Legal Theories

509 claims, defenses, counterclaims, and affirmative defenses

Data license: Public court records

12 rows where filing_id = 57

This data as json, CSV (advanced)

theory_id ▼ filing_id theory party role basis
396 57 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 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 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 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 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.
401 57 57 Unlawful acts doctrine (outside personal injury/wrongful death) Kassab affirmative_defense Dugger v. Arredondo expressly limited its holding to PI/WD cases. Texas courts continue to apply the doctrine in other contexts. Pohl's claims are inextricably intertwined with his illegal contract with Precision. Supported by Sharpe, Luong, Denson, and Villanueva.
402 57 57 Justification defense to conversion and trade secret claims Kassab affirmative_defense Justification is commonly applied in conversion cases because the alleged theft must occur 'without justification.' Not limited to tortious interference claims as Pohl contends.
403 57 57 Privilege to disclose trade secrets (Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 40) Kassab affirmative_defense A privilege exists to disclose trade secrets relating to crime, tort, or matters of substantial public concern — similar to whistleblower protections. Kassab was privileged to obtain and use the information to notify Pohl's clients about illegal solicitation.
404 57 57 Attorney immunity (Youngkin / Cantey Hanger / Taylor v. Tolbert / Bethel) Kassab affirmative_defense Kassab's conduct falls within scope of client representation. Even alleged criminal conduct is not categorically excepted. Taylor v. Tolbert: attorney immune from wiretapping claims. TUTSA does not expressly repudiate attorney immunity. The First Court of Appeals already characterized Kassab's conduct as arising from legal services.
405 57 57 Judicial proceedings privilege (Landry's) Kassab affirmative_defense Absolute privilege covers all aspects of proceedings including preliminary communications. Pohl's claims arise from Kassab's solicitation letters and barratry litigation — communications in prospective and actual judicial proceedings. Privilege protects communications 'necessary to set the judicial machinery in motion.'
406 57 57 Grievance immunity under Tex. Rules Disciplinary P. R. 17.09 Kassab affirmative_defense Absolute and unqualified immunity for complainants and witnesses in the grievance process; extends to 'all actions at law or in equity.' Pohl admits Kassab was both a complainant and witness. At least part of Pohl's damages claim is predicated on the grievance proceedings, barring the entire suit under Crampton and Burch.
407 57 57 Unclean hands Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl sought injunctive relief (equitable remedy) and has not amended to remove it. TUTSA requires 'legal, or equitable' title. Both invoke equity, making unclean hands applicable to demonstrate Pohl's illegality in acquiring the trade secret information.

Advanced export

JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object

CSV options: 

CREATE TABLE legal_theories (
    theory_id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
    filing_id INTEGER REFERENCES filings(filing_id),
    theory TEXT,
    party TEXT,
    role TEXT,
    basis TEXT
);