assertion_id,filing_id,assertion
207,11,Kassab has now been assigned barratry claims on behalf of 235 claimants (increased from 150 in First Amended Answer)
208,11,Pohl has judicially admitted that a barratry claim is not a legal malpractice case and the discovery rule does not apply — therefore assignment of barratry claims is permitted under Texas law
209,11,Counterclaims are timely because filed within 30 days of the original answer under § 16.069
210,11,"Billy Shepherd, as Pohl's attorney in the Federal Litigation, wholly failed to protect Pohl by ensuring return or destruction of subject property"
211,11,Shepherd's malfeasance was either negligent or intentional — he may have intentionally failed to protect Pohl to secure future lucrative employment representing Pohl in state court litigation
212,11,"Shepherd knew Walker, Seymour, and Ladner had sold Precision to Favre and legally transferred Precision's assets to Favre"
213,11,Shepherd negotiated the settlement in the Federal Litigation but failed to address the subject property
214,11,"Walker testified under oath that he, Seymour, and Ladner, through Precision, owned all the assets/property transferred to Favre, including computers and documents"
215,11,"Walker testified he had the legal right, through Precision, to sell and transfer all subject assets/property to Favre"
216,11,"Walker, Seymour, and Ladner certified ownership and authority to transfer all subject property to Favre"
217,11,"If Walker, Seymour, and Ladner did not have the legal right to transfer the assets, they are the sole or proximate cause of Pohl's damages"
218,11,All factual assertions from First Amended Answer regarding barratry scheme are restated verbatim
219,11,Pohl judicially admitted he brought suit against Kassab because Kassab contacted Pohl's clients and filed suit on their behalf