Appellate Circuit

A Motion to Strike Hopkins Law Scandalous Reply is Lodged At The Fifth Circuit

The Pot Calling the Kettle Black; Austin Creditor Rights Lawyers Mark and Shelley Hopkins of Hopkins Law impetuously project their hypocrisy.

LIT COMMENTARY

JULY 28, 2021

The Burkes file a motion to strike Hopkins Law’s response. In the majority, Hopkins reply has nothing to do with the issue at hand as Mark D. Hopkins and Shelley L. Hopkins return to their usual attack on opposing parties. Their unethical behavior escalates due to the brazen protection afforded by the courts to these outrageous Texas lawyers. The motion sums all this up in just over 3,600 compelling words. Enjoy.

DOES FRAP 46 APPLY TO HOPKINS?

As stated above, Hopkins admit they are experienced attorneys at State and Federal courts and know the laws and rules inside out. Thus, the Burkes question their omission of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46 (FRAP46) in their rambling reply. Does failure to reply to several requests to confer fall under the discipline listed in FRAP 46? The Burkes suggest it clearly does;

(c) Discipline. A court of appeals may discipline an attorney who practices before it for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar or for failure to comply with any court rule.

DENNIS, JAMES L.

Judge James L Dennis

was born January 9, 1936 (Capricorn)

Age: 85

OWEN, PRISCILLA R.

Judge Priscilla Richman Owen

was born October 4, 1954 (Libra)

Age: 66

DAVIS, W. EUGENE

Judge William Eugene Davis

was born August, 1936

Age: 84

APPELLANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE HOPKINS SCANDALOUS MATERIAL IN RESPONSE TO SANCTIONS OR STRIKE MOTION  ENTIRELY AND REQUEST HOPKINS REFILE WITHOUT SCANDALOUS CONTENT & RENEWED REQUEST TO GRANT THE PENDING SANCTIONS MOTION

Appellants, Joanna Burke and John Burke (“Burkes”) filed their Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure on July 7 and Hopkins objected in a reply dated July 19, 2021. The Burkes now timely request Hopkins response be stricken and in support thereof would show the Court as follows:

I.                              BURKE’s MOTION TO STRIKE IS THE CORRECT VEHICLE TO OBJECT TO HOPKINS SANCTIONABLE RESPONSE

Holding that, absent timely motion to strike, Hopkins non-compliance with procedural rules would be waived; see Auto Drive-Away Co. of Hialeah, Inc. v. I.C.C, 360 F.2d 446, 448-49 (5th Cir. 1966); U.S. v. Martinez, 962 F.2d 1161, 1165-66 (5th Cir. 1992), finding “In order to preserve a claim of error for appellate review, a party must timely object or move to strike the objectionable evidence, stating the specific ground of the objection.”

II.                           THE REASONS FOR STRIKING HOPKINS RESPONSE

A.               SCANDALOUS, IRRELEVANT, AND FACTUALLY ERRONEOUS STATEMENTS

The Burkes Motion for Sanctions is directly related to the [now] consolidated cases on appeal. Instead of responding to the direct allegations therein, Hopkins decides to shroud their non-compliance with the local rules of this court by attacking the opposing parties in this case. This is Hopkins standard approach when the facts presented by the Burkes are true and cannot be rebutted by Hopkins. Indeed, the Burkes refer and cite Hopkins Motions to Strike filed on July 14 and again on July 31, 2021 wherein Hopkins is now guilty of the allegations he made against the Burkes in these filings, including;

Hopkins response contains a multitude of images with embedded links to twitter posts and a plethora of  links to articles on an external and independently operated non-profit blog which focuses on civil rights, law and access to justice. These links do not form any part of the appellate record and are improper as part of Hopkins response.

The rule consistently applied in all federal appellate courts, including this Court, is that “[m]aterial that was not presented in the district court and is not a part of the record on appeal is not considered.” U.S. v. Crawford, 205 F.3d 1337, 1999 WL 1338370, *2 (5th Cir. Dec. 20, 1999) (emphasis added);

See also U.S. v. Salinas, 701 F.3d 41 (5th Cir 1983) (affidavit filed with the court of appeals to support a petition for rehearing, averring matters contrary to statements made in the record, would not be considered because it was both untimely and not properly part of the record on appeal).

Fed. R. App. P. 10(a) defines the appellate record as consisting of the original papers and exhibits filed in the district court, the transcript of proceedings, if any, and a certified copy of the docket entries prepared by the district clerk. The information in the links embedded in Hopkins response is clearly not in the appellate record and was included in Hopkins response with the sole purpose of harassing the Burkes for presenting to this court Hopkins continual disdain and violation of the rules and procedures to which they should adhere.

In the alternative, the accusations that these external links and “B. The Burkes’ Repeated Attacks of the Judiciary and Counsel in the Media”, the Burkes would state that these links and any allegation Hopkins wrongly assigns to the Burkes to be unsupportable in law, see United States v. Pratt, 807 F.3d 641 (5th Cir. 2015); where Chief Judge Priscilla Owen opined, in part;

“Pratt then filed a motion for a new trial, citing revelations that a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office had posted disparaging comments about her online while her trial was underway. Pratt appeals the district court’s denial of this motion, contending that the prosecutor’s misconduct entitled Pratt to a presumption of juror prejudice…

Because the prosecutorial misconduct at issue in this case does not give rise to a presumption of prejudice, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Pratt’s motion for a new trial.”

and also contrary to the First Amendment, see United States v. Richards, 755 F.3d 269, 271 (5th Cir. 2014), in part, Judge Higginson’s opinion opened with;

“The First Amendment restrains government to “make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” U.S. Const. amend. I. Speech, as expression, “arcs toward the place where meaning may lie,” and when that meaning is hurtful or dislikable—meaningful, perhaps, to the bigot, or the flag burner—courts must be vigilant to affirm First Amendment protection.

See Snyder v. Phelps, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 1207, 1219, 179 L.Ed.2d 172 (2011); Texas v. Johnson,491 U.S. 397, 404–405, 109 S.Ct. 2533, 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989).

Mark and Shelley Hopkins are seasoned lawyers and admit in their response they are familiar with Texas state laws and Federal laws. They also claim to be extremely knowledgeable about the rules, including Rule 27.4, as detailed in their reply. Hopkins enlarged on this Court’s local rule, including their own misguided interpretation of the rule and which is analyzed in section III below.

Attorneys are officers of the court and held to a higher standard. See; Coane v. Ferrara Pan Candy Co., 898 F.2d 1030, 1033 (5th Cir. 1990). Here, they are violating their own arguments from earlier in this case and where this court granted their Motions to Strike. Hopkins continually stomps on Federal and Appellate Rules, as well as Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. See In re Medrano, 956 F.2d 101, 102-03 (5th Cir. 1992);

“. . . No attorney permitted to practice before this Court shall engage in any conduct which degrades or impugns the integrity of the Court or in any manner interferes with the administration of justice therein.”

Once again, Hopkins ask this court to excuse their malevolent behavior because they are ‘busy’ lawyers and that somehow, several conferences being blanked is excusable conduct for seasoned appellate lawyers, because they don’t want to answer the ‘vexatious’ Burkes ‘bile’ and ‘baseless’ motions. Hopkins wrongly believe they are indomitable.

Examples  of  their shameless gloating, from their relationship with this court to “loving” a family who lost their appeal and ultimately their home to foreclosure, is evidenced publicly on social media  via twitter  (@shelleyluan);

“Who has the sample appellees’ brief in the Fifth Circuit website? Yep, We do! 😊” (Jun 10, 2016)

and on Linkedin (Shelley Luan Hopkins profile);

 “Literally the shortest opinion we’ve ever received. Love it!”

Citing Graham v US Bank, 18-50738, 5th Cir., Mar 7, 2019. (These facts have previously been recorded in Burkes filings).

These are not isolated incidents. Over the years, Hopkins have become more aggressive, bolstered by the protection afforded to them by the federal judges and the courts who refuse to take any disciplinary action or even warn Hopkins of their responsibilities as officers of the court. See; H.K. Porter Co. v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co., 536 F.2D 1115, 1119 (6th Cir., 1976).

“Since attorneys are officers of the court, their conduct, if dishonest, would constitute fraud on the court”.

For example, it has been well documented Mark Hopkins has admitted;

1.                 He withheld evidence, the all-important mortgage loan file from the Burkes which would prove lender application fraud, or as the FBI refer to it, financial institution fraud (FIF), see FBI website; https://2dobermans.com/woof/3g;

2.                 Admitted he lied to Magistrate Judge Peter Bray with his heinous allegations that the Burkes wanted “certain judges be shot”; and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.                 Hopkins (et al) committed perjury in this court a year ago, on July 31, 2020, by falsely claiming to have conferenced with the Burkes, when in fact they did not confer and had no answer. As such, Hopkins remained silent and allowed this court to clean up their mess and legal wrongdoings, once again.[1]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Certainly, the evidence herein and throughout this appeal, as memorialized on the dockets both this court and from the lower court, which is the focus of this Motion, wholly supports the perception that admitted serial liar and attorney Mark Hopkins, along with his partner and law firm, receives preferential treatment from this court. Some examples are shown below as evidence;

4.                 The Burkes were denied extensions of time or times granted were shortened in both appeals during briefing. However, Hopkins extensions for time were always granted for the time requested. This is documented in the Burkes Motion for Reconsideration off the Clerks order dated 8th October, 2020 (Filed 15 October, 2021).

5.                 Fifth Circuit Clerk Jan Wynne unconstitutionally  refused to file a Motion to Clarify[2] wherein the Burkes had telephoned the Department of Justice in Washington to find out if the Attorney General was responding to the Burkes Constitutional Challenge. The Department claimed non-receipt of the challenge and despite the Burkes holding a USPS return receipt.

The Clerk abused her position by stating the Burkes had not requested relief by noticing the court of non-receipt by a Government agency, however, the Court was on notice by the Burkes that the Fifth Circuit’s internally issued letter to the AG’s office was never received and reissue was required, which was outwith the Burkes control.

6.                 Fifth Circuit Clerk Jann Wynne unconstitutionally and in defiance of due process and as per the Appellate Rules Committee, wrongly rejected a compliant Petition for Rehearing En Banc by adding a new deficiency upon receipt of the corrected Petition which was not identified in the initial deficiency letter.[3]

7.                 Fifth Circuit Clerk Christina Gardner unlawfully entered a motion for reconsideration on behalf of the Burkes.[4]

Truly, one only needs to look at when the Certificate of Conference became a ‘selective’ issue. It was while Hopkins was filing his motions to strike in July 2020. On August 2, the Fifth Circuit clerks’ rejected two of the Burkes motions which had been submitted on a Sunday, as the certificate stated it was submitted out of office hours and hence conferencing could not be performed. However, the Burkes had previously filed many similar motions, successfully navigating the Clerks review(s).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Burkes Motion per screenshot  accepted on July 27, 2020, despite disclaimer.

 

The standard of review at the Fifth Circuit Clerks’ office and Court opinions[5] is random, inconsistent and comes with the whiff of home cooking on Hopkins side of the case, citing Judge Gregg Costa[6].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Burkes Motion per screenshot  accepted on July 6, 2020, despite disclaimer.

Relatedly, the Burkes filed similar motions excusing conferencing frequently at the sister court, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, without incident.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Burkes Motion per screenshot  accepted at 11th Cir., despite disclaimer.

That stated, when the Burkes were made aware, they immediately complied. Now, as stated in their Motion for Sanctions, they seek to see if lawyers are held to at least the same standards as pro se, non-prisoner litigants in this court.

If there is any due process of law and justice available in this circuit court, then the Burkes meritorious request for sanctions should be granted along with this Motion to Strike.

[1] See Burkes Motion for Sanctions (in part); “The Burkes previously requested this court apply its inherent power to discipline an attorney as detailed in Case 20-20209, Doc. 00515526917, 08/13/2020, ‘Appellants Motion for Reconsideration of Single Judge’s Order Dated 4th August, 2020’.” (Motion denied).

[2] Verbatim; “DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the entitled, “Appellants notice regarding attorney general Barr’s constitutional…..”, which was filed as a motion for clarification of an order dated 11/13/19, received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke because the document is not requesting any relief. It indicates it is a “notice”. The event will be deleted. [19-20267] (JMW) [Entered: 11/15/2019 10:38 AM]”

The title of the Burkes Motion in full; Appellants Notice Regarding Attorney General Barr’s Constitutional Challenge and Motion to Clarify The 60-Day Rule. To deny filing this motion (see https://2dobermans.com/woof/3j) was an abuse of power by Clerk Jann Wynne.

[3] This is subject to a lengthy series of filings which is discussed in a separate, related motion responding to Hopkins Opposition to the Burkes Motion for Reconsideration.

However, the court may wish to review section D of the Burkes Motion to Correct Opinion, filed on 18 July, 2021 discussing Appellate Chair Judge Bybee’s and Mr. Bryon’s comments

[4] See footnote 3.

[5] See; Strong v. Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C., No. 16-11346, at *4 n.3 (5th Cir. Dec. 11, 2017); rejecting argument where there is non-compliance with rule 27.4 and which begs the question; Why was this Motion to Strike only rejected at the time of this Court’s opinion in a pro se foreclosure case and not addressed by the clerks’ office, responsible for checking and rejecting deficient or non-compliant filings?

Furthermore, the opinion in Strong goes onto say; the district court concluded that the motion was rendered untimely because the Strongs failed to comply with the district court’s local rules by failing to include a Certificate of Conference, at *7.

[6] See  “We are mindful that the whiff of home cooking also pervades the Texas side of this case. There is a deep irony in allowing DeJoria to contend he was denied due process in Morocco when it was his lobbying efforts that changed the rules of the game midway through the proceedings in the United States. Indeed, the Supreme Court of Texas has been suspicious of retroactive laws that inure to the benefit of only one company or individual. Robinson , 335 S.W.3d at 149.” Dejoria v. Maghreb Petroleum Expl., S.A., 935 F.3d 381, 389 (5th Cir. 2019).

I.                              HOPKINS RESPONSES TO THE BURKES EMAIL NOTICES ABOUT PROPOSED MOTIONS ARE INAPPOSITE

Hopkins arguments, including; ‘The Burkes requests were either provided under an impossible timeline or the request failed to include any necessary information upon which an evaluation of the request could be made’ fail.[7]

A.               No Time to Reply to Hopkins:

The following email was received from Shelley Hopkins at 12:55 pm and it was filed at the Fifth Circuit 9 minutes later at 1.04 pm and as such, with the wording ‘We will assume you are opposed’ could never be considered an attempt to ‘confer’.

B.                Hopkins Responds in 5 minutes

The following email with the Burkes two proposed filings attached were sent at 11:16 am.

Hopkins replied 5 short minutes later at 11:21 am.

C.               After the Burkes filed their Motion for Sanctions, a subsequent motion response was timely by Hopkins.

The Burkes sent an email on July 9, 2021 as shown below at 6:42am;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After blanking all prior listed conference emails, once the Burkes filed  the Motion for Sanctions, the response by Hopkins was received in less than 3 hours, at 8.58 am.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This repels Hopkins argument;

“While Appellee’s counsel is aware that the Court expects litigants to communicate with one and other, there is no requirement within Rule 27.4 that mandates an immediate response to incoming request from a movant. Rather, Rule 27.4 instructive in that the rule informs a litigant to simply list within the motion that the litigant “attempted to contact all other parties.” As with every attorney’s practice, this case is not the sole matter for Appellee’s counsel. As with a very busy docket, incoming inquiries take time to review and then provide appropriately reasoned responses.”

D.               The Arguments presented by Hopkins are Unavailing

Setting aside Hopkins unprofessional response, there is no excuse for blanking all email requests for conferencing when communication by email has been the standard employed in cases involving Hopkins.

 

 

 

 

 

Hopkins admitting ‘JOINT Responsibility’ to Confer; ROA19-20267.416, #6, Jan 30, 2019 (This motion was also the submitting in ROA for case 20-20209).

 

 

 

Hopkins admits to  ONLY communication IN WRITING as preference when not in court; ROA19-20267.416, #6, Jan 30, 2019  (This motion was also the submitting in ROA for case 20-20209).

Indeed, the Burkes have used the same method in the CFPB/Ocwen intervenor appeals at the 11th Circuit and opposing counsel in those proceedings respond by email in a timely manner. The Burkes are more than willing to furnish this court with this supporting and irrefutable evidence, should the court wish to take judicial notice, or in the alternative, sua sponte this court can order  Hopkins to furnish time logs for emails on the days Mark and Shelley Hopkins along with Kate Barry claim that the Burkes notice periods offered an ‘impossible timeline’, considering every response they send is a one word; Opposed.

This data will verify, and as the Burkes suspect, Hopkins response is yet another perjurious and dishonest statement. See In re Grodner, 587 F. App’x 166, 2-3 (5th Cir. 2014). The Burkes maintain, it doesn’t take but a few seconds to type the word ‘Opposed’ into an email response and hit the send button.

Furthermore, the Burkes are the parties who suffered the ‘impossible timeline’ as per the example shown above, namely a notice to confer by Hopkins with a 9 minute lag, in which period of time it was documented as filed on ECF/Pacer at this court.  It’s the pot calling the kettle black.[2]

In the alternative, Hopkins states the Burkes never provided sufficient detail of the proposed filings. This argument also fails, first because Hopkins, when they do confer, are guilty of the same alleged shortcomings. Second, if they were that concerned, they would email asking for clarification or raise their concerns in order that the Burkes may respond.

With no attempt to confer by blanking the Burkes good faith efforts, you cannot then blame opposing counsel that they didn’t give you all the information you wanted. That’s what ‘confer’ means. Hopkins response sounds even more absurd when they don’t provide the Burkes the same information or time to respond when filing their motions.  Again, it’s the pot calling the kettle black.

Finally, the Burkes ask this court to review the Certificate of Conference included in this motion, wherein Hopkins responded to the Burkes emailed notice in one and a half hours (give or take a minute). It proves that filing a Sanctions motion has stirred Hopkins into compliance, at least temporarily.

[7] From Hopkins response: “The reality is that the Burkes have repeatedly violated rule 27.4 by failing to actually attempt to confer in good faith. The Burkes’ “conference” emails have: (1) failed to describe the contents of their motions, (2) failed to indicate what relief is being requested, (3) failed to attach any proposed motion for Appellee’s counsels’ consideration, and (4) failed to give Appellee’s counsel time to respond to the request. The Burkes typically file their frivolous motions within hours of sending an email to Appellee’s counsel whereby essentially prohibiting Appellee’s counsel from inquiring further and/or responding at all.”

“The Burkes typically file their frivolous motions within hours of sending an email to Appellee’s counsel whereby essentially prohibiting Appellee’s counsel from inquiring further and/or responding at all.”

“The Burkes’ efforts at conferencing pursuant to Rule 27.4 have been hollow, with their emails and conduct reflecting the disingenuous nature of their ways.”

[8] See; Wikipedia https://2dobermans.com/woof/3h.

I.                              DOES FRAP 46 APPLY TO HOPKINS?

As stated above, Hopkins admit they are experienced attorneys at State and Federal courts and know the laws and rules inside out. Thus, the Burkes question their omission of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46 (FRAP46) in their rambling reply. Does failure to reply to several requests to confer fall under the discipline listed in FRAP 46? The Burkes suggest it clearly does;

(c) Discipline. A court of appeals may discipline an attorney who practices before it for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar or for failure to comply with any court rule.

II.                           RELIEF REQUESTED

The Burkes civilly request this Court strike Hopkins response in its entirety or reject it for refiling without the embedded linked  and improperly submitted materials which Hopkins wrongfully disclosed with the intent to do harm. The Burkes adequately rely upon Hopkins own Motion(s) and citations to do so; See Clark v. Coats & Clark Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 609-610 (11th Cir. 1991)(granting motion to strike an affidavit submitted on appeal that was not a part of the record) – as these citations were persuasive in this  court.

In the alternative, the Burkes maintain they are protected by the First Amendment and Hopkins claims in their now standard response using over-zealous, unprofessional and rampaging language, for example; “bile, baseless, vexatious, slanderous online posts” is merely smoke and mirrors; an attempt to divert the court and the Burkes away from the simple focus of the Burkes motions, namely Hopkins refusal to respond to requests to confer. As such, this part of the response is wholly without merit or foundation in law and is most certainly yet another wicked assault on the Burkes character and unbecoming of lawyers, as officers of the court.

When they eventually do address the Burkes allegations, Hopkins fails miserably. As stated earlier, the pot calling the kettle black is the simple way to describe Hopkins allegations. As such, the presented arguments (per section II. ARGUMENT in Hopkins response) are absurd. When Mark Hopkins committed perjury in his sworn affidavit/certificate of conference dated July 31, 2020, this court denied the Burkes motions and refused to hold him accountable.  A year later and Hopkins is emboldened to the point they are completely flouting the rules as advised. The Burkes once again wish to determine as part of the growing dossier of misconduct by Hopkins, if this court will apply the rules to Hopkins, et al and grant the sanctions as summarized in the conclusion section below.

III.                       CONCLUSION

In summary, the Burkes formally request the Court  (i) strike Hopkins response; (ii) grant the Burkes Motion for Sanctions[9] against Hopkins for their continual [mis]conduct, and to prevent them from filing further Motions in these proceedings (wherein they are guilty of the acts they claim to have been subjected to) and to prevent future inappropriate and repetitively malicious conduct.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED:   28 July, 2021

[9] The Burkes seek ‘non-monetary’ sanctions as pro se litigants. They civilly ask this court to refer both Mr. and Mrs. Hopkins to the State Bar of Texas for their continued and repetitive [mis]conduct and suspend these attorneys from appearing before this court for a period of one year. See; U.S. v. Garza-Espinoza, C.R. No. M-08-4986M, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2008).

Pro Se Randall Rollins Allowed to Amend his Federal Complaint Four Times in SDTX, Houston Div’n

Judge Eskridge: Rollins has filed four complaints in federal court. Even so, he fails to state claims that can survive jurisdictional attack.

The Lane Law Gettin’ Back Into Foreclosure Defense, Despite No Apology from Judge Hittner

It’s Bobby and Shelley back for U.S. Bank in this foreclosure case, Mark Hopkins is AWOL and Matt Graham is off doing personal injury stuff.

Upcoming CLE with Fifth Circuit Law Clerks: DO NOT File Motions as Litigants and DO Object to Glossin’ Opinions

Meet current and past Judicial Law Clerks at United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for Do’s and Dont’s.

General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 19-20267 Docketed: 04/22/2019
Termed: 03/30/2021
Nature of Suit: 3220 Foreclosure
Burke v. Ocwen Loan Servicing
Appeal From: Southern District of Texas, Houston
Fee Status: Fee Paid
Case Type Information:
     1) Private Civil Federal
     2) Private
     3)
Originating Court Information:
     District: 0541-4 : 4:18-CV-4544
     Court Reporter: Ebonee S. Mathis, Court Reporter
     Originating Judge: David Hittner, U.S. District Judge
     Date Filed: 12/03/2018
     Date NOA Filed:      Date Rec’d COA:
     04/18/2019      04/18/2019
Prior Cases:
     None
Current Cases:
Lead Member Start End
     Consolidated
19-20267 20-20209 03/30/2021
Panel Assignment:      Not available

 

Joanna Burke
Plaintiff – Appellant
Joanna Burke
Direct: 281-812-9591
Email: kajongwe@gmail.com
Fax: 866-705-0576
[NTC Pro Se]
46 Kingwood Greens Drive
Kingwood, TX 77339
John Burke
Plaintiff – Appellant
John Burke
Direct: 281-812-9591
Email: kajongwe@gmail.com
Fax: 866-705-0576
[NTC Pro Se]
46 Kingwood Greens Drive
Kingwood, TX 77339
v.
Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C.
Defendant – Appellee
Mark D. Hopkins
Direct: 512-600-4320
Email: mark@hopkinslawtexas.com
Fax: 512-600-4326
[COR LD NTC Retained]
Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C.
Suite 110
3 Lakeway Centre Court
Austin, TX 78734Shelley Luan Hopkins
Direct: 512-600-4323
Email: shelley@hopkinslawtexas.com
[COR NTC Retained]
Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C.
Suite 110
3 Lakeway Centre Court
Austin, TX 78734

Joanna Burke; John Burke,

Plaintiffs – Appellants

v.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C.,

Defendant – Appellee

consolidated with
_____________

No. 20-20209
_____________

Joanna Burke; John Burke,

Plaintiffs – Appellants

v.

Mark Daniel Hopkins; Shelley Hopkins; Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C.,

Defendants – Appellees

04/22/2019  Open Document
3 pg, 74.67 KB
PRIVATE CIVIL FEDERAL CASE docketed. NOA filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [19-20267] (CSG) [Entered: 04/22/2019 01:34 PM]
04/22/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 127.77 KB
COURT REPORTER ACKNOWLEDGMENT received from Ebonee Mathis. [19-20267] (Ebonee S. Mathis ) [Entered: 04/22/2019 02:54 PM]
05/02/2019 FEE PAID by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke. [19-20267] (CSG) [Entered: 05/02/2019 02:14 PM]
05/02/2019  Open Document
4 pg, 208.46 KB
INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete, Action: Case OK to Process. [9043617-2] Initial AA Check Due satisfied.. Transcript order due on 05/17/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [19-20267] (CSG) [Entered: 05/02/2019 02:20 PM]
05/03/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 59.74 KB
APPEARANCE FORM for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [19-20267] (Mark D. Hopkins ) [Entered: 05/03/2019 11:23 AM]
05/03/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 59.95 KB
APPEARANCE FORM received from Ms. Shelley Luan Hopkins for Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? No. [19-20267] (Shelley Luan Hopkins ) [Entered: 05/03/2019 11:26 AM]
05/03/2019 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Shelley Luan Hopkins for Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. in 19-20267 [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 05/03/2019 02:59 PM]
05/03/2019 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney(s) Mark D. Hopkins for party(s) Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C., in case 19-20267 [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 05/03/2019 03:00 PM]
05/08/2019  Open Document
7 pg, 211.67 KB
MOTION filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke for leave to file electronically as a pro se party [9048328-2]. Date of service: 05/06/2019 Document is insufficient for the following reasons: Did not conference with the opposing side and the motion does not have a certificate of compliance. Sufficient Mtn/Resp/Reply due on 05/20/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 05/08/2019 03:10 PM]
05/08/2019  Open Restricted Document
6 pg, 155.52 KB
LETTER OF ADVISEMENT. Reason: Advising appellants they must file a transcript order form as stated in our letter of 5/2/2019. If one is not filed, the case will be dismissed for want of prosecution. [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 05/08/2019 03:20 PM]
05/14/2019  Open Document
3 pg, 171.25 KB
TRANSCRIPT ORDER received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke. DETAILS: Transcript Order: Court Reporter: Ebonee S. Mathis, Proceeding Type and Date: Hearing 02/06/2019. Transcript Order ddl satisfied. [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 05/14/2019 12:30 PM]
05/14/2019 ACKNOWLEDGMENT Transcript Order: Court Reporter: Ebonee S. Mathis, Est. Completion Dt: 05/17/2019, Dt. Fin Arrangements Made: 04/19/2019, Dt. Trans. to be Filed: 05/17/2019, Proceeding Type and Date: Hearing 02/06/2019. Transcript Due/Court Reporter Discount Date is 05/17/2019 for Ebonee S. Mathis, Court Reporter [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 05/14/2019 12:31 PM]
05/28/2019 TRANSCRIPT FILED IN DISTRICT COURT Transcript Order: Court Reporter: Ebonee S. Mathis, Dt. Filed in Dist. Ct: 05/17/2019 Transcript Due/Court Reporter Discount Date canceled [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 05/28/2019 07:28 AM]
05/28/2019 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL REQUESTED FROM DISTRICT COURT for 4:18-CV-4544. Electronic ROA due on 06/03/2019. [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 05/28/2019 07:28 AM]
05/30/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 78.23 KB
CLERK ORDER granting appellants’ Motion for leave for pro se to file electronically filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9048328-2] [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 05/30/2019 10:58 AM]
06/05/2019 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL FILED. Exhibits on File in District Court? No. Electronic ROA deadline satisfied. [19-20267] (PAC) [Entered: 06/05/2019 01:31 PM]
06/05/2019  Open Document
4 pg, 126.08 KB
BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED A/Pet’s Brief Due on 07/15/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. [19-20267] (PAC) [Entered: 06/05/2019 01:31 PM]
07/14/2019  Open Document
81 pg, 822.22 KB
SUFFICIENT APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED # of Copies Provided: 0
Sufficient Brief deadline satisfied. Paper Copies of Brief due on 07/30/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED Instructions to Attorney: PLEASE READ THE ATTACHED NOTICE FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO REMEDY THE DEFAULT. # of Copies Provided: 0 A/Pet’s Brief deadline satisfied. Sufficient Brief due on 07/29/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke.. Record Excerpts due on 07/29/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. Appellee’s Brief due on 08/13/2019 for Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. [19-20267] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED by Mr. John Burke. Date of service: 07/14/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/14/2019 02:50 PM]
07/14/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 256.93 KB
APPEARANCE FORM received from Mr. John Burke for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/14/2019 02:57 PM]
07/15/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 75.34 KB
Party Mr. John Burke is advised that pro se parties do not file appearance forms. [19-20267] (LBM) [Entered: 07/15/2019 09:46 AM]
07/17/2019  Open Restricted Document
78 pg, 745 KB
PROPOSED SUFFICIENT BRIEF filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 [9096817-2] Brief has been deemed insufficient. Corrections required: Caption to be corrected, table of authorities to be added to the table of content, identify the standard of review, incorrect ROA nimber on page 28. Instructions to Attorney: PLEASE READ THE ATTACHED NOTICE FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO REMEDY THE DEFAULT. Sufficient Brief deadline satisfied. Sufficient Brief deadline updated to 08/02/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: PROPOSED SUFFICIENT BRIEF filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9096817-2] Date of service: 07/17/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/17/2019 10:21 AM]
07/17/2019  Open Document
48 pg, 2.22 MB
SUFFICIENT RECORD EXCERPTS FILED. # of Copies Provided: 0 Sufficient Record Excerpts deadline satisfied. Paper Copies of Record Excerpts due on 07/30/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: RECORD EXCERPTS FILED. Record Excerpts NOT Sufficient as they require caption to be corrected, all documents in the table of content to have ROA numbers. Instructions to Attorney: PLEASE READ THE ATTACHED NOTICE FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO REMEDY THE DEFAULT. # of Copies Provided: 0 Record Excerpts deadline satisfied. Sufficient Record Excerpts due on 08/02/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [19-20267] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: RECORD EXCERPTS FILED by Appellant Mr. John Burke. Date of service: 07/17/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/17/2019 10:23 AM]
07/23/2019  Open Restricted Document
78 pg, 631.69 KB
PROPOSED SUFFICIENT BRIEF filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9096817-2] Date of service: 07/23/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/23/2019 04:49 PM]
07/23/2019  Open Restricted Document
43 pg, 2.03 MB
PROPOSED SUFFICIENT RECORD EXCERPTS filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9099430-2] Date of service: 07/23/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/23/2019 04:51 PM]
07/25/2019  Open Document
4 pg, 74.09 KB
LEVEL 1 EXTENSION REQUESTED by Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. for filing Brief of Appellee until 08/28/2019 [19-20267] (Shelley Luan Hopkins ) [Entered: 07/25/2019 03:49 PM]
07/25/2019  Open Document
9 pg, 478.94 KB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Supplemental Appendix received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke because Must file a motion to supplement the record on appeal with these documents. Filed incorrectly on our docket. [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 07/25/2019 03:52 PM]
07/26/2019  Open Document
9 pg, 385.34 KB
MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to supplement the record on appeal with With evidence of the emails between the Court Reporter, SDTX Staff and Joanna Burke as identified on pages 57 of the Burkes Brief [9106497-2]. Date of service: 07/26/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/26/2019 01:31 AM]
07/26/2019 EXTENSION RECEIVED for Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C.. Extension Denied Reason: Motion Required. Must filed using the motion filed event not the ecf ext rqst event. [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 07/26/2019 07:55 AM]
07/26/2019  Open Document
4 pg, 73.99 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. to extend time to file brief of appellee until 08/28/2019 [9106661-2]. Date of service: 07/26/2019 via email – Appellants Burke, Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins; US mail – Appellants Burke, Burke [19-20267] (Shelley Luan Hopkins ) [Entered: 07/26/2019 09:35 AM]
07/26/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 79.92 KB
CLERK ORDER granting appellee’s opposed motion to extend time to file appellee’s brief filed by Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. [9106661-2] Appellee’s Brief due on 08/28/2019 for Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 07/26/2019 10:34 AM]
07/29/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 78.94 KB
CLERK ORDER denying appellant’s Motion to supplement the record on appeal filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9106497-2] [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 07/29/2019 08:33 AM]
07/29/2019 Paper copies of Appellant Brief filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 7. Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied. [19-20267] (CMB) [Entered: 08/01/2019 12:27 PM]
07/29/2019 Paper copies of Record Excerpts filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 4. Paper Copies of Record Excerpts due deadline satisfied. [19-20267] (CMB) [Entered: 08/01/2019 12:37 PM]
08/28/2019  Open Document
43 pg, 494.6 KB
APPELLEE’S BRIEF FILED # of Copies Provided: 0 E/Res’s Brief deadline satisfied. Reply Brief due on 09/18/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. Paper Copies of Brief due on 09/03/2019 for Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C.. [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLEE’S BRIEF FILED by Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C.. Date of service: 08/28/2019 via email – Appellants Burke, Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins; US mail – Appellant Burke [19-20267] (Mark D. Hopkins ) [Entered: 08/28/2019 12:52 PM]
08/29/2019  Open Document
6 pg, 195.19 KB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Extension Request received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke because this document must be filed as a motion using the motion filed event and not the attorney extension request event [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 08/29/2019 07:56 AM]
08/29/2019  Open Document
5 pg, 104.79 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to extend time to file reply brief until 10/02/2019 [9132646-2]. Date of service: 08/29/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 08/29/2019 08:12 AM]
08/29/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 87.9 KB
CLERK ORDER granting in part appllants’ opposed Motion to extend time to file reply brief filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9132646-2] Reply Brief deadline updated to 09/25/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 08/29/2019 12:37 PM]
08/30/2019 Paper copies of Appellee Brief filed by Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. in 19-20267 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 7. Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied. [19-20267] (MRW) [Entered: 08/30/2019 02:11 PM]
09/18/2019  Open Document
6 pg, 193.8 KB
FED. R. APP. P. 44 Notice of Challenge to Constitutionality of Statute filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke. [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: FED. R. APP. P. 44 Notice of Challenge to Constitutionality of Statute filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke. Date of Service: 09/18/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 09/18/2019 04:13 AM]
09/19/2019  Open Document
9 pg, 125.99 KB
OPPOSED MOTION to stay further proceedings in this court for 90 days . Reason: awaiting a final rule or adjudication on the constitional challenges, to suspend briefing notice dated 06/05/2019 [9148078-3]. Date of service: 09/19/2019 Response/Opposition due on 09/30/2019. [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to stay further proceedings in this court. Reason: Constitutional Challenge(s), to extend time to file reply brief until 03/18/2020 [9148078-3]. Date of service: 09/19/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 09/19/2019 06:46 AM]
09/25/2019  Open Document
43 pg, 617.61 KB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Reply Brief received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke because FIled incorrectly on the docket as a Rule 28(i) letter. [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 09/27/2019 09:43 AM]
09/27/2019  Open Document
43 pg, 623.12 KB
APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF FILED by Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr John Burke. [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF FILED # of Copies Provided: 0 Reply Brief deadline satisfied. Paper Copies of Brief due on 10/07/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. [19-20267] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF FILED by Mr. John Burke. Date of service: 09/27/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 09/27/2019 10:57 PM]
10/07/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 90.67 KB
Paper copies of Appellant Reply Brief filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes They require: durable gray covers # of Copies Provided: 7. Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied.. Sufficient Paper Copies of Brief due on 10/15/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [19-20267] (MRW) [Entered: 10/07/2019 01:31 PM]
10/11/2019 Paper copies of Reply Brief [9161773-2] received as sufficient. Sufficient Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied. [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 10/18/2019 11:10 AM]
10/19/2019  Open Document
8 pg, 165.47 KB
OPPOSED MOTION alternative request to stay case for a period of no less than nine (9) months, (which equates to the anticipated timeline for a decision in the Selia Law case before the US Supreme Court) [9170890-3]. Date of service: 10/19/2019 [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to stay further proceedings in this court. Reason: US Supreme Court Selia Law Case #19-7 re CFPB Constitutionality Question and Dodd-Frank Act Question. Date of service: 10/19/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 10/19/2019 08:57 PM]
10/25/2019  Open Document
10 pg, 149.25 KB
RESPONSE/OPPOSITION filed by Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. [9176007-1] to the Motion to stay further proceedings in this court filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9170890-2], Motion to stay further proceedings in this court filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9148078-2], Motion to suspend briefing notice filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9148078-3], Letter filed by Appellants Mr. John Burke, Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9146872-2] Date of Service: 10/25/2019 via email – Appellants Burke, Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins; US mail – Appellant Burke. [19-20267] (Mark D. Hopkins ) [Entered: 10/25/2019 01:12 PM]
10/27/2019  Open Document
64 pg, 2.78 MB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke for leave to file a supplement to Response/Opposition [9176007-2], Letter [9146872-2] [9176432-2], to supplement the record on appeal with two exhibits as uploaded here [9176432-3] and INCORPORATED RESPONSE to the Motion to supplement the record on appeal filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9106497-2] Date of service: 10/27/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 10/27/2019 07:19 PM]
10/28/2019  Open Document
6 pg, 163.45 KB
REPLY filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9176855-1] to the Response/Opposition filed by Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. in 19-20267 [9176007-2]. Date of Service: 10/27/2019. [19-20267] (INCORPORATED IN MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD) (DMS) [Entered: 10/28/2019 11:24 AM]
10/28/2019  Open Document
2 pg, 119.88 KB
COURT ORDER denying Motion to stay further proceedings in this court filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9148078-2]; denying Motion to suspend briefing notice filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9148078-3] [19-20267] (AS) [Entered: 10/28/2019 12:29 PM]
10/28/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 78.51 KB
CLERK ORDER denying appellant’s opposed Motion to supplement the record on appeal filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9176432-3] [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 10/28/2019 02:01 PM]
11/07/2019  Open Document
11 pg, 264.69 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke for reconsideration of the Order dated 10/28/2019 [9185202-2]. Date of service: 11/07/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 11/07/2019 11:07 AM]
11/10/2019  Open Document
7 pg, 312.79 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Ms. Joanna Burke for reconsideration of the 10/28/2019 clerk order denying Motion to supplement the record on appeal filed by Appellants in 19-20267 [9176432-3] [9186922-2]. Date of service: 11/10/2019 [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke for reconsideration of the Order dated 10/28/2019 [9186922-2]. Date of service: 11/10/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 11/10/2019 01:42 PM]
11/13/2019  Open Document
2 pg, 103.34 KB
COURT ORDER – A member of this panel previously denied appellants’ opposed motion to stay case in Fifth Circuit awaiting a final rule or adjudication on the constitutional challenges. The panel has considered appellants’ motion for reconsideration. IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
[9185202-2] [19-20267] (JMW) [Entered: 11/13/2019 03:10 PM]
11/13/2019  Open Document
11 pg, 746.24 KB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the motion entitled, “Appellants motion for reconsideration RE Constitutional Challenges” received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in light of the 11/13/19 court order already denying a motion for reconsideration, as to that prior motion [19-20267] (JMW) [Entered: 11/15/2019 09:26 AM]
11/14/2019  Open Document
7 pg, 339.56 KB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the entitled, “Appellants notice regarding attorney general Barr’s constitutional…..”, which was filed as a motion for clarification of an order dated 11/13/19, received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke because the document is not requesting any relief. It indicates it is a “notice”. The event will be deleted. [19-20267] (JMW) [Entered: 11/15/2019 10:38 AM]
11/15/2019  Open Document
2 pg, 117.11 KB
COURT ORDER – IT IS ORDERED that appellant’s opposed motion to stay the case until the matter of the CFPB’s Constitutionality is answered by the United States Supreme Court is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellants’ opposed alternative request to stay the case for period of no less than nine (9) months, (which equates to the anticipated timeline for a decision in the Selia Law case before the United States Supreme Court) is DENIED AS MOOT. [9170890-2]; [9170890-3] [19-20267] (JMW) [Entered: 11/15/2019 09:06 AM]
11/17/2019  Open Document
21 pg, 278.38 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke for reconsideration of the 11/15/2019 court order denying Motion to stay further proceedings in this court filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 [9148078-2], Motion to suspend briefing notice filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 [9148078-3] [9191242-2]. [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke for reconsideration of the Order dated 11/15/2019 [9191242-2]. Date of service: 11/17/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 11/17/2019 09:27 PM]
11/18/2019  Open Document
2 pg, 118.51 KB
COURT ORDER filed: On October 28, 2019, the clerk denied pro se appellants’ opposed motion to supplement the record with a pleading and exhibits. Upon consideration of pro se appellants’ motion for reconsideration, IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. [9186922-2] [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 11/18/2019 02:21 PM]
12/19/2019  Open Document
2 pg, 85.38 KB
COURT ORDER FILED: A member of this panel previously denied appellants’ opposed motion for reconsideration of appellants’ opposed motion to stay the case until the matter of the CFPB’s Constitutionality is answered by the United States Supreme Court and appellants’ opposed alternative request to stay the case for period of no less than (9) months. The panel has considered appellants’ opposed motion for reconsideration. IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. [9191242-2] [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 12/19/2019 03:14 PM]
02/03/2020  Open Document
509 pg, 18.21 MB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Brief and Record Excerpts received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke because The brief and record excerpts are entitled In the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The case number on both documents is 19-13015, with a lower court number 9:17-CV-80495. [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 02/06/2020 12:05 PM]
02/10/2020  Open Document
3 pg, 132.17 KB
LETTER filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke Date of Service: 02/10/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 02/10/2020 09:10 AM]
07/05/2020  Open Document
17 pg, 282.51 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to stay the case 5cca; or stay case for a period of no less than 4 months [9348363-2]. Date of service: 07/05/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/05/2020 09:23 PM]
07/06/2020  Open Document
77 pg, 1.09 MB
EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT of opposed motion to stay further proceedings in this court….. [9348363-2] filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [19-20267] (JMW) [Entered: 07/07/2020 10:29 AM]
07/08/2020  Open Document
3 pg, 117 KB
COURT ORDER denying opposed motion to stay the case in this court filed by pro se appellants; denying the alternative opposed motion of pro se appellants to stay the case for a period of no less than 4 months [9348363-2] [19-20267] (JMW) [Entered: 07/08/2020 08:28 AM]
09/04/2020  Open Document
22 pg, 1 MB
MOTION filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke for judicial notice [9394044-2]. Date of service: 09/04/2020 [19-20267] (CAG) [Entered: 09/08/2020 08:59 AM]
03/30/2021  Open Document
13 pg, 225.24 KB
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [19-20267; 20-20209 Affirmed] Judge: PRO, Judge: WED, Judge: JLD. Mandate issue date is 04/21/2021; denying Motion for judicial notice filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9394044-2] in 19-20267, denying Motion for judicial notice filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9394017-2] in 20-20209 [19-20267, 20-20209] (WMJ) [Entered: 03/30/2021 03:01 PM]
03/30/2021  Open Document
2 pg, 74.3 KB
JUDGMENT ENTERED AND FILED. Costs Taxed Against: appellants. [19-20267, 20-20209] (WMJ) [Entered: 03/30/2021 03:06 PM]
04/13/2021  Open Document
70 pg, 1.23 MB
PETITION for rehearing en banc [9549894-2] Number of Copies:0. Since it could not be determined that the filing on 05/17/2021 was not emailed, Clerk’s Office has filed the document as proposed sufficient rehearing. However, document remains insufficient for lack of copy of the Court’s opinion. Sufficient Rehearing due on 07/09/2021 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. Date of Service: 05/14/2021 [19-20267, 20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: PETITION filed by Appellant Ms. Joanna Burke in 19-20267 for rehearing en banc [9549894-2] Mandate issue date canceled.. Sufficient Rehearing due on 04/26/2021 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. Date of Service: 04/13/2021 Document is insufficient for the following reasons: case caption must match our case caption exactly; statement of facts; copy of the court’s opinion [19-20267, 20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: PETITION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 for rehearing en banc [9549894-2]. Date of Service: 04/13/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 04/13/2021 07:27 PM]
04/23/2021  Open Document
25 pg, 972.38 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Ms. Joanna Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 file petition in present form [9557920-2]. [19-20267, 20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Ms. Joanna Burke in 19-20267 alternative request for extension of 10 days to make rehearing sufficient; for leave to waive requirement to file paper rehearings [9557920-2] [9549894-2] [9557920-4], alternative request for extension of 10 days to make rehearing sufficient; for leave to waive requirement to file paper rehearings [9557920-2]. Date of service: 04/23/2021 [19-20267, 20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 for leave to file petition in present form [9549894-2] [9557920-2]. Date of service: 04/23/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 04/23/2021 12:00 PM]
05/05/2021  Open Document
3 pg, 127.24 KB
COURT ORDER denying motion to file Petition for Rehearing En Banc in present form, to omit the Statement of Facts requirement, filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9557920-2], denying as unnecessary motion to waive the paper requirement, filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9557920-3]; granting alternative motion to extend time to return a sufficient Petition for Rehearing En Banc 10 days from the date of this order, filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9557920-4] [19-20267, 20-20209] (JMW) [Entered: 05/05/2021 07:57 AM]
05/12/2021  Open Document
7 pg, 229.11 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 to extend the time to file a rehearing until 05/26/2021 [9572022-2]. Date of service: 05/12/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 05/12/2021 08:44 AM]
05/14/2021  Open Document
8 pg, 309.14 KB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the motion for reconsideration of single judge’s order received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 because the motion is premature, as the extension motion is still pending with the court [19-20267, 20-20209] (JMW) [Entered: 05/19/2021 01:50 PM]
05/17/2021  Open Document
35 pg, 627.82 KB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Proposed sufficient rehearing en banc received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 because It is a duplicative filing, as the rehearing should be emailed, not re-filed. Additionally, it still remains insufficent as it does not have a copy of the court’s opinion. [19-20267, 20-20209] (CCR) [Entered: 05/17/2021 03:52 PM]
05/28/2021  Open Document
3 pg, 124.48 KB
COURT ORDER denying Motion to extend the time to file a petition for rehearing filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9572022-2] [19-20267, 20-20209] (JMW) [Entered: 05/28/2021 02:56 PM]
05/28/2021  Open Document
7 pg, 231.34 KB
MOTION filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 for reconsideration of the 05/05/2021 court order denying Motion for authorization to omit the Statement of Facts requirement for their Petition for Rehearing En Banc filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 [9557920-2] [9585172-2]. [19-20267, 20-20209] (JMW) [Entered: 05/28/2021 03:07 PM]
06/08/2021  Open Document
8 pg, 257.92 KB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Motion received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 because A motion for reconsideration is already pending [19-20267, 20-20209] (DMS) [Entered: 06/08/2021 09:04 AM]
06/21/2021  Open Document
3 pg, 138.34 KB
COURT ORDER denying Motion for reconsideration filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9585172-2] in 19-20267 [19-20267, 20-20209] (RLL) [Entered: 06/21/2021 03:33 PM]
06/28/2021  Open Document
8 pg, 175.28 KB
MOTION to stay issuance of the mandate [9607360-2]. Date of service: 06/28/2021 [19-20267, 20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 to stay further proceedings in this court. Reason: US Supreme Court and this Court’s All American and Collins cases.. Date of service: 06/28/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 06/28/2021 08:36 PM]
07/01/2021  Open Document
29 pg, 1.43 MB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Appellants’ Motion to Disqualify Chief Judge Owen received from Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 because wrong filing event used [19-20267, 20-20209] (SDH) [Entered: 07/02/2021 01:56 PM]
07/03/2021  Open Document
28 pg, 1.35 MB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 to disqualify Court of Appeals Judge Priscilla Owen from the case. [9611750-2]. Date of service: 07/03/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/03/2021 06:44 AM]
07/07/2021  Open Document
3 pg, 147.97 KB
COURT ORDER FILED that Appellants’ opposed motion to disqualify Chief Judge Priscilla R. Owen is DENIED. [9611750-2] [19-20267, 20-20209] (DMS) [Entered: 07/07/2021 02:40 PM]
07/08/2021  Open Document
7 pg, 200.42 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 for clarification of the Order dated 06/29/2021. Date of service: 07/08/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/08/2021 10:02 AM]
General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 20-20209 Docketed: 04/17/2020
Termed: 03/30/2021
Nature of Suit: 3290 Other Property Actions
Burke v. Hopkins
Appeal From: Southern District of Texas, Houston
Fee Status: Fee Paid
Case Type Information:
     1) Private Civil Federal
     2) Private
     3)
Originating Court Information:
     District: 0541-4 : 4:18-CV-4543
     Originating Judge: David Hittner, U.S. District Judge
     Date Filed: 12/03/2018
     Date NOA Filed:      Date Rec’d COA:
     04/15/2020      04/15/2020
Prior Cases:
     None
Current Cases:
Lead Member Start End
     Consolidated
19-20267 20-20209 03/30/2021
Panel Assignment:      Not available

 

Joanna Burke
Plaintiff – Appellant
Joanna Burke
Direct: 281-812-9591
Email: kajongwe@gmail.com
Fax: 866-705-0576
[NTC Pro Se]
46 Kingwood Greens Drive
Kingwood, TX 77339
John Burke
Plaintiff – Appellant
John Burke
Direct: 281-812-9591
Email: kajongwe@gmail.com
Fax: 866-705-0576
[NTC Pro Se]
46 Kingwood Greens Drive
Kingwood, TX 77339
v.
Mark D. Hopkins
Defendant – Appellee
Mark D. Hopkins
Direct: 512-600-4320
Email: mark@hopkinslawtexas.com
Fax: 512-600-4326
[COR LD NTC Pro Se]
Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C.
Suite 110
3 Lakeway Centre Court
Austin, TX 78734Shelley Luan Hopkins
Direct: 512-600-4323
Email: shelley@hopkinslawtexas.com
[COR NTC Retained]
Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C.
Suite 110
3 Lakeway Centre Court
Austin, TX 78734
Shelley Hopkins
Defendant – Appellee
Mark D. Hopkins
Direct: 512-600-4320
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)Shelley Luan Hopkins
Direct: 512-600-4323
[COR NTC Pro Se]
(see above)
Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C.
Defendant – Appellee
Mark D. Hopkins
Direct: 512-600-4320
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)Shelley Luan Hopkins
Direct: 512-600-4323
[COR NTC Retained]
(see above)

_____________

No. 19-20267
_____________

Joanna Burke; John Burke,

Plaintiffs – Appellants

v.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C.,

Defendant – Appellee

consolidated with
_____________

No. 20-20209
_____________

Joanna Burke; John Burke,

Plaintiffs – Appellants

v.

Mark Daniel Hopkins; Shelley Hopkins; Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C.,

Defendants – Appellees

04/17/2020  Open Document
4 pg, 76.47 KB
PRIVATE CIVIL FEDERAL CASE docketed. NOA filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 04/17/2020 01:51 PM]
04/21/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 82.2 KB
APPEARANCE FORM received from Mr. Mark D. Hopkins for Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C., Mr. Mark D. Hopkins and Ms. Shelley Hopkins for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [20-20209] (Mark D. Hopkins ) [Entered: 04/21/2020 11:18 AM]
04/21/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 82.39 KB
APPEARANCE FORM received from Ms. Shelley Luan Hopkins for Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C., Mr. Mark D. Hopkins and Ms. Shelley Hopkins for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? No. [20-20209] (Shelley Luan Hopkins ) [Entered: 04/21/2020 11:21 AM]
04/22/2020 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Mark D. Hopkins for Appellee Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. in 20-20209, Attorney Mark D. Hopkins for Appellee Shelley Hopkins in 20-20209, Attorney Mark D. Hopkins for Appellee Mark D. Hopkins in 20-20209 [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 04/22/2020 05:51 AM]
04/22/2020 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Shelley Luan Hopkins for Appellee Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. in 20-20209, Attorney Shelley Luan Hopkins for Appellee Shelley Hopkins in 20-20209, Attorney Shelley Luan Hopkins for Appellee Mark D. Hopkins in 20-20209 [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 04/22/2020 05:52 AM]
04/22/2020 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Mark D. Hopkins for Appellee Mark D. Hopkins in 20-20209 [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 04/22/2020 05:54 AM]
04/22/2020 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Shelley Luan Hopkins for Appellee Shelley Hopkins in 20-20209 [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 04/22/2020 05:55 AM]
04/24/2020 INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete, Action: Case OK to Process after monitoring for motion to alter or amend judgment (#72). [9300045-2] Initial AA Check Due satisfied.. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 04/24/2020 06:24 AM]
05/14/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 59.12 KB
DISTRICT COURT ORDER of 05/01/2020 denying motion to alter or amend judgment (#72). [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 05/14/2020 05:57 AM]
05/14/2020  Open Document
4 pg, 117.82 KB
UPDATED CASE PROCESSING NOTICE sent. Fee due 05/29/2020. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 05/14/2020 05:59 AM]
05/28/2020  Open Document
5 pg, 253.57 KB
MOTION filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke for leave to file electronically as a pro se parties [9323502-2]. Date of service: 03/28/2020 [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 05/29/2020 04:04 PM]
05/29/2020 FEE PAID by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke. Fee deadline satisfied [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 05/29/2020 04:09 PM]
05/29/2020 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL REQUESTED FROM DISTRICT COURT for 4:18-CV-4543. Electronic ROA due on 06/15/2020. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 05/29/2020 04:10 PM]
06/01/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 75.54 KB
CLERK ORDER granting Motion for leave for pro se to file electronically filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9323502-2] [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 06/01/2020 10:26 AM]
06/03/2020 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL FILED. Exhibits on File in District Court? No. Electronic ROA deadline satisfied. [20-20209] (CMB) [Entered: 06/03/2020 11:44 AM]
06/03/2020  Open Document
4 pg, 116.79 KB
BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED A/Pet’s Brief Due on 07/13/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. [20-20209] (CMB) [Entered: 06/03/2020 11:46 AM]
06/04/2020  Open Document
2 pg, 76.87 KB
CASE CAPTION updated. Party information modified for Mark D. Hopkins in 20-20209. Update: caption does not include full middle name as indicated on the district court docket sheet. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 06/04/2020 10:05 AM]
06/05/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 75.12 KB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the request for status on judicial complaint filed as OPPOSED MOTION for clarification received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke because judicial complaints are not handled within appeals. To find out the status of a judicial complaint, appellants should contact Circuit Mediation.. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 06/05/2020 07:06 AM]
07/06/2020  Open Document
113 pg, 2.65 MB
OPPOSED JOINT MOTION filed by Appellants Mr. John Burke and Ms. Joanna Burke to stay further proceedings in this court.. Response/Opposition due on 07/16/2020. [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to stay case in 5cca [9348413-2]. Date of service: 07/06/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/06/2020 08:31 AM]
07/07/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 74.13 KB
CLERK ORDER denying opposed motion to stay further proceedings in this court filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9348413-2] [20-20209] (JMW) [Entered: 07/07/2020 03:57 PM]
07/10/2020  Open Document
5 pg, 153.63 KB
OPPOSED MOTION for reconsideration of the 07/07/2020 clerk order denying Motion to stay further proceedings in this court filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 20-20209 [9348413-2] [9352577-2]. Date of service: 07/10/2020. Response/Opposition due on 07/20/2020. [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke for reconsideration of the Order dated 07/07/2020 [9352577-2]. Date of service: 07/10/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/10/2020 10:14 AM]
07/13/2020  Open Document
2 pg, 108.41 KB
COURT ORDER DENYING Appellants’ motion for reconsideration [9352577-2]. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 07/13/2020 12:23 PM]
07/13/2020  Open Restricted Document
41 pg, 512.8 KB
STRICKEN IN LIGHT OF THE COURT ORDER OF 07/16/20.
APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED by Mr. John Burke and Ms. Joanna Burke. Brief NOT Sufficient as it requires a Certificate of Interested Parties, summary of argument, standard of review, argument, the certificate of service is out of order, and Record Excerpts are required.
SEE ATTACHED INSTRUCTIONS FOR HOW TO REMEDY THE DEFAULT. A/Pet’s Brief deadline satisfied. Record Excerpts due on 07/29/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. Sufficient Brief due on 07/29/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED by Mr. John Burke. Date of service: 07/13/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/13/2020 09:19 PM]
07/14/2020  Open Document
7 pg, 135.31 KB
MOTION to strike Appellants’ brief brief [9354874-2] and to place brief under seal [9354874-3]. Date of service: 07/14/2020. Appellants’ brief is under temporary seal. Response/Opposition due on 07/24/2020. [20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellees Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C., Mr. Mark D. Hopkins and Ms. Shelley Hopkins to strike Appellants’ Brief brief [9354874-2]. Date of service: 07/14/2020 via email – Appellants Burke, Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (Mark D. Hopkins ) [Entered: 07/14/2020 01:04 PM]
07/16/2020  Open Document
2 pg, 109.18 KB
COURT ORDER GRANTING Appellees’ motion to strike portions of the Appellants’ brief that refer to materials outside of the record [9354874-2]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Appellees’ motion to file Appellants’ brief under seal is DENIED AS MOOT [9354874-3]. Striking Appellant Brief filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9354311-2] [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 07/16/2020 04:51 PM]
07/16/2020 COURT ACTION striking Appellant Brief filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9354311-2] [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 07/16/2020 05:07 PM]
07/16/2020 BRIEFING SUSPENDED – portions stricken from appellant’s brief; establishing new briefing schedule.. Record Excerpts deadline canceled. Sufficient brief deadline canceled. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 07/16/2020 05:10 PM]
07/16/2020  Open Document
2 pg, 102.67 KB
BRIEFING RESUMED. Appellants’ brief must be refiled omitting references to material outside of the record on appeal. A/Pet’s Brief Due on 07/30/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. Record Excerpts due on 07/30/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 07/16/2020 05:13 PM]
07/27/2020  Open Document
22 pg, 263.65 KB
OPPOSED MOTION for reconsideration of the 07/16/2020 court order granting Motion to strike brief [9354874-2], and place brief under seal filed by Appellees Mr. Mark D. Hopkins, Ms. Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. in 20-20209 [9354874-3] [9363300-2]. Date of service: 07/27/2020. Response/Opposition due on 08/06/2020. [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke for reconsideration of the Order dated 07/16/2020 [9363300-2]. Date of service: 07/27/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/27/2020 12:35 AM]
07/29/2020  Open Document
3 pg, 137.04 KB
COURT ORDER DENYING Appellants’ opposed motion for reconsideration [9363300-2]. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 07/29/2020 02:03 PM]
07/30/2020  Open Restricted Document
51 pg, 418.86 KB
THIS DOCUMENT IS STRICKEN IN LIGHT OF THE COURT ORDER OF 08/04/2020.
APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED A/Pet’s Brief deadline satisfied. Paper copies are not required at this time. Appellee’s Brief due on 08/31/2020 for Appellees Mark D. Hopkins, Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED by Mr. John Burke. Date of service: 07/30/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/30/2020 07:02 PM]
07/30/2020  Open Document
81 pg, 2.37 MB
RECORD EXCERPTS FILED. Record Excerpts deadline satisfied. Paper copies are not required at this time. [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: RECORD EXCERPTS FILED by Appellant Mr. John Burke. Date of service: 07/30/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/30/2020 07:03 PM]
07/31/2020  Open Document
10 pg, 145.66 KB
MOTION to strike Appellant’s brief brief [9368451-2], to place brief under seal [9368451-3]. Date of service: 07/31/2020 [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellees Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C., Mr. Mark D. Hopkins and Ms. Shelley Hopkins to strike Appellants’ Amended Brief brief [9368451-2]. Date of service: 07/31/2020 via email – Appellants Burke, Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (Mark D. Hopkins ) [Entered: 07/31/2020 04:01 PM]
08/02/2020  Open Document
19 pg, 927.77 KB
SUFFICIENT OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellants Mr. John Burke and Ms. Joanna Burke to strike Motion to strike brief filed by Appellees Mr. Mark D. Hopkins, Ms. Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. in 20-20209 [9368451-2] [9368627-2]. [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: MOTION filed by Appellants Mr. John Burke and Ms. Joanna Burke to strike Motion to strike brief filed by Appellees Mr. Mark D. Hopkins, Ms. Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. in 20-20209 [9368451-2] [9368627-2]. Date of service: 08/03/2020. Document is insufficient for the following reasons: all motions must state that the movant has contacted or attempted to contact all other parties and must indicate whether an opposition will be filed. 5th Cir. R. 27.4. Sufficient Mtn/Resp/Reply due on 08/07/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to strike Motion to strike brief filed by Appellees Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C., Mr. Mark D. Hopkins and Ms. Shelley Hopkins [9368451-2] [9368627-2]. Date of service: 08/02/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 08/02/2020 08:04 PM]
08/02/2020  Open Document
10 pg, 278.53 KB
SUFFICIENT OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellants Mr. John Burke and Ms. Joanna Burke for a copy of the original complaint filed by Mr. Jim Harrington against Judge Clement and resulting opinion/decision/memorandum and the reason Judge Willett replaced Judge Clement on the panel in Thomas v. Bryant, 938 F.3d 134, 155 n.95 (5th Cir. 2019). [9368628-2]. [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: MOTION filed by Appellants Mr. John Burke and Ms. Joanna Burke a copy of the original complaint filed by Mr. Jim Harrington against Judge Clement and resulting opinion/decision/memorandum and the reason Judge Willett replaced Judge Clement on the panel in Thomas v. Bryant, 938 F.3d 134, 155 n.95 (5th Cir. 2019) [9368628-2]. Date of service: 08/03/2020. Document is insufficient for the following reasons: all motions must state that the movant has contacted or attempted to contact all other parties and must indicate whether an opposition will be filed. 5th Cir. R. 27.4. Sufficient Mtn/Resp/Reply due on 08/07/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke for clarification of the Order dated 07/29/2020. Date of service: 08/02/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 08/02/2020 08:08 PM]
08/04/2020 The Motion for extraordinary relief filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 20-20209 [9368628-2], Motion to strike document filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 20-20209 [9368627-2] has been made sufficient. Sufficient Mtn/Resp/Rpl deadline satisfied. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 08/04/2020 09:59 AM]
08/04/2020  Open Document
3 pg, 141.42 KB
COURT ORDER GRANTING Appellees’ opposed motion to strike Appellant’s amended brief [9368451-2]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellees’ opposed motion to place Appellants’ brief under seal is GRANTED [9368451-3]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellants’ opposed motion to strike Appellees’ opposed motion to strike Appellants’ brief is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellants’ opposed motion for a copy of a judicial complaint and resulting opinion/decision/memorandum and the reason Judge Willett was on the panel in Thomas v. Bryant, 938 F.3d 134, 155 n.95 (2019), is DENIED [9368627-2] [9368628-2]. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 08/04/2020 03:13 PM]
08/04/2020 COURT ACTION striking Appellant Brief filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9367572-2] [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 08/04/2020 03:19 PM]
08/05/2020 BRIEFING SUSPENDED – portions striken from appellants’ brief; estabilishing new briefing schedule. E/Res’s Brief deadline canceled [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 08/05/2020 05:34 AM]
08/05/2020  Open Document
2 pg, 101.36 KB
BRIEFING RESUMED. Appellants’ brief must be refiled ommitting references to material outside of the record on appeal. A/Pet’s Brief Due on 08/19/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 08/05/2020 05:36 AM]
08/13/2020  Open Document
11 pg, 188.59 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke for reconsideration of the Order dated 08/04/2020 [9377524-2]. Date of service: 08/13/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 08/13/2020 05:24 PM]
08/18/2020  Open Document
3 pg, 143.67 KB
COURT ORDER DENYING Appellants’ Motion for reconsideration [9377524-2]. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 08/18/2020 09:48 AM]
08/19/2020  Open Document
67 pg, 475.11 KB
APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED by Mr. John Burke and Ms. Joanna Burke.
A/Pet’s Brief deadline satisfied. Appellee’s Brief due on 09/18/2020 for Appellees Mark D. Hopkins, Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED by Mr. John Burke. Date of service: 08/19/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 08/19/2020 03:41 PM]
09/04/2020  Open Document
22 pg, 1.01 MB
MOTION filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke for judicial notice [9394017-2]. Date of service: 09/04/2020 [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 09/08/2020 08:43 AM]
09/08/2020  Open Document
4 pg, 122.02 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellees Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C., Mr. Mark D. Hopkins and Ms. Shelley Hopkins to extend time to file brief of appellee until 10/02/2020 [9394501-2]. Date of service: 09/08/2020 via email – Appellants Burke, Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (Mark D. Hopkins ) [Entered: 09/08/2020 01:02 PM]
09/10/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 75.3 KB
CLERK ORDER granting Motion to extend time to file appellee’s brief filed by Appellees Mr. Mark D. Hopkins, Ms. Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. [9394501-2] Appellee’s Brief due on 10/02/2020 for Appellees Mark D. Hopkins, Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 09/10/2020 08:18 AM]
10/02/2020  Open Document
42 pg, 377.75 KB
APPELLEE’S BRIEF FILED E/Res’s Brief deadline satisfied. Reply Brief due on 10/23/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLEE’S BRIEF FILED by Mr. Mark D. Hopkins, Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. and Ms. Shelley Hopkins. Date of service: 10/02/2020 via email – Appellants Burke, Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (Mark D. Hopkins ) [Entered: 10/02/2020 03:23 PM]
10/05/2020  Open Document
16 pg, 212.34 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellants Mr. John Burke and Ms. Joanna Burke to strike Appellees’ brief [9413904-2]. Date of service: 10/05/2020 [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to strike Appellees Brief filed Friday, 2nd October, 2020 brief [9413904-2]. Date of service: 10/05/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 10/05/2020 12:07 PM]
10/06/2020  Open Document
2 pg, 137.48 KB
COURT ORDER DENYING appellants’ opposed motion to strike appellees’ brief [9413904-2]. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 10/06/2020 01:40 PM]
10/07/2020  Open Document
4 pg, 141.46 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to extend time to file reply brief until 11/06/2020 [9416112-2]. Date of service: 10/07/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 10/07/2020 12:32 PM]
10/07/2020  Open Document
5 pg, 215.29 KB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the motion for extension entitled “motion to strike” received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke because motion was corrected and refiled. Removing “motion to strike” from the docket. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 10/08/2020 01:20 PM]
10/08/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 73.44 KB
CLERK ORDER denying Motion to extend time to file reply brief filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9416112-2] [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 10/08/2020 04:24 PM]
10/15/2020  Open Document
9 pg, 177.16 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke for reconsideration of the Order dated 10/08/2020 [9422323-2]. Date of service: 10/15/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 10/15/2020 06:03 PM]
10/16/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 76.45 KB
CLERK ORDER granting motion for reconsideration filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9422323-2]; extending time to file reply brief [9422808-2] Reply Brief deadline updated to 11/06/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [20-20209] (JMW) [Entered: 10/16/2020 11:37 AM]
11/06/2020  Open Document
38 pg, 344.81 KB
APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF FILED
Reply Brief deadline satisfied [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF FILED by Mr. John Burke. Date of service: 11/06/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 11/06/2020 04:38 PM]
01/07/2021  Open Document
1 pg, 91.2 KB
PAPER COPIES REQUESTED for the Appellant Brief filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 20-20209 [9381578-2], Record Excerpts filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 20-20209 [9367573-2], Appellee Brief filed by Appellees Mr. Mark D. Hopkins, Ms. Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. in 20-20209 [9413256-2], Appellant Reply Brief filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 20-20209 [9437996-2]. Paper Copies of Brief due on 01/12/2021 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke and Appellees Mark D. Hopkins, Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. Paper Copies of Record Excerpts due on 01/12/2021 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 01/07/2021 11:35 AM]
01/08/2021  Open Document
16 pg, 687.15 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Ms. Joanna Burke waive paper copies requirement for appellant’s brief, record excerpts, and reply brief [9478154-2]. Date of service: 01/11/2021 [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to waive requirement to file record excerpts [9478154-2], to waive requirement to file Appellee’s brief [9478154-3]. Date of service: 01/08/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 01/08/2021 12:00 PM]
01/11/2021 Paper copies of Appellee Brief filed by Appellees Mr. Mark D. Hopkins, Ms. Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. in 20-20209 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 7. Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied. [20-20209] (DMS) [Entered: 01/12/2021 08:56 AM]
02/11/2021  Open Document
1 pg, 76.24 KB
CLERK ORDER denying as moot the motion to waive paper copies requirement filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9478154-2]. The Clerk’s Office has printed the paper copies required. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 02/11/2021 09:42 AM]
03/30/2021  Open Document
13 pg, 225.24 KB
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [19-20267; 20-20209 Affirmed] Judge: PRO, Judge: WED, Judge: JLD. Mandate issue date is 04/21/2021; denying Motion for judicial notice filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9394044-2] in 19-20267, denying Motion for judicial notice filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9394017-2] in 20-20209 [19-20267, 20-20209] (WMJ) [Entered: 03/30/2021 03:01 PM]
03/30/2021  Open Document
2 pg, 74.3 KB
JUDGMENT ENTERED AND FILED. Costs Taxed Against: appellants. [19-20267, 20-20209] (WMJ) [Entered: 03/30/2021 03:06 PM]
04/13/2021  Open Document
70 pg, 1.23 MB
PETITION for rehearing en banc [9549894-2] Number of Copies:0. Since it could not be determined that the filing on 05/17/2021 was not emailed, Clerk’s Office has filed the document as proposed sufficient rehearing. However, document remains insufficient for lack of copy of the Court’s opinion. Sufficient Rehearing due on 07/09/2021 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. Date of Service: 05/14/2021 [19-20267, 20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: PETITION filed by Appellant Ms. Joanna Burke in 19-20267 for rehearing en banc [9549894-2] Mandate issue date canceled.. Sufficient Rehearing due on 04/26/2021 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. Date of Service: 04/13/2021 Document is insufficient for the following reasons: case caption must match our case caption exactly; statement of facts; copy of the court’s opinion [19-20267, 20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: PETITION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 for rehearing en banc [9549894-2]. Date of Service: 04/13/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 04/13/2021 07:27 PM]
04/23/2021  Open Document
25 pg, 972.38 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Ms. Joanna Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 file petition in present form [9557920-2]. [19-20267, 20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Ms. Joanna Burke in 19-20267 alternative request for extension of 10 days to make rehearing sufficient; for leave to waive requirement to file paper rehearings [9557920-2] [9549894-2] [9557920-4], alternative request for extension of 10 days to make rehearing sufficient; for leave to waive requirement to file paper rehearings [9557920-2]. Date of service: 04/23/2021 [19-20267, 20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 for leave to file petition in present form [9549894-2] [9557920-2]. Date of service: 04/23/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 04/23/2021 12:00 PM]
05/05/2021  Open Document
3 pg, 127.24 KB
COURT ORDER denying motion to file Petition for Rehearing En Banc in present form, to omit the Statement of Facts requirement, filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9557920-2], denying as unnecessary motion to waive the paper requirement, filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9557920-3]; granting alternative motion to extend time to return a sufficient Petition for Rehearing En Banc 10 days from the date of this order, filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9557920-4] [19-20267, 20-20209] (JMW) [Entered: 05/05/2021 07:57 AM]
05/12/2021  Open Document
7 pg, 229.11 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 to extend the time to file a rehearing until 05/26/2021 [9572022-2]. Date of service: 05/12/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 05/12/2021 08:44 AM]
05/14/2021  Open Document
8 pg, 309.14 KB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the motion for reconsideration of single judge’s order received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 because the motion is premature, as the extension motion is still pending with the court [19-20267, 20-20209] (JMW) [Entered: 05/19/2021 01:50 PM]
05/17/2021  Open Document
35 pg, 627.82 KB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Proposed sufficient rehearing en banc received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 because It is a duplicative filing, as the rehearing should be emailed, not re-filed. Additionally, it still remains insufficent as it does not have a copy of the court’s opinion. [19-20267, 20-20209] (CCR) [Entered: 05/17/2021 03:52 PM]
05/28/2021  Open Document
3 pg, 124.48 KB
COURT ORDER denying Motion to extend the time to file a petition for rehearing filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9572022-2] [19-20267, 20-20209] (JMW) [Entered: 05/28/2021 02:56 PM]
05/28/2021  Open Document
7 pg, 231.34 KB
MOTION filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 for reconsideration of the 05/05/2021 court order denying Motion for authorization to omit the Statement of Facts requirement for their Petition for Rehearing En Banc filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 [9557920-2] [9585172-2]. [19-20267, 20-20209] (JMW) [Entered: 05/28/2021 03:07 PM]
06/08/2021  Open Document
8 pg, 257.92 KB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Motion received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 because A motion for reconsideration is already pending [19-20267, 20-20209] (DMS) [Entered: 06/08/2021 09:04 AM]
06/21/2021  Open Document
3 pg, 138.34 KB
COURT ORDER denying Motion for reconsideration filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9585172-2] in 19-20267 [19-20267, 20-20209] (RLL) [Entered: 06/21/2021 03:33 PM]
06/28/2021  Open Document
8 pg, 175.28 KB
MOTION to stay issuance of the mandate [9607360-2]. Date of service: 06/28/2021 [19-20267, 20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 to stay further proceedings in this court. Reason: US Supreme Court and this Court’s All American and Collins cases.. Date of service: 06/28/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 06/28/2021 08:36 PM]
07/01/2021  Open Document
29 pg, 1.43 MB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Appellants’ Motion to Disqualify Chief Judge Owen received from Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 because wrong filing event used [19-20267, 20-20209] (SDH) [Entered: 07/02/2021 01:56 PM]
07/03/2021  Open Document
28 pg, 1.35 MB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 to disqualify Court of Appeals Judge Priscilla Owen from the case. [9611750-2]. Date of service: 07/03/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/03/2021 06:44 AM]
07/07/2021  Open Document
3 pg, 147.97 KB
COURT ORDER FILED that Appellants’ opposed motion to disqualify Chief Judge Priscilla R. Owen is DENIED. [9611750-2] [19-20267, 20-20209] (DMS) [Entered: 07/07/2021 02:40 PM]
07/08/2021  Open Document
7 pg, 200.42 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 for clarification of the Order dated 06/29/2021. Date of service: 07/08/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/08/2021 10:02 AM]
A Motion to Strike Hopkins Law Scandalous Reply is Lodged At The Fifth Circuit
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Laws In Texas is a blog about the Financial Crisis and how the banks and government are colluding against the citizens and homeowners of the State of Texas and relying on a system of #FakeDocs and post-crisis legal precedents, specially created by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to foreclose on homeowners around this great State. We are not lawyers. We do not offer legal advice. We are citizens of the State of Texas who have spent a decade in the court system in Texas and have been party to during this period to the good, the bad and the very ugly.

Donate to LawsInTexas. Make a Difference.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

We keep your data private and share your data only with third parties that make this service possible. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

© 2020-21 LawInTexas com is an online trading name which is wholly owned by Blogger Inc., a nonprofit 501(c)(3) registered in Delaware. | All Rights Reserved.

To Top