theory_id,filing_id,theory,party,role,basis
396,57,Improper use of Rule 166(g) pretrial conference,Kassab,defense,Rule 166(g) should not be used to determine merits of controverted issues — it is a tool for disposing of issues founded on admitted or undisputed facts. Pohl previously sought summary judgment on these defenses but withdrew; this is an improper backdoor attempt.
397,57,"TUTSA ownership requires rightful, legal, or equitable title (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A.002(3-a))",Kassab,defense,"If Pohl acquired trade secrets through barratry, he cannot demonstrate rightful ownership. A person cannot own or enforce rights in a trade secret for information about ongoing illegal activities. A person who obtains property by illegal means acquires no title."
398,57,Willful and malicious misappropriation — relevance of Kassab's state of mind,Kassab,defense,Kassab's belief about Pohl's barratry is relevant to negating willful and malicious misappropriation element required for TUTSA fees and exemplary damages under §§ 134A.004(b) and 134A.005(3)
399,57,Proportionate responsibility — Pohl's barratry as contributing cause,Kassab,defense,"Under § 33.001, a claimant may not recover if his percentage of responsibility exceeds 50 percent. Under § 33.003(a)(1), the trier of fact must consider whether Pohl caused or contributed to causing 'in any way' the harm. Pohl's barratry is relevant to establishing Pohl's own proportionate responsibility for his $2.4M+ in claimed damages."
400,57,Tort of another / third-party litigation damages — requires innocent party,Kassab,defense,"The tort of another theory has never been embraced by the Texas Supreme Court and was flatly rejected by the Houston Court of Appeals. To the extent it applies, it is an equitable doctrine requiring the claimant to be an innocent party; barratry evidence negates Pohl's innocence."