PLAINTIFF’S SECOND SUGGESTION OF CONTEMPT AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT SUSAN NORMAN
MAY 2, 2023 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JUL 13, 2023
In light of Defendant Susan Norman’s failure to comply with the Court’s March 7, 2023 and April 24, 2023 Orders compelling Norman to produce communications and documents responsive to Plaintiff’s requests for production, Plaintiff suggests—for a second time—the Court find Norman in contempt and requests the Court impose sanctions against Norman. In support thereof, Plaintiff respectfully shows as follows:
INTRODUCTION
On October 14, 2022, Plaintiff served requests for production on each of the Defendants, including Susan Norman, in accordance with the Court’s October 7, 2022 Order1 granting Plaintiff’s application for temporary restraining order and motion for expedited discovery.
[Doc. 21].
Under the terms of the October 7 Order, Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production were due by October 19, 2022.
On October 19, 2022, Norman provided her objections to Plaintiff’s requests for production, but Norman did not produce any responsive documents or communications.
Specifically, in response to Plaintiff’s requests for production, Norman asserted various procedural and boilerplate objections as to every request on the basis that, among other things, Norman did not understand what a particular word meant in the context of the discovery requests.
Additionally, and substantively, Norman contended the communications and documents sought by Plaintiff’s Requests for Production No. 1-3 and 5-7 are protected by the attorney-client privilege, even though privilege does not apply to communications with third parties.
On October 23, 2022, Plaintiff moved the Court to, as pertinent to the instant pleading, overrule Norman’s objections to Plaintiff’s requests for production, and compel Norman to produce communications and documents responsive to Plaintiff’s requests for production.
[Doc. 31].
On March 7, 2023, the Court entered an order overruling Norman’s objections and assertions of privilege, and required Norman to produce communications and documents responsive to Plaintiff’s requests for production by April 6, 2023.
[Doc. 132].
The deadline passed and Norman still had not produced a single document.
As a result of Norman’s failure to timely produce documents responsive to Plaintiff’s requests for production and Norman’s complete disregard for this Court’s authority, on April 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Suggestion of Contempt, Motion for Order to Show Cause, and Request for Sanctions Against Defendant Susan Norman.
[Doc. 156].
Therein, Plaintiff suggested that the Court:
(1) hold Norman in contempt;
(2) order Norman to appear before the Court and show cause why she should not be held in contempt;
(3) impose sanctions against Norman which includes requiring Norman to pay the reasonable attorneys’ fees Plaintiff incurred in the preparing the first suggestion of contempt;
and
(4) order Norman produce responsive documents to Plaintiff’s requests for production within five days of entry of an order finding Norman in contempt.
On April 24, 2023, the Court ordered Norman to comply with the Court’s March 7 Order within five days of the April 24 Order.
[Doc. 158].
Despite the Court’s mandate, Norman continues to refuse to produce a single document responsive to Plaintiff’s requests for production.
Rather, on April 27, 2023, Norman filed a “Certificate of Compliance” falsely representing she is in “full compliance” with the April 24 Order.
[Doc. 159].
Norman’s inexcusable conduct demands the Court’s consequential intervention.
Plaintiff files this second suggestion of contempt for Norman’s contumacious disregard of two Court Orders commanding Norman produce responsive documents to Plaintiff’s requests for production and pay Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees.
1 Doc. 14.
Lewis Brisbois Paid at Least $519,000 by Impeached AG Ken Paxton for Report, Despite Glarin’ Conflicts – Laws In Texas https://t.co/n9DZsXnLH7 @LewisBrisbois @TXAG @tedcruz @statesman @Public_Justice @KofC @KenPaxtonTX @AngelaPaxtonTX @JohnCornyn @GovAbbott @JusticeLehrmann @ABC
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) July 2, 2023
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
A. The Court Should Hold Norman in Contempt for Violating—and Continuing to Violate—Two Court Orders
In her purported Certificate of Compliance, Norman falsely represents to the Court she complied with the Court’s orders.
First, Norman first points to her requests for production as some evidence that she has complied with the Court’s Orders.
Second, Norman impermissibly attempts to adopt Bitgood’s purported document production in order to satisfy her obligations to comply with the Court’s Orders.
Both of these arguments are meritless and the bottom line remains Norman has never produced any documents in response to Plaintiff’s requests for production and is therefore still in contempt.
1. Norman’s initial discovery responses do not demonstrate Norman has complied with the Court’s Orders
Norman first points to her responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. It is unclear for what purpose Norman refers the Court to her discovery responses, but it appears to either be to argue that the Court erred in granting Plaintiff’s motion to compel in the first place or to show that Norman has fully responded to discovery.
Regardless of which argument Norman is trying to make, they both fail.
If Norman is arguing the Court should not have granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel in the first place,2 that objection to the Order is untimely and now moot. The fact remains there is an Order granting Plaintiff’s motion to compel and compelling Norman to produce documents without objection and she has failed to do so.
If Norman is arguing she fully responded to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, that argument fails, as well. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel, which was based not just on Norman’s objections, but also Norman’s failure to actually respond to the requests,3 so clearly the Court believes Norman’s discovery responses are deficient. Norman has not amended her responses, so they remain deficient and, as such, Norman has still failed to comply with the Court’s Orders.
One week has passed since the Court entered its April 24 Order and Norman still has produced nothing to Plaintiff. Norman has demonstrated an unmitigated pattern of continuing to flaunt the Court’s orders. The Court should not allow Norman to continue to refuse to comply— first with the March 7 Order and now with the April 24 Order.
2 While Plaintiff does not want to breathe life into more of Norman’s frivolous accusations and arguments, Plaintiff writes briefly in response to the substance of Norman’s factually erroneous argument.
Norman attempts to argue Plaintiff’s motion to compel was somehow improper because Plaintiff did not follow the rules (she does not identify which Rules of Civil Procedure Plaintiff allegedly did not follow), conferring with Norman, or attaching Norman’s discovery responses to Plaintiff’s motion to compel.
While this is the improper procedural vehicle to raise these arguments and they are moot and untimely at this point, Plaintiff complied with all appropriate Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff did confer with Norman prior to filing its motion to compel [Docs. 31-5 at 5, 31-6] and Plaintiff did attach Norman’s discovery responses to its motion to compel. [Doc. 31-2].
Plaintiff has no obligation to confer before filing a suggestion of contempt, but, in this case, Plaintiff did that, too. [Doc. 154-1].
3 For example, Request for Production No. 1 seeks communications pertaining to the formation, registration, or filing of documents related to the limited liability partnership named Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP. [Doc. 31-2 at 5].
In response, Norman simply refers Plaintiff to “equally-available, publicly-filed documents of the Texas Secretary of State.” Id. at 6.
A reference to “publicly-filed documents of the Texas Secretary of State” is in no way responsive to Request for Production No. 1, which called for communications.
Sounds familiar, very, very familiar to LIT’s recent experience with Lewis Brisbois and Berkshire Hathaway, Wall St et al. https://t.co/NHsJNQ25V1@GT_Law @bakermckenzie @BCLPlaw @Mayer_Brown @Kirkland_Ellis @gibsondunn @SidleyLaw @JudgeDillard @goodwinlaw @HoganLovells #litgate pic.twitter.com/6pK45EGzWr
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) July 2, 2023
Defendant Michael Joseph Bitgood’s production of documents does not absolve Norman’s own discovery obligations
As previously mentioned, Norman represents to the Court that she has nothing to produce because co-defendant, Bitgood turned over to Plaintiff “every document requested by Plaintiff.”
But the requests directed at Norman seek the documents and communications in her possession, custody, or control, not those in Bitgood’s control or in the control of the Bitgood entity.
A “party’s obligation to respond to discovery is independent of any other party’s discovery obligations.”
Vestas-American Wind Tech., Inc. v. Salazar, Civ. Action No. 6:19-CV-00076-H, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204261, *17 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 21, 2020).
Indeed, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 requires that “[t]he party to whom the request is directed must respond in writing within 30 days after being served . . . [but a] shorter [] time may be . . . ordered by the court.”
FED. R. CIV. P. 34 (emphasis added).
Even assuming Bitgood did produce responsive documents—which he did not—Bitgood’s production does not absolve Norman’s discovery obligations to Plaintiff.
Rule 34 confers an obligation for Norman to produce documents in response to Plaintiff’s discovery requests directed to Norman.
Norman cannot simply rely on another party’s production to fulfill her discovery obligations required under Rule 34.
Norman is in contempt of both the March 7 Order and April 24 Order
“A party commits contempt when he violates a definite and specific order of the court requiring him to perform or refrain from performing a particular act or acts with knowledge of the court’s order.”
Piggly Wiggly Clarksville, Inc. v. Mrs. Baird’s Bakeries, 177 F.3d 380, 382 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Travelhost, Inc. v. Blandford, 68 F.3d 958, 961 (5th Cir. 1995)).
A party seeking an order of contempt need only establish by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) a court order was in effect; (2) the order required certain conduct by the respondent; and (3) the respondent failed to comply with the court’s order.
Martin v. Trinity Industries, Inc., 959 F.2d 45, 47 (5th Cir. 1992).
In addition to continue being in contempt of the March 7 Order, as set forth in the first suggestion of contempt, Norman is now in contempt of the Court’s April 24 Order as well.
The April 24 Order was in effect, and required Norman to “comply with its [March 7] order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel within five (5) days of th[e] [April 24] order.” [Doc. 158].
The five day deadline has passed and Norman still has not produced a single document.
Thus, Norman is clearly in contempt of both this Court’s March 7 and April 24 Order.
B. Norman Violated Her Obligations Under the Texas Rules of Professional Conduct
Norman is a licensed attorney in Texas since 1990.
As an attorney, Norman is “an officer of the legal system [and the Court].”
TEX. R. PROF’L CONDUCT PREAMBLE.
As an officer of the Court, Norman not only has a duty to not engage in conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation, but she also has a duty of honesty and candor to this Court.
Rule 3.03 provides, in pertinent part:
“(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal . . . .”
TEX. R. PROF’L CONDUCT 3.03.
“The duty of candor extends beyond not making false statements. An omission may also violate the duty.”
Domain Prot., L.L.C. v. Sea Wasp, L.L.C., 23 F.4th 529, 543 (5th Cir. 2022).
Additionally, Clause IV of The Texas Lawyer’s Creed specifically provides that lawyers owe judges candor.
Further, Rule 8.04 prohibits a lawyer from engaging “in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”
TEX. R. PROF’L CONDUCT 8.04.
The Court ordered Norman to comply with the March 7 Order within five days of the April 24 Order.
The March 7 Order required Norman to “produce communications and documents responsive to Plaintiff’s request for production.”
However, Norman failed to produce one single document to Plaintiff within five days of the April 24 Order.
In fact, Norman admits she has not produced any documents in response to the April 24 Order because Bitgood, in his “capacity of custodian,” already produced the requested documents to Plaintiff.
Despite being an officer of the Court and despite knowing full well she produced zero documents to Plaintiffs, Norman filed the Certificate falsely representing to the Court that she complied with the April 24 Order.
Norman’s false statements in the Certificate is an attempt to mislead the Court as to the status of Norman’s compliance—or, rather, noncompliance—with the Court’s orders.
Norman’s total lack of candor and attempt to mislead the Court by filing the Certificate clearly violate Norman’s duties under Rules of Professional Conduct 3.03 and 8.04.
C. The Court Should Conduct a Show Cause Hearing and Impose Sanctions Against Norman and Award Attorney’s Fees for Norman’s Noncompliance With Two Court Orders
Due process requires “that one charged with contempt of court be advised of the charges against him, have a reasonable opportunity to meet them by way of defense or explanation, have the right to be represented by counsel, and have a chance to testify and call other witnesses.”
Waste Mgmt. of Wash. v. Kattler, 776 F.3d 336, 339–40 (5th Cir. 2015).
“Adequate notice typically takes the form of a show-cause order and a notice of hearing identifying each litigant who might be held in contempt.” Id.
Upon a finding of contempt, the Court has broad discretion in assessing sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 to protect the sanctity of its decrees and the legal process.
Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 228 F.3d 574, 585 (5th Cir. 2000).
In addition to the sanctions available pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A), a court “must order the disobedient party, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.”
FED. R. CIV. P. 37(b)(2)(C).
Norman’s wanton disregard for the Court’s authority resulted in—and continues to result in—unnecessary motion practice and delay at Plaintiff’s expense.
Thus, the Court should set a hearing and require Norman to show cause for her clear failure to comply with two Court Orders.
If Norman cannot sufficiently explain her noncompliance, the Court should impose sanctions against Norman.
Clearly, Norman’s contumacious refusal to produce documents in response to discovery requests, as well as Norman’s violation of her duties under the professional code of conduct, justify monetary sanctions in the amount of $10,000.00.
In addition to paying $10,000 as monetary sanctions, Norman should be required to pay Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees incurred seeking to have Norman produce responsive documents and communications, as permitted by Rule 37.
To date, Plaintiff has incurred $6,805.00 in attorneys’ fees on this endeavor. Ex. A.
PRAYER
Because Norman has not produced documents responsive to Plaintiff’s requests for production for well over 30 days after the Court ordered Norman to do so, Plaintiff requests the Court:
(1) hold Norman in contempt of both the March 7 and April 24 Orders;
(2) order Norman to appear before the Court and show cause why she should not be held in contempt for violating two Court orders;
and
(3) impose sanctions against Norman which includes requiring Norman to pay Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees.
Dated: May 2, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP
/s/ Shane L. Kotlarsky
William S. Helfand
Attorney-in-Charge
Texas Bar No. 09388250
Bennett G. Fisher
Texas Bar No. 07049125
Shane L. Kotlarsky
Texas Bar No. 24083329
Anh Nguyen
Texas Bar No. 24079053
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1400
Houston, Texas 77046
(713) 659-6767
Telephone
(713) 759-6830
Facsimile
bill.helfand@lewisbrisbois.com
bennett.fisher@lewisbrisbois.com
shane.kotlarsky@lewisbrisbois.com
anh.nguyen@lewisbrisbois.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP
What one has to do when there’s no appearance from defendants or their counsel. Send it care of the acting judge for him to pass it along.https://t.co/qJQwFWmJUz@harriscotxclerk @CorySepolio @MikeEngelhart @UrsulaHall1 @emilymiskel @publicjustice @propublica #appellatetwitter https://t.co/e8pwQkZUqG pic.twitter.com/omHMwa9HVN
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) June 23, 2023
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP v. Bitgood
(4:22-cv-03279)
District Court, S.D. Texas
SEP 23, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JUL 13, 2023
JUL 13, AUG 18, SEP. 28, OCT 18, 2023
Above is the date LIT Last updated or visited this article.
May 22, 2023
TO THE HONORABLE KEITH ELLISON:
Dear Judge Ellison:
I respectfully request an emergency Zoom hearing on two matters:
1. MOTION TO ABATE ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS MATTER.
At 9:55 a.m. today, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed the docketing of the Amended Notice of Appeal, Dkt. 170, filed May 22, 2023, to Dkt. 166, Order denying Motion for Reconsideration of Dkts. 127 & 128.
This appeal of denial of our 59(e) motion affects the entire case, including Dkt. 165 and other discovery.
I respectfully request to abate all proceedings including the Order, Dkt 165, ordering me to pay attorney’s fees and provide documents within 10 days, or by May 22, 2023.
On May 3, 2023, Dkt 163, I inquired of the Plaintiff to tell me what it thinks I have regarding discovery and I had it, I would tender it.
I had no response whatsoever from Plaintiff as to what it wanted in addition to what Mr. Bitgood, as custodian of records, had already provided.
See Exhibit 1, Dkt 163, attached and incorporated herein.
2. In addition, I have had no communication from Mr. Rivera regarding Dkt 169, my May 17, 2023, Emergency Motion for a Zoom hearing regarding the incapacity of Michael J. Bitgood, which I requested Mr. Rivera place before Your Honor.
Mr. Bitgood attempted to reach out to Mr. Rivera, and attached as Exhibit 2 is Mr. Rivera’s response.
(LIT: RIVERA IS THE CASE MGR FOR JUDGE ELLISON)
If the Court does grant my emergency motion to abate, without Mr. Bitgood’s being allowed to participate, this would be an ex parte hearing, as would the continuation of proceedings in this matter, such as the deposition of Brad Beers scheduled for May 31. Mr. Bitgood’s doctors have told him he can do nothing.
For the Court’s convenience of referring to only one document, I re-enter the circumstances of Mr. Bitgood’s incapacity provided in Dkt 169, which, after filing, was also provided by email to Mr. Rivera and served on Plaintiff:
Mr. Bitgood is incapacitated, having had surgery on May 9, 2023, to remove six (6) vertebrae and disks (C-3 through C-7 and T-1) and have them replaced with artificial vertebrae and disks.
Mr. Bitgood is still in a Houston–area hospital one week post-surgery and his medical team expects him to be incapacitated for [now, from thirty (30) to] sixty (60) days post-surgery to attempt rehabilitation.
Mr. Bitgood cannot volitionally lift his right arm and use his right hand; is unable to walk; his left hand has his left three fingers curled and he cannot straighten them except with great difficulty; he cannot bend his head forward to look at a computer screen, but must hold his phone up to see the screen while lying on his back [I said “prone,” in Dkt. 169, which should have been, “supine].
Mr. Bitgood requires assistance to accomplish even the most minimal activities of daily living, including, for example, brushing his teeth.
I shall not further describe his other incapacity deficits out of respect for the Court’s sensibilities, except to say that he is utterly incapable of doing much more than speaking.
I respectfully request an emergency hearing in this case so that the Court can enter the appropriate orders.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Susan C. Norman Susan C. Norman
BREAKING NEWS FAVORS WALL ST REIT
Judge Grants Temporary Sealing Order while Permanent Rule 76a Hearing Pending… confirms she’s been violating Rule 76a for years, along with all her fellow judges as LIT has highlighted on many occasions. https://t.co/ttuK8gVL9L @SupremeCourt_TX— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) October 7, 2023
On Monday, Texas federal judge Keith Ellison granted a motion from Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP to force defendant lawyer to answer certain deposition questions in connection with a lawsuit accusing him of taking part in a conspiracy to infringe the BigLaw firm’s trademark, rejecting his argument that conversations he had with his clients were shielded by attorney-client privilege.
ORDER granting 190 Notice (Other), ; Motion-related deadline set re: 183 MOTION for Summary Judgment Plaintiff Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLPs Motion for Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction Against Defendants MOTION for Permanent
( Responses due by 11/12/2023.)
(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(ArturoRivera, 4) (Entered: 10/16/2023)
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-03279
| Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP v. Bitgood et al Assigned to: Judge Keith P Ellison Cause: 15:44 Trademark Infringement |
Date Filed: 09/23/2022 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 840 Trademark Jurisdiction: Federal Question |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 10/10/2023 | 188 | Correspondence filing Exhibit 4 to Bradley B. Beers Motion for Summary Judgment by Bradley B. Beers, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Dunwoody, Samuel) (Entered: 10/10/2023) |
| 10/10/2023 | 189 | ORDER granting 187 Motion for Continuance; Motion-related deadline set re: 183 MOTION for Summary Judgment Plaintiff Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLPs. Responses due by 12/4/2023..(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(ArturoRivera, 4) (Entered: 10/10/2023) |
| 10/13/2023 | 190 | NOTICE of Agreement Extending Norman Response Date re: 183 MOTION for Summary Judgment Plaintiff Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLPs Motion for Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction Against Defendants MOTION for Permanent Injunction by Susan C Norman, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Agreed Order Extending Norman Response Date)(Norman, Susan) (Entered: 10/13/2023) |
| 10/13/2023 | 191 | ORDER granting 190 Notice (Other), ; Motion-related deadline set re: 183 MOTION for Summary Judgment Plaintiff Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLPs Motion for Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction Against Defendants MOTION for Permanent Injunction ( Responses due by 11/12/2023.)(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(ArturoRivera, 4) (Entered: 10/16/2023) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 10/18/2023 10:25:23 |
First MOTION for Continuance of RESPOND TO PTF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Michael Joseph Bitgood, filed.
Motion Docket Date 10/30/2023.
(Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order ORDER GRANTING 45 DAY EXTENSION)
(Bitgood, Michael) (Entered: 10/08/2023)
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-03279
| Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP v. Bitgood et al Assigned to: Judge Keith P Ellison Cause: 15:44 Trademark Infringement |
Date Filed: 09/23/2022 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 840 Trademark Jurisdiction: Federal Question |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 07/14/2023 | 180 | ORDER granting 179 Motion for Extension of Time.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 07/17/2023) |
| 08/02/2023 | 181 | ORDER denying without prejudice all pending motions. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/03/2023) |
| 09/28/2023 | 182 | MOTION Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit by Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/19/2023. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order re Plaintiff’s Mtn for Leave to Extend Page Limit)(Helfand, William) (Entered: 09/28/2023) |
| 09/29/2023 | 183 | MOTION for Summary Judgment Plaintiff Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLPs Motion for Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction Against Defendants ( Motion Docket Date 10/20/2023.), MOTION for Permanent Injunction by Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit Exhibit 23A, # 25 Exhibit Exhibit 24, # 26 Exhibit Exhibit 25, # 27 Exhibit Exhibit 26, # 28 Exhibit Exhibit 27, # 29 Exhibit Exhibit 28, # 30 Exhibit Exhibit 29, # 31 Exhibit Exhibit 30, # 32 Exhibit Exhibit 31, # 33 Exhibit Exhibit 32, # 34 Exhibit Exhibit 33, # 35 Exhibit Exhibit 34, # 36 Exhibit Exhibit 35, # 37 Exhibit Exhibit 36, # 38 Exhibit Exhibit 37, # 39 Exhibit Exhibit 38, # 40 Exhibit Exhibit 39, # 41 Exhibit Exhibit 40, # 42 Exhibit Exhibit 41, # 43 Exhibit Exhibit 42, # 44 Exhibit Exhibit 43, # 45 Exhibit Exhibit 44, # 46 Exhibit Exhibit 45, # 47 Exhibit Exhibit 46, # 48 Exhibit Exhibit 47, # 49 Exhibit Exhibit 48, # 50 Exhibit Exhibit 49, # 51 Exhibit Exhibit 50, # 52 Exhibit Exhibit 51, # 53 Exhibit Exhibit 52, # 54 Exhibit Exhibit 53, # 55 Exhibit Exhibit 53A, # 56 Exhibit Exhibit 54, # 57 Exhibit Exhibit 55, # 58 Exhibit Exhibit 56, # 59 Exhibit Exhibit 57, # 60 Exhibit Exhibit 58, # 61 Exhibit Exhibit 59, # 62 Exhibit Exhibit 60, # 63 Proposed Order Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction Against Defendants)(Helfand, William) (Entered: 09/29/2023) |
| 09/29/2023 | 184 | ORDER granting 182 Motion to Exceed Page Limit.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(GabrielleLyons, 4) (Entered: 09/29/2023) |
| 10/05/2023 | 185 | MOTION for Summary Judgment by Bradley B. Beers, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/26/2023. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(Dunwoody, Samuel) (Entered: 10/05/2023) |
| 10/05/2023 | 186 | PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT re: 185 MOTION for Summary Judgment , filed.(Dunwoody, Samuel) (Entered: 10/05/2023) |
| 10/08/2023 | 187 | First MOTION for Continuance of RESPOND TO PTF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Michael Joseph Bitgood, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/30/2023. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order ORDER GRANTING 45 DAY EXTENSION)(Bitgood, Michael) (Entered: 10/08/2023) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 10/08/2023 22:59:40 |
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-03279
| Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP v. Bitgood et al Assigned to: Judge Keith P Ellison Cause: 15:44 Trademark Infringement |
Date Filed: 09/23/2022 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 840 Trademark Jurisdiction: Federal Question |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 05/12/2023 | 167 | Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time File Motion(s) for Summary Judgment by Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/2/2023. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Kotlarsky, Shane) (Entered: 05/12/2023) |
| 05/16/2023 | 168 | ORDER granting 167 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time File Motion(s) for Summary Judgment..(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(KimberlyPicota, 4) (Entered: 05/16/2023) |
| 05/17/2023 | 169 | NOTICE to Hon. Keith Ellison of Michael J. Bitgood Incapacity by Susan C Norman, filed. (Norman, Susan) (Entered: 05/17/2023) |
| 05/17/2023 | 170 | Amended NOTICE OF APPEAL to US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit re: 166 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, by Michael Joseph Bitgood, Susan C Norman, filed.(Norman, Susan) (Entered: 05/17/2023) |
| 05/18/2023 | 171 | Clerks Notice of Filing of an Appeal. The following Notice of Appeal and related motions are pending in the District Court: 170 Notice of Appeal – Amended. Fee status: Not Paid, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Notice of Appeal) (MaricelaPerez, 1) (Entered: 05/18/2023) |
| 05/22/2023 | 172 | MOTION for Emergency Due Incapacity Hearing re: 169 Notice (Other), 170 Notice of Appeal – Amended, 171 Clerk’s Notice of Filing of an Appeal, USCA Case Number by Susan C Norman, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/12/2023. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2023 05-03 – SCN Ltr Kotlarsky – Tell Me What You Want, # 2 Exhibit 2023 05-22 – Emails Rivera & MJB)(Norman, Susan) (Entered: 05/22/2023) |
| 05/22/2023 | 173 | NOTICE to the Court of Compliance with Court Order, Dkt. 165, of Defendant Susan C. Norman Production Responses To Plaintiffs Requests for Production and Payment of Attorneys Fees re: 31 MOTION to Compel production of communications and documents responsive to Plaintiffs requests for production, 165 Order on Motion for Sanctions, by Susan C Norman, filed. (Norman, Susan) (Entered: 05/22/2023) |
| 05/23/2023 | 174 | NOTICE of Setting as to 172 MOTION for Emergency Due Incapacity Hearing re: 169 Notice (Other), 170 Notice of Appeal – Amended, 171 Clerk’s Notice of Filing of an Appeal, USCA Case Number. Parties notified. Motion Hearing set for 5/31/2023 at 12:00 PM in by telephone before Judge Keith P Ellison, filed. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 05/23/2023) |
| 05/24/2023 | 175 | MOTION for Protective Order by Bradley B. Beers, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/14/2023. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Bradley Beers in support of Expedited Motion for Protective Order)(Dunwoody, Samuel) (Entered: 05/24/2023) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 07/12/2023 08:00:43 |
A Texas trial court judge @CorySepolio declined Wed. to recuse himself from a pay dispute between a Lewis Brisbois partner and his former firm after the partner said the judge’s receipt of campaign contributions from opposing counsel called his impartiality into question.
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) September 28, 2023
Ali Choudri Files State Court Suit Claiming Wrongful Foreclosure before Judge Michael Gomez
2503 S. Shepherd Dr., 2502 and 2424 Huldy St., 9201 Memorial Drive and 2727 Kirby 26L, Houston Texas are the properties in dispute.
Pro Hac Vice by IFP Application: Sanctioned Lawyer Ray L. Shackelford Appears Without Authority
LIT’s watched Shackelford appear in many of his removed foreclosure cases without submitting a pro hac vice application and fees.
Zions Bancorporation and Cenlar FSB Dash to Foreclose on Thrash’s $9M Dollar Residential Estate
Dr John Thrash has owned the property since 1994. He’s been litigating this dispute in a few proceedings this year about the same property.
