theory_id,filing_id,theory,party,role,basis
260,34,Justification,Kassab,affirmative_defense,"Kassab was justified in obtaining information and pursuing barratry claims; justification based on exercise of legal rights or good-faith colorable right claim (Tex. Beef Cattle Co. v. Green); supported by right to investigate (Rule 13), right to pursue client claims (Taylor v. Tolbert), and right to report misconduct (Rule 8.03 / Rule 17.09)"
261,34,Unclean Hands,Kassab,affirmative_defense,"Pohl seeks equitable relief (injunction per First Amended Petition ¶ 45, TUTSA equitable title per § 134A.002(3-a), equitable prayer per ¶ 50) and therefore must come to court with clean hands (Fetter v. Wells Fargo)"
262,34,Illegality,Kassab,affirmative_defense,"Pohl obtained trade secrets through illegal barratry and unauthorized practice of law, negating 'rightful, legal, or equitable title' required by TUTSA; commonly applied to bar claims from barratry (Luong v. McAllister; Plumlee v. Paddock); Pohl's own lawyers used this defense in Duncan Litig. Invs. and Mississippi Litigation"
263,34,Unlawful Acts Rule,Kassab,affirmative_defense,"If plaintiff was engaged in illegal act contributing to injury, he may not recover (Andrew Shebay v. Bishop); Pohl illegally solicited clients, split fees with non-lawyer, failed to protect client information; three experts confirm barratry; Cheatham court found evidence of coordinated barratry scheme"
264,34,Criminal Acts,Kassab,affirmative_defense,Pohl's barratry is a criminal offense; his criminal conduct bars recovery
265,34,In Pari Delicto,Kassab,affirmative_defense,"Both parties involved in wrongful conduct; courts may deny recovery to Pohl for his own illegal acts even if defendants also committed unlawful acts (Dover v. Baker, Brown); doctrine ensures wrongdoer 'should not even entertain the hope of indemnity' (Houston Ice & Brewing Co. v. Sneed)"
266,34,Assumption of the Risk,Kassab,affirmative_defense,"Pohl placed trade secrets in hands of Walker, a known convicted felon (federal program fraud), without confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements; Pohl assumed risk of diversion"
267,34,Lack of Standing / Defect of Parties,Kassab,affirmative_defense,Pohl does not own the alleged trade secrets; Walker and Ladner testified the information was Precision Marketing's work product; Favre testified Precision Marketing owned client lists
268,34,Procedurally Defective No-Evidence Motion,Kassab,procedural_defense,"Pohl's global no-evidence challenge fails to identify specific elements lacking evidence, making it conclusory and insufficient under Rule 166a(i) and Timpte Industries v. Gish; must be treated as traditional motion under 166a(c) (Weaver v. Highlands Ins. Co.)"
269,34,Attorney Immunity,Kassab,affirmative_defense,Established in prior MSJs; includes immunity under Tex. R. Disc. P. 17.09 and judicial proceedings privilege
270,34,Limitations,Kassab,affirmative_defense,"Established in June 8, 2021 and August 29, 2022 MSJs"
271,34,Res Judicata,Kassab,affirmative_defense,"Established in June 8, 2021 MSJ"