Lewis Brisbois v. Bitgood

Case: 24-20458 Document: 146-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/23/2025

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

____________ United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

No. 24-20458

FILED

October 23, 2025

____________

Lyle W. Cayce

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Michael Joseph Bitgood, also known as Michael

Easton; Susan C. Norman; Bradley B. Beers,

Defendants—Appellants.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:22-CV-3279

______________________________

Before Dennis, Graves, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP (LBBS) sued Michael Joseph

Bitgood a/k/a “Michael Easton,” Susan C. Norman, Bradley B. Beers, and

the Texas entity known as “Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP,” (collec-

tively, Defendants) alleging (1) trademark infringement under § 32 of the

Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114); (2) unfair competition under § 42 of the

_____________________

*

This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-20458 Document: 146-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/23/2025

No. 24-20458

Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125) and Texas common law; (3) common-law

fraud; and (4) civil conspiracy to infringe upon trademarks and name and to

commit fraud. The district court granted LBBS summary judgment on the

trademark-infringement, unfair-competition, and conspiracy-to-infringe

claims; granted LBBS a permanent injunction; and awarded statutory dam-

ages and attorney fees. The court denied LBBS’s summary-judgment mo-

tion for the fraud and conspiracy-to-commit-fraud claims and dismissed

them with prejudice. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM in part and

VACATE and REMAND in part.

I

As discussed in greater detail in Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith,

L.L.P. v. Norman (LBBS 1), No. 23-20065, 2024 WL 3595388 (5th Cir. July

31, 2024), this saga began in Texas state court when Bitgood and another ten-

ant represented by attorney Norman sued a corporate landlord represented

by LBBS. During those proceedings, Bitgood and Norman discovered that

LBBS’s foreign limited liability partnership registration with the State of

Texas had lapsed. They quickly registered a new entity under the name

“Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP” with the Texas Secretary of State.

They then enlisted Beers, also an attorney, to prepare and file an assumed-

name certificate with the state under the same name. See id. at *1.

After creating this fake entity, Bitgood and Norman amended the

state-court petition to include it as a party. They then filed a motion under

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 12 challenging the real LBBS’s authority to

represent the landlord. The court granted the motion, ruling that LBBS

lacked such authority. In response, LBBS sent a cease-and-desist letter to

Norman and Bitgood, who refused to comply and instead continued to prof-

fer filings in state court under LBBS’s letterhead. See id.

2

Case: 24-20458 Document: 146-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/23/2025

No. 24-20458

LBBS then sued Defendants in federal district court on various trade-

mark, unfair competition, fraud, and conspiracy claims. The district court

granted LBBS a preliminary injunction, which our court affirmed. Id. at

*3–4. Subsequently, the district court granted LBBS summary judgment on

its trademark-infringement, unfair-competition, and conspiracy-to-infringe

claims, as well as a permanent injunction, statutory damages, and attorney

fees.

Bitgood, Norman, and Beers each appealed separately.

II

We review summary judgments de novo, applying the same standards

as the district court. Harville v. City of Hous., 945 F.3d 870, 874 (5th Cir.

2019). “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that

there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled

to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

As to the damages award, we review the district court’s fact findings

for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. Spectrum Ass’n Mgmt. of Tex.,

L.L.C. v. Lifetime HOA Mgmt. L.L.C., 5 F.4th 560, 563–64 (5th Cir. 2021)

(citation omitted). We review de novo the court’s ruling on attorney

immunity. Ironshore Eur. DAC v. Schiff Hardin, L.L.P., 912 F.3d 759, 763 (5th

Cir. 2019).

We review for abuse of discretion an attorney-fee award under the

Lanham Act. All. for Good Gov’t v. Coal. for Better Gov’t, 919 F.3d 291, 295

(5th Cir. 2019). We may reverse such an award only if the court “base[d] its

ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment

of the evidence.” ASHH, Inc. v. URZ Trendz, L.L.C., No. 23-20614, 2024

WL 3595385, at *1 (5th Cir. July 31, 2024) (quoting Highmark Inc. v. Allcare

Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 572 U.S. 559, 563 n.2 (2014)).

3

Case: 24-20458 Document: 146-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/23/2025

No. 24-20458

III

Defendants Bitgood, Norman, and Beers each filed appellate briefs

raising numerous issues, many of which are frivolous, incoherent, or not

properly before us. 1

The remainder of Defendants’ arguments pertain to five issues:

(1) whether Rooker-Feldman abstention applies; (2) whether Beers was pro-

tected by attorney immunity; (3) whether Defendants used the LBBS marks

in commerce for purposes of Lanham Act liability; (4) statutory damages;

and (5) attorney fees.

A

We begin with Rooker-Feldman, which “generally precludes lower

federal courts ‘from exercising appellate jurisdiction over final state-court

judgments.’” Miller v. Dunn, 35 F.4th 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting

Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 463 (2006) (per curiam)).

As LBBS points out, Rooker-Feldman does not apply here because

there was no final state-court judgment. Indeed, the prior panel already ruled

on this point, making it law of the case. See LBBS 1, 2024 WL 3595388, at *2;

see also Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 816 (1988)

(“[W]hen a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue

to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.”). Even

though that prior decision was an interlocutory appeal of a preliminary

injunction, law of the case applies so long as the court “actually decided” the

_____________________

1

For his part, Bitgood’s brief levels a blizzard of accusations at the district court

and LBBS attorneys—including racism, ablism, professional misconduct, corruption, and

perjury—while offering little in the way of legal argument. For her part, Norman’s brief

raises one issue not properly before us, namely whether the prior panel should reconsider

its remark that her conduct amounted to professional misconduct. See LBBS 1, 2024 WL

3595388, at *1 n.1.

4

Case: 24-20458 Document: 146-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/23/2025

No. 24-20458

issue, which it did. Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Quinn-L Cap. Corp., 3 F.3d 877,

880–81 (5th Cir. 1993); Gaalla v. Brown, 460 F. App’x 469, 476 (5th Cir.

2012).

B

We turn to whether Beers is protected by attorney immunity. The

district court ruled attorney immunity did not apply because Beers did not

meet his “burden of conclusively establishing that [his] involvement in the

registration of the Lewis Brisbois entity falls within the scope of client

representation.” 2 We see no error.

Beers argues he was entitled to immunity because his only relevant

conduct was preparing and filing the assumed-name certificate on behalf of a

client. We disagree.

Beers fails to grapple with the district court’s finding that he conspired

with Norman and Bitgood to infringe upon the LBBS marks. The court

found that Beers “communicated extensively” with Norman and Bitgood

about registering the fake LBBS entity, knew the real LBBS entity existed,

and worked with Bitgood and Norman to assist in forming “their infringing

entity to harm Plaintiff.” This is precisely the type of wrongful activity that

falls outside the scope of attorney immunity. See Haynes & Boone, 631 S.W.3d

65, 77 (Tex. 2021) (“[A]n attorney’s participation in independently

fraudulent activities is considered foreign to the duties of an attorney and is

not shielded from liability.” (internal quotation marks and emphasis

omitted)). Accordingly, the district court did not err in ruling that Beers was

not protected by attorney immunity.

_____________________

2

The prior panel ruled that attorney immunity did not apply to claims for

injunctive relief. See LBBS 1, 2024 WL 3595388, at *4.

5

Case: 24-20458 Document: 146-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/23/2025

No. 24-20458

C

We turn to whether Defendants used the LBBS marks in commerce

for purposes of the Lanham Act. See 15 U.S.C. § 1114, 1125(a).

Beers argues that, because he only prepared and filed the assumed-

name certificate with the Secretary of State, he cannot have used LBBS

marks in commerce. Just as with Rooker-Feldman though, our prior panel

already addressed this issue.

On appeal from the preliminary injunction, we held that “[c]ommon

sense, clear concessions by Federal Defendants, and case law establish that

[Defendants’] infringing uses were ‘uses in commerce.’” LBBS 1, 2024 WL

3595388, at *3. We also explained that a sister-circuit decision, “under

striking similar circumstances, held that conduct, like formation of a

corporation and public communication, was sufficient” to find use in

commerce. Ibid. (citing Comm. for Idaho’s High Desert, Inc. v. Yost, 92 F.3d

814, 823 (9th Cir. 1996)). The district court correctly relied on this holding

in granting LBBS summary judgment.

D

Next, we consider whether the district court acted within its

discretion in assessing statutory damages.

Under the Lanham Act, a court may award damages “for any such use

in connection with . . . distribution of . . . services in the amount of . . . not

less than $1,000 or more than $200,000 per counterfeit mark . . . ; or . . . if

the court finds that the use of the counterfeit mark was willful, not more than

$2,000,000 per counterfeit mark.” 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c). Here, the district

court awarded damages of $1 million against Bitgood, $500,000 against

Norman, and $10,000 against Beers. The district court justified these

damages awards by recounting that Defendants stated in depositions, in

6

Case: 24-20458 Document: 146-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 10/23/2025

No. 24-20458

court, and to the press that they purposefully took LBBS’s name, used it in

correspondence and court filings, printed fake LBBS business cards, and

taunted the real LBBS with their appropriation of its marks. Defendants

argue the district court erred in awarding statutory damages.

First, Defendants argue the damages award lacked a proper basis

because LBBS’s trademark had lapsed during the relevant period. They

point out that the registration for “Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith” lapsed

in 2020 and was not reregistered until 2022, the time period during which

Defendants engaged in their putative infringement. Accordingly, they argue

there was no basis for a damages award for infringing an unregistered mark.

See 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a) (imposing liability for using a “reproduction,

counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark”). Second,

Beers argues that the prior panel already decided this issue in their favor. And

third, Bitgood and Norman argue that the district court violated their

Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial by awarding statutory damages

without submitting to a jury the question of the amount of damages to be

awarded.

We first address Defendants’ contention about the prior panel’s

decision. In a footnote, that panel stated: “There is no evidence in the record

showing that Federal Defendants infringed on LBBS’s relevant registered

trademarks, so we consider only LBBS’s claims under § 1125(a).” LBBS 1,

2024 WL 3595388, at *2 n.3. Contrary to Defendants’ argument, that

statement did not settle the propriety of statutory damages.

As noted, the law-of-the-case doctrine applies only if a prior panel

actually decided an issue. See Gaalla, 460 F. App’x at 476. The prior panel

did not actually decide whether LBBS could claim infringement damages

under § 1114(1)(a). It made its statement only to explain why it elected to

consider LBBS’s likelihood of success on a different claim (an unfair-

7

Case: 24-20458 Document: 146-1 Page: 8 Date Filed: 10/23/2025

No. 24-20458

competition claim under § 1125(a)). Relatedly, the statement was

unnecessary to the holding and was therefore dicta. See, e.g., Int’l Truck &

Engine Corp. v. Bray, 372 F.3d 717, 721 (5th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the

statement did not establish law-of-the-case whether LBBS could ultimately

make out an infringement claim under § 1114(1)(a) and obtain damages under

§ 1117(c). See, e.g., Soc’y of Roman Cath. Church of Diocese of Lafayette, Inc. v.

Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 126 F.3d 727, 735 (5th Cir. 1997) (law-of-the-case

does not apply to “pure dicta”).

We therefore proceed to consider the propriety of the damages award.

As noted, Defendants argue the award was erroneous because

registration of the “Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith” mark had lapsed

from 2020 to 2022. Defendants are correct that putative infringement of an

unregistered mark cannot support a damages award under § 1117(c). See 15

U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a) (imposing liability for specified misuses of “a registered

mark”); see also Jim S. Adler, P.C. v. McNeil Consultants, L.L.C., 10 F.4th

422, 426 (5th Cir. 2021) (explaining that § 1114(1)(a) “creates a cause of

action for infringement of registered marks”). But LBBS counters, as it did

in the district court, that Defendants’ misuse of its name also infringed other

registered marks it owned that were similar to its unregistered mark. See 15

U.S.C. § 1127 (defining “counterfeit” as “a spurious mark which is identical

with, or substantially indistinguishable from, a registered mark”).

We decline to address this alternative ground for the statutory

damages award for the first time on appeal. The district court did not explain

the basis for the damages award under the relevant statutes. As a result, we

lack the necessary findings and reasoning to effectively review its damages

conclusion—and specifically, whether damages would be justified for

Defendants’ putative infringement of LBBS’s other registered marks.

Accordingly, we vacate the award of statutory damages as to each Defendant

8

Case: 24-20458 Document: 146-1 Page: 9 Date Filed: 10/23/2025

No. 24-20458

and remand for further consideration of Defendants’ liability under

§ 1114(1)(a).

In doing so, the district court should consider whether the Seventh

Amendment requires submission of the damages question to a jury. Although

LBBS and Defendants both demanded a jury trial, the district court awarded

damages itself. On appeal, Bitgood and Norman argue this violated the

Seventh Amendment. See, e.g., Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc.,

523 U.S. 340, 355 (1998) (holding that “the Seventh Amendment provides a

right to a jury trial on all issues pertinent to an award of statutory damages

under § 504(c) of the Copyright Act, including the amount itself”); Top

Tobacco, L.P. v. Star Importers & Wholesalers, Inc., 135 F.4th 1344, 1350 (11th

Cir. 2025) (“We have little difficulty extending [Feltner] to trademark cases

because of the ‘clear and direct historical evidence that juries, both as a

general matter and in copyright cases, set the amount of damages awarded to

a successful plaintiff.’” (quoting Feltner, 523 U.S. at 355)). We express no

opinion on that issue.

E

Finally, we turn to the attorney-fee award. Because we remand for

reconsideration of liability and damages under § 1114(1)(a), we also vacate

the fee award and remand the issue of fees to the district court for

reconsideration. This is in keeping with this court’s practice of remanding

fee awards for reconsideration when underlying damages awards are likewise

remanded. See, e.g., Fluorine On Call, Ltd. v. Fluorogas Ltd., 380 F.3d 849,

867 (5th Cir. 2004) (remanding for reassessment of fee award in light of

remand for reconsideration of damages award); Black v. SettlePou, P.C., 732

F.3d 492, 501 (5th Cir. 2013) (same). Just as with the damages question, we

express no opinion on the propriety or amount of fees that should be awarded.

9

Case: 24-20458 Document: 146-1 Page: 10 Date Filed: 10/23/2025

No. 24-20458

IV

We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment as it pertains to unfair

competition, conspiracy to infringe, and permanent injunctive relief. We

VACATE the award of statutory damages and attorney fees and REMAND

for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

10