM SENT Zandra EFoley zfoley@thompsogncoe.com 11/30/2022 4:26:40 PM SENT Andrew Johnson ajohnson@thoumpsoncoe.com 11/30/2022 4:26:40 PM SENT Benjamin Ritz britz@thompsoncoe.com 11/30/2022 4:26:40 PM SENT Murray JFogler mfogleyr@foglerbrar.com 11/30/2022 4:26:40 PM SENT Murray Fogler mfaogler@fbfog.com 11/30/2022 4:26:40 PM SENT Jean C.Frizzell jfrizzell@reynoldsfrizzell.com 11/30/2022 4:26:40 PM SENT Dale Jefferson 10607900ojefferson@mdjwlaw.com 11/30/2022 4:26:40 PM SENT Raul Herman Suazo 24003021 suazo@mdjwlaw.com 11/30/2022 4:26:40 PM SENT Jason M.Ciofalo f jason@ciofalolaw.com 11/30/2022 4:26:40 PM SENT Chris C.Pappas cpappas@krcl.com 11/30/2022 4:26:40 PM SENT Todd Taylor p ttaylor@jandflaw.com 11/30/2022 4:26:40 PM SENT Misty Davis C mdavis@reynoldsfrizzell.com 11/30/2022 4:26:40 PM SENT Non-Party Witness Billy Sahlepherd bshepherd@spcounsel.com 11/30/2022 4:26:40 PM SENT Harris Wells hwells@reynoldsfrizzell.com 11/30/2022 4:26:40 PM SENT Todd Taylor o ttaylor@jandflaw.com 11/30/2022 4:26:40 PM SENT Scott M.FavreU scott@favrepa.com 11/30/2022 4:26:40 PM SENT Lawyer Wade lawyerwade@hotmail.com 11/30/2022 4:26:40 PM SENT Andrea Mendez andrea@kassab.law 11/30/2022 4:26:40 PM SENT Lance Kassab lance@kassab.law 11/30/2022 4:26:40 PM SENT David Kassab david@kassab.law 11/30/2022 4:26:40 PM SENT Nicholas Pierce nicholas@kassab.law 11/30/2022 4:26:40 PM SENT Kevin Graham Cain 24012371 cain@mdjwlaw.com 11/30/2022 4:26:40 PM SENT D Kassab david@kassab.law 11/30/2022 4:26:40 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. Suni Blue on behalf of Jean Frizzell Bar No. 7484650 sblue@reynoldsfrizzell.com r Envelope ID: 70583280 Status as of 12/1/2022 8:15 AM CST Case Contacts r i Murray J. Fogler 7207300 mfogler@foglerbrar.com 11/30/2022 4:26:40 PM SENT L Kassab lance@kassab.law s 11/30/2022 4:26:40 PM SENT Murray J. Fogler 7207300 mfogler@foglerbgrar.com 11/30/2022 4:26:40 PM SENT Lance Kassab eserve@kassuab.law 11/30/2022 4:26:40 PM SENT

Links from other tables