assertion_id,filing_id,assertion
68,4,Montague Defendants had no attorney-client relationship with Pohl
69,4,Montague Defendants were not parties to the underlying Pohl litigation with Favre and Precision
70,4,Montague Defendants were not parties to or attorneys for parties to the Pohl settlement agreement
71,4,"The referral of cases to specialists is a type of professional service that routinely and commonly falls within services an attorney would provide, thereby providing attorney immunity from liability"
72,4,"There is no basis to assert a claim of liability for conversion, theft of trade secrets, conspiracy, or otherwise against attorneys who are simply discharging traditional legal tasks"
73,4,Plaintiffs' only link to Montague Defendants for each pled tort hinges on the bald assertion that they 'knew' confidential information had been stolen
74,4,Plaintiffs have no basis to allege Montague Defendants knew information was stolen
75,4,The referral of a possible case is not an unlawful act and cannot support tort claims against these Defendants
76,4,"If defendant's liability for underlying tort is foreclosed as matter of law, there is no claim for conspiracy (citing Frankoff v. Norman)"
77,4,Plaintiffs' own actions and decisions were not reasonable under the circumstances and charted the course for this dispute