theory_id,filing_id,theory,party,role,basis
27,4,Special Appearance — lack of personal jurisdiction (Tex. R. Civ. P. 120a),Montague,defense,Montague Defendants are non-residents of Texas and challenge the court's personal jurisdiction over them via previously filed special appearance; this answer filed subject to that special appearance
28,4,Lack of Standing / No Duty Owed / Attorney Immunity,Montague,affirmative_defense,"No attorney-client relationship with Pohl; not party to underlying litigation or settlement; referral of cases to specialists is traditional legal service providing attorney immunity from liability; no basis to assert liability for conversion, trade secrets, conspiracy, or otherwise against attorneys discharging traditional legal tasks"
29,4,Failure to State a Claim — conspiracy requires viable underlying tort,Montague,affirmative_defense,"Under Texas law, if defendant's liability for alleged underlying tort is foreclosed as matter of law, there is no claim for conspiracy (Frankoff v. Norman, 448 S.W.3d 75, 87). Plaintiffs' only link to Montague is bald assertion they 'knew' information was stolen, which has no factual basis."
30,4,Comparative Responsibility / Contributory Negligence — Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Chapter 33,Montague,affirmative_defense,"Plaintiffs' own unreasonable actions charted the course for this dispute; Montague asserts right to reduction of liability based on comparative responsibility of Plaintiffs, other Defendants, settling defendants, and responsible third parties"
31,4,"Excuse, Legal Justification, and Good Faith",Montague,affirmative_defense,"Montague's actions were excused, legally justified, or taken in good faith"
32,4,No Legally Cognizable Damages / Failure to Mitigate,Montague,affirmative_defense,Plaintiffs suffered no legally cognizable damages and/or failed to mitigate damages
33,4,Failure to Satisfy Conditions Precedent,Montague,affirmative_defense,Plaintiffs failed to satisfy all necessary conditions precedent to maintaining their claims
34,4,Estoppel,Montague,affirmative_defense,Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel
35,4,Waiver,Montague,affirmative_defense,Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of waiver
36,4,Unclean Hands,Montague,affirmative_defense,Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands
37,4,Illegality,Montague,affirmative_defense,Plaintiffs' claims are barred by illegality (Pohl's own illegal conduct)
38,4,Statute of Limitations,Montague,affirmative_defense,Plaintiffs' claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitations
39,4,Chapter 41 Limitations on Exemplary Damages — Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Chapter 41,Montague,affirmative_defense,Montague asserts statutory limitations on exemplary damages