theory_id,filing_id,theory,party,role,basis
280,36,Statute of Limitations (rebutted),Kassab/Nicholson,affirmative_defense,Claims accrued no earlier than November 2016 purchase; each possession is new conversion (Pemex); TUTSA accrues upon actual use (Berry-Helfand); discovery rule doesn't cause accrual before defendant commits tort
281,36,Unlawful Acts Doctrine / Illegality / In Pari Delicto (rebutted),Kassab/Nicholson,affirmative_defense,"Preempted by proportionate responsibility statute (Dugger v. Arredondo, § 33.003); requires 'admittedly unlawful act' (Denson) and proximate cause (Pyeatt); Pohl can prove claims without proving own illegal act (Marathon Oil); State Bar dismissed all grievances"
282,36,Attorney Immunity (rebutted),Kassab/Nicholson,affirmative_defense,Applies only to 'lawyerly work' in adversarial contexts with existing attorney-client relationship (Taylor v. Tolbert; Youngkin v. Hines); purchasing stolen property before having clients is not within scope of representation (Landry's); solicitation precedes relationship formation (Tanox)
283,36,Judicial Proceedings Privilege (rebutted),Kassab/Nicholson,affirmative_defense,"Applies only to communications in due course of judicial proceedings and only to libel/slander (Landry's); Pohl's claims are for theft, not communications"
284,36,Rule 17.09 Grievance Immunity (rebutted),Kassab,affirmative_defense,"Pohl's suit predicated on conversion/misappropriation, not on Kassab's grievance filings; subsequent use of stolen property to file grievances does not trigger protection"
285,36,Release (Nicholson) (rebutted),Nicholson,affirmative_defense,No admissible evidence of Settlement Agreement terms; release doesn't cover future torts not yet committed; Nicholson violated Paragraph 27 by fomenting litigation against Pohl
286,36,Failure to Protect Trade Secrets (rebutted),Kassab/Nicholson,affirmative_defense,"TUTSA requires only 'reasonable measures under the circumstances'; Pohl took extensive steps (informed Precision of confidentiality, secure office, 24-hour security, coded elevators, etc.); Mississippi court issued protective orders; absence of written confidentiality provision does not negate protection"
287,36,Lack of Ownership (rebutted),Kassab/Nicholson,affirmative_defense,"Even if client files belong to clients, Pohl had right to possession until client demand (none shown); contracts are voidable not void under § 82.0651(a); Walker and Ladner testified materials belonged to Pohl"
288,36,Damages Not Recoverable (rebutted),Kassab/Nicholson,affirmative_defense,TUTSA § 134A.004(a) authorizes 'actual loss caused by misappropriation'; defense fees qualify; Martin-Simon questioned by Texas Supreme Court; Dixon v. Chang confirms prior litigation fees recoverable as actual damages