Appellate Circuit

A Sanctionable Response From the Scandalous Lawyers at BDF Hopkins

The Burkes Wanted Certain Judges to be Shot.” – admitted liar Attorney Mark Hopkins in open court and “wanted this to end, sooner than later”

LIT COMMENTARY

JULY 19, 2021

So many lies, falsities and implausible excuses in this response from lyin’ lawyers Mark Daniel Hopkins and Shelley Luan Hopkins of BDF Hopkins,  a foreclosure mill in Austin. And they even try to bring in a non-party to the litigation, namely LawInTexas com – which is an online trading name wholly owned by Blogger Inc., a nonprofit 501(c)(3) registered in Delaware.

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

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

Appellees Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”), Mark Daniel Hopkins, Shelley L. Hopkins, and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. (“Attorney Appellees”) (collectively “Appellees”) file this their Response in Opposition to Appellants John Burke and Joanna Burke’s (the “Burkes”) Motion for Sanctions. In support of the foregoing, Appellees would respectfully show the Court as follows:

I. The Burkes’ Vexatious Pro Se Ways

A. The Burkes’ Repeated Efforts to Disqualify Counsel. The latest motion by the Burkes is simply an ongoing example of vexatious litigation by pro se litigants at its worst. Litigation must have an end, and it is long past time for the Burkes’ decade long crusade against the mortgage industry to be concluded.

As with all of the Burkes’ filings, the Burkes’ latest motion weaves in caustic commentary that Appellees’ attorneys (Mark Hopkins and Shelley Hopkins) are “rogue debt collectors” and scoundrels who lie, cheat, and steal at all costs to win. Professionalism requires Appellees’ attorneys to not be reactionary to the bile of the Burkes. The Burkes’ pattern of personal attacks against counsel is nothing new and dates back to the initial litigation which begin in 2011.1

The Burkes have repeatedly filed grievances with the State Bar of Texas against Appellee’s attorneys, with the State Bar of Texas rejecting the Burkes claims.

The Burkes’ dislike of Appellees’ legal counsel is not a proper basis for the consideration of sanctions against Appellees’ counsel.

Our system of justice decided long ago that attorneys should be immune from liability when litigants like the Burkes are unhappy. In fact, the purpose of attorney immunity is to ensure “‘loyal, faithful, and aggressive representation by attorneys employed as advocates.'” Alpert v. Crain, Caton & James, P.C., 178 S.W.3d 398, 408 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet denied).

B. The Burkes’ Repeated Attacks of the Judiciary and Counsel in the Media

In addition to their repeated efforts at having Appellee’s counsel disqualified as well as their grievances with the State Bar of Texas, the Burkes have also taken to their own website and Twitter to publish falsities about Appellee’s counsel as well as this Court and the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Various examples of the Burkes’ slanderous online posts are as follows:

Additional links to slanderous articles posted to the internet by the Burkes include:

https://lawsintexas.com/the-investigation-into-bdf-hopkins-the-foreclosure-mill- and-rambo-lawp-firms-in-texas-who-are-bounty-hunters-house-jackers/

https://lawsintexas.com/motion-to-strike-hopkins-fictitious-brief/

https://lawsintexas.com/the-hopkins-ca5-appeal-commences-in-earnest-mark-d- hopkins-shelley-l-hopkins-hopkins-law-pllc-an-austin-texas-rogue-law-firm/

https://lawsintexas.com/a-motion-for-sanctions-against-repetitive-non-conferring- attorneys-lands-at-the-fifth-circuit/

https://lawsintexas.com/its-not-only-a-manifest-injustice-its-a-perversion-of- justice/

https://lawsintexas.com/a-threats-a-threat-unless-its-a-texas-lawyer/

https://lawsintexas.com/novembers-state-bar-of-texas-journal-invited-law- professor-fred-c-moss-to-discuss-attorney-ethics-and-duties-relative-to-a-clients- fraud-or-crime/

https://lawsintexas.com/meet-the-judges-of-the-court-of-appeals-for-the-fifth- circuit-5th-cir-2/

https://lawsintexas.com/a-fifth-circuit-foreclosure-appeal-a-dissent-and-a-look-at- the-panels-history-and-experience/

https://lawsintexas.com/why-the-chief-cant-judge-everything-even-with-judicial- immunity/

https://judgeowen.com/

https://lawsintexas.com/what-do-judges-lynn-hughes-david-hittner-and-patrick- higginbotham-have-in-common/

https://lawsintexas.com/outlaws-in-robes-texas/

https://lawsintexas.com/were-talkin-clerks-and-impartiality-one-judge-is-talkin-at- the-aba-about-nazi-judges/

https://lawsintexas.com/a-hunter-or-a-howler-fifth-circuit-chief-judge-unlawfully- implements-threat-management-process-against-elder-victims-of-judicial- misconduct/

https://lawsintexas.com/fifth-circuit-judge-edith-brown-clement-understands-the- various-badges-of-fraud-in-law-the-caveat-is-lawyers-are-immune/

II. Argument

The Court’s docket in this consolidated appeal reflects the enduring strength of our judicial system in allowing even the most vexatious of litigants to have their day in court. The Burkes have had their day(s).

Despite the Court having already issued it Opinion in this case on March 30, 2021, the Burkes continue to file baseless motion after motion to either have judges disqualified, issues reconsidered and/or have Appellee’s counsel sanctioned.

As the Burkes’ reasoning goes in their latest motion for sanctions, Appellee’s counsel should be sanctioned for not “immediately” responding to the Burkes inquiries over whether counsel is opposed to the Burkes repeated filings before the Court.

As observed by the Supreme Court of Texas, “the purpose of sanctions is to secure compliance with the rules, to deter future violations of the rules, and to punish parties that violate the rules.” Chrysler Corp. v. Blackmon, 841 S.W.2d 844, 849 (Tex. 1992).

Appellee’s counsel routinely handle litigation pending before the Supreme Court of Texas, all intermediate Texas appellate courts, and this Court.

Counsel also is admitted to practice before The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States. Appellee’s counsel appreciates the importance of local rules as well as the expectation of the judiciary that motion practice should be for contested matters only.

For judicial efficiency, Fifth Circuit Rule 27.4 provides in part,

“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. The above rule simply requires a movant to reach out to the opposing party so that the movant can best inform the Court if any opposition is anticipated in response to the motion.

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.” Id.

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.

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.

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

A.               Email dated April 23, 2021, at 7:14 a.m.

“We’re filing a motion at the instruction of Ms Wynne for other relief pertaining to her rejection of our Petition for Rehearing En Banc. Please confirm if you’re opposed as usual. If we don’t hear back from you in a timely manner, we’ll take that as being OPPOSED.”

The conference email failed to explain what “other relief” they were seeking and the basis for such relief. The Burkes’ motion was filed less than five (5) hours after they sent their email, at 12:00 p.m.

B.                Email dated May 12, 2021, at 6:05 a.m.

“We are filing a motion for extn of time today. Are you opposed or unopposed?”

The Burkes’ conference email failed to indicate what period of time they were requesting for an extension, or for even what they were requesting be extended. The Burkes’ motion was filed at 8:44 a.m., less than three hours after sending their email.

C.               Email dated May 14, 2021, at 12:18 p.m.

“We are filing a motion for reconsideration of a single judge order today. Are you opposed or unopposed?”

The Burkes’ conference email failed describe the basis for their request for reconsideration. The Burkes’ motion was filed at 3:54 p.m., less than four hours after sending their email.

D.               Email dated May 28, 2021.

No email received by Counsel on or about May 28, 2021.

E.                Email dated June 7, 2021, at 8:52 a.m.

“We will be responding via motions to recent orders from the court. Please advise if you are opposed or not.”

The Burkes’ conference email failed to provide any detail about their “motions.” The email did not provide which orders would be the subject of the Burkes’ motions and/or the grounds for motions. The Burkes’ motion was filed at the same day, at 5:36 p.m.

F.                Email dated June 28, 2021, at 9:36 a.m.

“We will be filing a Motion to Stay. Please advise if you are opposed or not.”

The Burkes’ conference email failed to provide any detail about their motion, including what the Burkes wanted to have stayed and for how long. The Burkes’ motion was filed later the same day, at 5:36 p.m.

G.               Email dated June 29, 2021, at 10:24 a.m.

“We will be filing a Motion to Disqualify the Chief Judge. Please advise if you are opposed or not.”

The Burkes’ conference email did not provide any information or detail as to why they were seeking the disqualification of the Honorable Justice Owen. The Burkes’ motion was filed the next day.

H.               Email dated July 7, 2021, at 7:27 a.m.

“We will be filing a Motion to Clarify. Please advise if you are opposed or not.”

The Burkes’ conference email failed to provide any detail as to what the Burkes were seeking to have clarified and the basis for the motion. The Burkes’ motion was filed the next day.

As clear above, at no time did the Burkes attach their proposed motion or provide any detail or specifics in their attempts at “conferencing” under 5th Cir. R.

27.4. The Burkes’ Motion for Sanctions lacks proper support for any sanctionable conduct by Counsel for Appellees.

Conclusion

The Burkes show no sign of ceasing their vexatious ways. The Burkes have shown no basis for the Court to sanction Appellee’s counsel in any respect. For the foregoing reasons, the Burkes’ Motion for Sanctions should be denied in all things. Appellees pray for such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which they have shown themselves to be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

HOPKINS LAW, PLLC

3 Lakeway Centre Ct., Suite 110
Austin, Texas 78734
Telephone: (512) 600-4320

mark@hopkinslawtexas.com

shelley@hopkinslawtexas.com

/s/ Mark D. Hopkins

Mark D. Hopkins
Texas State Bar No. 00793975

Shelley L. Hopkins
Texas State Bar No. 24036497

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Response in Opposition to Motion for Sanctions has been sent to the parties listed below on this 19th day of July 2021.

Joanna Burke
46 Kingwood Greens Drive
Kingwood, TX 77339
PRO SE

John Burke
46 Kingwood Greens
Drive Kingwood, TX 77339
PRO SE

/s/ Mark D. Hopkins
Mark D. Hopkins

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

1. This response complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed R. App. P. 27(d)(2)(A) because, it contains in full 1,668 words.

2. This response complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because it has been prepared in proportionally-spaced typeface, including serifs, using Microsoft Word 2010, in Times New Roman 14-point font, except for the footnotes, which are in proportionally-spaced typeface, including serifs, using Microsoft Word 2010 in Times New Roman 12-point font.

Dated: July 19, 2021.

/s/ Mark D. Hopkins
Mark D. Hopkins

8 Years Later, Homeowner Nicholson Returns To N.D. Tex. Federal Court, This Time As Complainant

A Federal Lawsuit for Declaratory Judgment to decide if the Texas 2COA had jurisdiction to review non-appealable interlocutory orders.

Affirmed. See Rule 47.6. “Love It” Said Shelley Hopkins for BDF Hopkins.

This case clearly shows the pitfalls of hiring a lawyer who claims on his website to be a foreclosure defense lawyer. LIT disagrees.

Strike II – You Can’t Have a Fifth Circuit Clerk Filing Your Motions, That’s Void Ab Initio

The Burkes file a motion to strike Hopkins Law’s response as the motion they are objecting to is void ab initio. It was unlawfully filed.

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 Sanctionable Response From the Scandalous Lawyers at BDF Hopkins
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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