LIT REMAINS RESOLUTE: WE WILL CONTINUE TO EXPOSE THE 15 YEAR FIGHT AGAINST OCHLOCRACY AND ELDER ABUSE IN FEDERAL COURTS
#WeThePeople
MAR 14, 2025
As expected. The anticipated and duly received rubber stamp of judicial ochlocracy and corruption in the lawless courts of Texas, endorsed by the United States Government, and which continues under Trump 47.
We’ll be checkin’ in frequently to see when his multi-million dollar Wells Fargo home loans are paid off (think Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, at the Supreme Court citizens) as a thank you from Wall St., that NAZI-funding German Bank and the most fined nonbank in American History, ONITY, et al.
DISHONORABLE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
Plaintiff Joanna Burke initiated this lawsuit in state court against several defendants as a pro se litigant.
All defendants other than PHH Mortgage Corporation were dismissed after removal to this Court.
Dkt 23.
The matter was then referred for pretrial management to Magistrate Judge Christina A. Bryan.
Dkt 26.
Defendant PHH Mortgage Corporation filed motions for summary judgment and to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant.
Dkts 27 & 28.
Plaintiff filed her own motion to dismiss.
Dkt 33.
Pending are several Orders and Memoranda and Recommendations from Judge Bryan dated January 23, 2025.
In sum, these rulings:
o Deny a motion by Plaintiff (Dkt 51) for leave to supplement her response to Defendant’s summary judgment motion;
o Deny as moot her motion (Dkt 45) for leave to file a surreply to Defendant’s summary judgment motion;
o Deny her motion (Dkt 53) for leave to file a surreply to Defendant’s motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant;
o Recommend denying Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt 33) to dismiss;
o Recommend granting Defendant’s motion (Dkt 27) for summary judgment;
and
o Recommend granting Defendant’s motion (Dkt 28) to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant.
Dkts 54–59.
Also pending are objections by Plaintiff to each of the above.
Dkts 64–69.
And pending is an Order of the Magistrate Judge on February 20, 2025, denying Plaintiff’s motions to stay or to certify questions to the Fifth Circuit for review.
Dkt 70 (order); see Dkts 61 & 62 (motions).
Also pending is an objection and request for reconsideration by Plaintiff.
Dkt 72.
Although unclear, it may also request reconsideration of certain of the Orders noted above.
See id at 5.
As to the Orders, a district court will set aside a non- dispositive order of a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically objected only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
See FRCP 72(a) & 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(A);
see also Castillo v. Frank, 70 F3d 382, 385 (5th Cir 1995).
The objections by Plaintiff to the Orders of Judge Bryan from January 2025 are substantially identical despite addressing different rulings.
The objections lack merit.
The Orders clearly detail the pertinent facts and correctly apply controlling law.
As such, the objections will be overruled.
Dkts 67, 68 & 69.
And the Orders of the Magistrate Judge will be adopted as the Orders of this Court.
Dkts 54, 55 & 56.
The objection and request for reconsideration of the Order from February 2025 has been reviewed de novo.
It contains no specifics, and indeed, no arguments.
As such the objection will be overruled and the request for reconsideration denied, inclusive of any underlying motion referenced by citation.
Dkt 72.
And the subject Order will be adopted as the Order of this Court.
Dkt 70.
As to the Memoranda and Recommendations, a district court reviews de novo those conclusions of a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically objected.
See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(C);
see also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir 1989, per curiam).
The district court may accept any other portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no clear error appears on the face of the record.
See Guillory v PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc);
see also FRCP 72(b) advisory committee note (1983).
Plaintiff has filed substantially identical objections to the three separate Memoranda and Recommendations by Judge Bryan.
Dkts 64, 65 & 66.
Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires parties to file “specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.”
By this standard, it is legally insufficient to present the district court with a broad assortment of issues accompanied by little more than a directive to resolve them.
But that, in the main, is all that’s been done here.
Certain standards from the Fifth Circuit are clear in this regard.
For instance, the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge needn’t be reiterated on review.
See Keotting v Thompson, 995 F2d 37, 40 (5th Cir 1993). Likewise, objections that are frivolous, conclusory, or general in nature needn’t be considered.
See Battle v United States Parole Commission, 834 F2d 419, 421 (5th Cir 1987);
United States v Ervin, 2015 WL 13375626, at *2 (WD Tex), quoting Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Association v County of Albany, 281 FSupp2d 436, 439 (NDNY 2003).
And de novo review isn’t invoked by simply re-urging arguments contained in the underlying motion.
Edmond v Collins, 8 F3d 290, 293 n7 (5th Cir 1993);
see also Smith v Collins, 964 F2d 483, 485 (5th Cir 1992)
(finding no error in failure to consider objections because plaintiff “merely reurged the legal arguments he raised in his original petition”);
Williams v Woodhull Medical & Mental Health Center, 891 F Supp 2d 301, 310–11 (EDNY 2012)
(de novo review not warranted for conclusory or general objections or which merely reiterate original arguments).
Simply put, where the objecting party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates original arguments, review of the memorandum and recommendation may permissibly be for clear error only.
That’s the situation here.
Reasonable depth and explanation were needed to properly present any one of these issues if de novo review was intended.
No clear error appears upon review and consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendations, the record, and the applicable law.
Even though that’s all of the review required, the Court has nevertheless also examined the objections de novo and finds that they lack merit for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge.
The objections by Plaintiff will be overruled.
Dkts 64, 65 & 66.
And the Memoranda and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge will be adopted as the Memoranda and Orders of this Court.
Dkts 57, 58 & 59.
* * *
The objections by Plaintiff Joanna Burke to the Orders of the Magistrate Judge of January 23, 2025, are OVERRULED.
Dkts 67, 68 & 69.
The Orders of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED as the Orders of this Court.
Dkts 54,
55 & 56.
As such, the related motions by Plaintiff are DENIED.
Dkts 45, 51 & 53.
The objection by Plaintiff Joanna Burke to the further Order of the Magistrate Judge of February 20, 2025, is OVERRULED, and the included motion for reconsideration is further DENIED upon de novo review.
Dkt 72.
The Order of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Order of this Court.
Dkt 70.
As such, the related motions by Plaintiff are DENIED.
Dkts 61 & 62.
The objections by Plaintiff to the Memoranda and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge are OVERRULED.
Dkts 64, 65 & 66.
The Memoranda and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED as the Memoranda and Orders of this Court.
Dkts 57, 58 & 59.
As such, the related motions by Defendant PHH Mortgage Corporation are GRANTED
Dkts 27 & 28.
And the related motion by Plaintiff is DENIED.
Dkt 33.
Any other pending motion, if any, is DENIED AS MOOT.
This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Plaintiff is hereby declared to be a VEXATIOUS LITIGANT.
A FINAL JUDGMENT and a PRE-FILING INJUNCTION ORDER will both enter separately.
So ordered.
Signed on March 14, 2025, at Houston, Texas.
LITX
DEC 17, 2024
WE’RE ON IT WITH ONITY .LOAN et al @DeutscheBank
When you don’t have an answer to this well-presented legal argument: https://t.co/PPpy0YJO37
You write this for PHH ONITYhttps://t.co/R1tnnXb5k4
As a Bandit lawyer shot down by @SupremeCourt_TX for the same outrageous arguments. pic.twitter.com/ZWMaLuJvYu— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) December 17, 2024
CLERKGATE III
DEC 16, 2024
Jan 14, 2025
Last visit and/or update by LIT.
Nathan Ochsner
Clerk of Court
P. O. Box 61010
Houston, TX 77208
Date: Dec. 13, 2024
Via USPS Mail
Burke v. PHH Mortgage Corporation (4:24-cv-00897)
Reassigned to: Judge Eskridge/Magistrate Judge Bryan
District Court, S.D. Texas
Dear Sir or Madam,
RE: JOANNA BURKE’S FILINGS IN THIS CASE
I am writing to follow up on two separate USPS Express Mail deliveries of my legal pleadings, which have yet to be properly docketed in my case. Below, I provide the details of each package, as well as the corresponding concerns.
USPS EXPRESS DELIVERY #1
On November 15, 2024, I received confirmation from USPS that my package was delivered, containing legal pleadings with a cover letter detailing the contents therein. The tracking number for this package is 9481730109355000137813. The package was signed by H. Lerma at the postal facility in Houston, TX, at 9:06 am.
As the Court signed the package upon delivery, I respectfully submit that it is the Court’s responsibility to locate and investigate why the contents of this package have not been docketed.
I trust the Court can internally investigate the whereabouts of the package and ensure that my pleadings are properly added to the docket without further delay.
USPS EXPRESS DELIVERY #2
The second package, containing additional pleadings, was delivered on November 21, 2024. I received confirmation from USPS that the item was picked up at the same facility in Houston, TX, at 9:47 am, signed for by B. Lacey, with tracking number 9481730109355000162426. This package contained the following documents, which were docketed:
Doc. 43: Nov 21, 2024
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY to 42 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Joanna Burke. (cng4) (Entered: 11/21/2024)
Doc. 43: Nov 21, 2024
SURREPLY to 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Joanna Burke. (cng4) (Entered: 11/21/2024)
Doc. 45: Dec 5, 2024
Leave to File Document
Attachment 1: Proposed Order
However, I would like to raise the following concerns:
Separation of Documents: I am concerned that the contents of USPS Express Package #2, which included a cover letter detailing all enclosed pleadings, became separated. Specifically, Doc. 45, the “Leave to File” document with the proposed order, was detached from the other filings and did not appear on the docket until December 5, 2024—14 days after delivery. This separation occurred despite my clear labeling and submission of all documents together in one package.
Delays in Docketing: The time it took for Doc. 45 to be added to the docket (14 days) is of significant concern, as timely docketing is crucial for the progression of my case. What is particularly noteworthy is that, in this instance, part of the documents was located and docketed without my intervention, which raises the question of why Melissa Morgan-Faircloth for the court deems it necessary to email me about a delivered package, which is the responsibility of the court.
Previous Correspondence: I also wish to note that, in the past, I have experienced delays with USPS delivery, including a significant delay in September 2024, which affected my ability to submit pleadings. In that case, my email to Case Manager Janelle Gonzalez went unanswered, and my arguments were not considered when orders were issued. This is why I have chosen to use USPS Express Mail to ensure timely delivery and a receipt signature for future filings.
Furthermore, I am aware that this Court accepts only mail submissions for pro se litigants. In accordance with the Southern District’s guidelines, I will continue to communicate via USPS mail. See:
“Ordinarily, all non-attorney pro se litigants must deliver or mail filings to the Clerk’s Office, as detailed in the Southern District of Texas’ Guidelines for Litigants Without Lawyers.” Bisgaard v. Bitgood, Civil Action 4:22-CV-03279, at *17 n.6 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2024).
CONCLUSION
I kindly request that the Court confirm the location of the documents from Package #1 and that all pleadings are properly docketed. Additionally, I would appreciate clarification on the issues related to the delayed docketing of Doc. 45.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response.
Sincerely,
Joanna Burke
46 Kingwood Greens Dr.,
Kingwood, TX, 77339
| DOCSENT,MAG |
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:24-cv-00897
| Burke v. PHH Mortgage Corporation et al Assigned to: Judge Charles Eskridge Referred to: Magistrate Judge Christina A Bryan
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive & Declaratory Relief |
Date Filed: 03/12/2024 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 12/05/2024 | 45 | MOTION for Leave to File Surreply to PHH Mortgage Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment by Joanna Burke, filed. Motions referred to Christina A Bryan. Motion Docket Date 12/26/2024. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (cng4) (Entered: 12/05/2024) |
| 12/06/2024 | 46 | Letter from J. Burke re: Filings, filed. (dah4) (Entered: 12/06/2024) |
| 12/16/2024 | 47 | RESPONSE in Opposition to 45 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply to PHH Mortgage Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Hopkins, Mark) (Entered: 12/16/2024) |
| 12/30/2024 | 48 | REPLY to Response to 45 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply to PHH Mortgage Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Joanna Burke. (dah4) (Entered: 12/30/2024) |
| 01/02/2025 | 49 | Letter from Joanna Burke re: Joanna Burk’s Filings, filed. (csr4) (Entered: 01/06/2025) |
| 01/10/2025 | 50 | MOTION for Leave to Exceed Word CountMotions referred to Christina A Bryan. by PHH Mortgage Corporation, filed. Motion Docket Date 1/31/2025. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Hopkins, Shelley) (Entered: 01/10/2025) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 01/14/2025 02:08:25 |
Now the alarming issue for California is @LASuperiorCourt Judge Gail Killefer has armed a very dangerous and violent convicted felon, Andrew Peter Lehman, with an order which allows him to reinstate his stalking and assault on LIT and at-risk family, as we’ve previously advised. pic.twitter.com/RGZf3o2JZo
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) December 16, 2024
Melissa Morgan Melissa_Morgan@txs.uscourts.gov via 2dobermans.com
Dec 10, 2024, 10:05 AM (6 days ago)
to joanna@2dobermans.com, shelley@hopkinslawtexas.com, mark@hopkinslawtexas.com
Burke v. PHH Mortgage Corporation et al 4:24-cv-00897
Good morning, Ms. Burke,
The Court has received your letter regarding missing filings. Can you please inform us on what specific document you believe is missing from the Court’s docket? What is the title of the document?
Melissa Morgan-Faircloth
Case Manager for the Honorable Christina A. Bryan
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Texas | Houston Division
515 Rusk Street Houston, TX 77002
(713) 250-5158
Fri, Dec 6, 2:39 PM
1 New Entry in Burke v. PHH Mortgage Corporation (4:24-cv-00897)
District Court, S.D. Texas
Document
Number Date Filed Description
46 Dec 6, 2024 Letter
Nathan Ochsner
Clerk of Court
P. O. Box 61010
Houston, TX 77208
Date: Dec. 3, 2024
Via USPS Mail
Burke v. PHH Mortgage Corporation (4:24-cv-00897)
Reassigned to: Judge Eskridge/Magistrate Judge Bryan
District Court, S.D. Texas
Dear Sir or Madam,
JOANNA BURKE’S FILINGS IN THIS CASE
I would like to ask why my Express USPS Mail enclosing my legal pleadings, which arrived on November 15, 2024, have not been filed on the court’s docket. I received this confirmation from USPS:
Hello Joanna Burke,
Your item was picked up at postal facility at 9:06 am on November 15, 2024 in HOUSTON, TX 77208.
The item was signed for by H LERMA.
Tracking Number: 9481730109355000137813
Package Shipped from: HQ – ECNS
Delivered, Individual Picked Up at Postal Facility.
I would be obliged if you could locate the package and ensure that these important and timely filed pleadings are added to the court’s docket without further delay.
If you have any questions, please contact me at the information below.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Joanna Burke
etc…
Remember “OREO” @oreo Ben office redecorator Carson @HUDgov – the Judicial Abominations by the Supreme Court donors committee @fedsoc – and Kathy’s Calculus c/o @CFPB – with questions by ONITY’s former paid consultant @RepKatiePorter who suffers from resume disclosure syndrome? pic.twitter.com/7M3rR2whvv
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) December 16, 2024
CLERKGATE III
NOV 21, 2024
Despite two USPS Express Mail Packages being sent to the same court address, and both delivered with signature receipts recorded, only the later of the two deliveries has made it onto the court docket.
USPS Express Contents Delivered Nov. 21, 2024:
The November 20, 2024 combined filing.
USPS Express Contents Delivered Nov. 14, signed for Nov. 15, 2024:
The November 13, 2024 combined filing.
and
The November 11, 2024 combined filingg.
Hello Joanna Burke,
Your item was picked up at postal facility at
9:47 am on November 21, 2024 in HOUSTON, TX 77208.
The item was signed for by B LACEY.
Tracking Number: 9481730109355000162426
Package Shipped from: HQ – ECNS
Delivered, Individual Picked Up at Postal Facility
Hello Joanna Burke,
Your item was picked up at postal facility at
9:06 am on November 15, 2024 in HOUSTON, TX 77208.
The item was signed for by H LERMA.
Tracking Number: 9481730109355000137813
Package Shipped from: HQ – ECNS
Delivered, Individual Picked Up at Postal Facility
| DOCSENT,MAG |
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:24-cv-00897
| Burke v. PHH Mortgage Corporation et al Assigned to: Judge Charles Eskridge Referred to: Magistrate Judge Christina A Bryan
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive & Declaratory Relief |
Date Filed: 03/12/2024 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 03/12/2024 | 1 | NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 11th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, case number 2023-86973 (Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ATXSDC-31316463) filed by PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Hopkins, Mark) (Entered: 03/12/2024) |
| 03/13/2024 | 2 | ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons. Initial Conference set for 7/12/2024 at 02:30 PM in Room 11521 before Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr. (Signed by Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr) Parties notified.(DanielBerger, 4) (Entered: 03/13/2024) |
| 03/13/2024 | 3 | NOTICE to Pro Se Litigant of Case Opening. Party notified, filed. (DanielBerger, 4) (Entered: 03/13/2024) |
| 03/14/2024 | 4 | NOTICE of Appearance by Shelley L. Hopkins on behalf of PHH Mortgage Corporation, filed. (Hopkins, Shelley) (Entered: 03/14/2024) |
| 03/19/2024 | 5 | Emergency MOTION to Remand integrating memorandum and brief in support by Joanna Burke, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/9/2024. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (AaronJackson, 4) (Entered: 03/19/2024) |
| 03/27/2024 | 6 | CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by PHH Mortgage Corporation identifying Ocwen Financial Corporation as Corporate Parent, filed. (Hopkins, Shelley) (Entered: 03/27/2024) |
| 03/29/2024 | 7 |
Opposed MOTION for Clarification by PHH Mortgage Corporation, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/19/2024. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Hopkins, Shelley) (Entered: 03/29/2024) |
| 04/05/2024 | 8 | RESPONSE in Opposition to 5 MOTION to Remand, filed by PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Hopkins, Mark) (Entered: 04/05/2024) |
| 04/10/2024 | 9 | REPLY to Response to 5 MOTION to Remand, filed by Joanna Burke. (dah4) (Entered: 04/10/2024) |
| 04/10/2024 | 10 | RESPONSE to 7 Opposed MOTION for Clarification filed by Joanna Burke. (dah4) (Entered: 04/10/2024) |
| 04/12/2024 | 11 | MOTION Declare Plaintiff as a Vexatious Litigant by PHH Mortgage Corporation, filed. Motion Docket Date 5/3/2024. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Hopkins, Mark) (Entered: 04/12/2024) |
| 05/15/2024 | 12 | NOTICE of Non-Response by Plaintiff re: 11 MOTION Declare Plaintiff as a Vexatious Litigant by PHH Mortgage Corporation, filed. (Hopkins, Mark) (Entered: 05/15/2024) |
| 05/16/2024 | 13 | MOTION for Extension of Time to respond to PHH Mortgage Corporation’s motion to declare plaintiff Joanna Burke as a vexatious litigant by Joanna Burke, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/6/2024. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (acj4) (Entered: 05/20/2024) |
| 05/16/2024 | 14 | MOTION to Strike PHH Mortgage Corporation’s 11 MOTION Declare Plaintiff Joanna Burke as a Vexatious Litigant by Joanna Burke, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/6/2024. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (acj4) (Entered: 05/20/2024) |
| 06/05/2024 | 15 | RESPONSE in Opposition to 14 MOTION to Strike 11 MOTION Declare Plaintiff as a Vexatious Litigant, 13 MOTION for Extension of Time to respnd to PHH Mortgage Corporation’s moton to declare plaintiff Joanna Burke as a vexatious litigant, filed by PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Hopkins, Mark) (Entered: 06/05/2024) |
| 06/12/2024 | 16 | Opposed MOTION for Continuance of Initial Pretrial & Scheduling Conference by PHH Mortgage Corporation, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/3/2024. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Hopkins, Shelley) (Entered: 06/12/2024) |
| 06/13/2024 | 17 |
REPLY to 11 MOTION Declare Plaintiff as a Vexatious Litigant, 14 MOTION to Strike 11 MOTION Declare Plaintiff as a Vexatious Litigant, and motion for extension of time, filed by Joanna Burke. (acj4) (Entered: 06/14/2024) |
| 06/17/2024 | 18 |
ORDER Denying 5 Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Remand (Signed by Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr) Parties notified. (dm4) (Entered: 06/17/2024) |
| 06/17/2024 | 19 |
ORDER denying 11 PHH Mortgage Corporation’s Motion to Declare Plaintiff as a Vexatious Litigant but WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling following a motion for dispositive relief; Denying as moot 13 Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond; Denying as moot 14 Motion to Strike.(Signed by Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr) Parties notified. (dm4) (Entered: 06/17/2024) |
| 06/17/2024 | 20 |
ORDER denying as moot 7 Defendant’s Motion to Clarify, or in the Alternative, Motion for an Extension of Time to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Quiet Title; Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Quiet Title (Document No. 1-4 at CM/ECF page 565 of 588) is Denied. (Signed by Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr) Parties notified. (dm4) (Entered: 06/17/2024) |
| 06/17/2024 | 21 |
ORDER to Show Cause; within ten (10) days after the entry of this Order, the Plaintiff shall file a response to show cause, if any exists, why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice; Order to (Show Cause Response due by 6/27/2024); ORDER Denying as Moot 16 Defendant’s MOTION to Continue Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference; Ordered that the Scheduling Conference set for July 12, 2024 at 2:30 p.m. is hereby CANCELED. (Signed by Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr) Parties notified. (dm4) (Entered: 06/17/2024) |
| 06/27/2024 | 22 | Verified REPLY to 10 Day Show Cause 21 Order, motion for extension of time & motion to abate filed by Joanna Burke. (acj4) (Entered: 06/27/2024) |
| 07/10/2024 | 23 | ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL. ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, AVT Title Services, LLC, Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann, PC, Judge Tami Craft aka Judge Tamika Craft-Demming, Judge Elaine Palmer, Sashagaye Prince, Mark D. Hopkins, Shelley L. Hopkins, and Hopkins Law, PLLC are DISMISSED without prejudice in accordance with Rule 4(m) and for want of prosecution. The Court further observes that Plaintiff has requested a thirty-day extension to brief why the Court’s orders in this case are void and to abate any briefing and responses by Defendant PHH Mortgage Corporation. There are no pending motions in this case, and thus, there are no outstanding briefing deadlines. Plaintiff’s request for extension and to abate responses is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr) Parties notified. (mf4) (Entered: 07/10/2024) |
| 07/11/2024 | 24 | RECUSAL ORDER. Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr recused. Deadlines in scheduling orders subsist. Court settings are vacated. (Signed by Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr) Parties notified. (mf4) (Entered: 07/11/2024) |
| 07/11/2024 | 25 | NOTICE of Reassignment. Case reassigned to Judge Charles Eskridge. Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr no longer assigned to the case. Parties notified, filed. (mf4) (Entered: 07/11/2024) |
| 07/23/2024 | 26 | ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Christina A. Bryan.(Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified. (jmg4) (Entered: 07/23/2024) |
| 08/05/2024 | 27 | MOTION for Summary Judgment Motions referred to Christina A Bryan. by PHH Mortgage Corporation, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/26/2024. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I) (Hopkins, Mark) (Entered: 08/05/2024) |
| 08/05/2024 | 28 | MOTION Declare Plaintiff as a Vexatious LitigantMotions referred to Christina A Bryan. by PHH Mortgage Corporation, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/26/2024. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Hopkins, Mark) (Entered: 08/05/2024) |
| 08/27/2024 | 29 | MOTION for Extension of Time Motions referred to Christina A Bryan. by Joanna Burke, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/17/2024. (bmn4) (Entered: 08/29/2024) |
| 09/03/2024 | 30 | RESPONSE in Opposition to 29 MOTION for Extension of Time, filed by PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Hopkins, Mark) (Entered: 09/03/2024) |
| 09/18/2024 | 31 | ORDER granting in part and denying in part 29 Motion for Extension of Time; It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Responses to the pending Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 27) and Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant (ECF 28) are due on or before October 7, 2024. Replies will be due 14 days after Responses are filed. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Christina A Bryan) Parties notified. (mem4) (Entered: 09/18/2024) |
| 09/25/2024 | 32 | REPLY to Response to 29 MOTION for Extension of Time, filed by Joanna Burke. (dah4) (Entered: 09/25/2024) |
| 10/07/2024 | 33 | MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Motions referred to Christina A Bryan. by Joanna Burke, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/28/2024. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Supplement Cover Sheet, # 3 Exhibit) (abb4) (Entered: 10/07/2024) |
| 10/07/2024 | 34 | RESPONSE to 28 MOTION Declare Plaintiff as a Vexatious Litigant, filed by Joanna Burke. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Supplement Cover Sheet) (abb4) (Entered: 10/07/2024) |
| 10/07/2024 | 35 | RESPONSE to 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Joanna Burke. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Supplement Cover Sheet, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit) (abb4) (Entered: 10/07/2024) |
| 10/15/2024 | 36 | MOTION for Extension of Time Replies to ResponsesMotions referred to Christina A Bryan. by PHH Mortgage Corporation, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/5/2024. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Hopkins, Shelley) (Entered: 10/15/2024) |
| 10/16/2024 | 37 | ORDER granting : 36 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Replies. It is further ORDERED that PHH may file its Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to PHH’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 34 ) and its Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Second Motion to Declare Plaintiff Joanna Burke as a Vexatious Litigant (ECF 35 ) on or before November 4, 2024. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Christina A Bryan) Parties notified. (mem4) (Entered: 10/16/2024) |
| 10/18/2024 | 38 | MOTION for Extension of Time to File ResponseMotions referred to Christina A Bryan. by PHH Mortgage Corporation, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/8/2024. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Hopkins, Shelley) (Entered: 10/18/2024) |
| 10/23/2024 | 39 | ORDER granting 38 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response. PHH may file its Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (ECF 33 ) on or before November 11, 2024.(Signed by Magistrate Judge Christina A Bryan) Parties notified. (mem4) (Entered: 10/23/2024) |
| 11/04/2024 | 40 | REPLY to Response to 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment , filed by PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Hopkins, Mark) (Entered: 11/04/2024) |
| 11/04/2024 | 41 | REPLY to Response to 28 MOTION Declare Plaintiff as a Vexatious Litigant, filed by PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Hopkins, Mark) (Entered: 11/04/2024) |
| 11/10/2024 | 42 | RESPONSE in Opposition to 33 MOTION to Dismiss, filed by PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Hopkins, Shelley) (Entered: 11/10/2024) |
| 11/21/2024 | 43 | PLAINTIFF’S REPLY to 42 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Joanna Burke. (cng4) (Entered: 11/21/2024) |
| 11/21/2024 | 44 | SURREPLY to 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment , filed by Joanna Burke. (cng4) (Entered: 11/21/2024) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 11/21/2024 19:16:45 |
| DOCSENT,MAG |
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:24-cv-00897
| Burke v. PHH Mortgage Corporation et al Assigned to: Judge Charles Eskridge Referred to: Magistrate Judge Christina A Bryan
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive & Declaratory Relief |
Date Filed: 03/12/2024 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 11/10/2024 | 42 | RESPONSE in Opposition to 33 MOTION to Dismiss, filed by PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Hopkins, Shelley) (Entered: 11/10/2024) |
| 11/21/2024 | 43 | PLAINTIFF’S REPLY to 42 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Joanna Burke. (cng4) (Entered: 11/21/2024) |
| 11/21/2024 | 44 | SURREPLY to 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment , filed by Joanna Burke. (cng4) (Entered: 11/21/2024) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 11/21/2024 17:26:47 |
Texas Law Professors on Bankruptcy and Civil Rights Won’t Confront Premeditated Judicial Misconduct
Three lauded Texas University law schools employ these academics. Despite their resumes centered on civil rights, they refuse to defend them.https://t.co/kukwqzsQvi pic.twitter.com/L9k6krIWyS
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) December 13, 2024
The How
NOV 11, 2024 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: NOV 14, 2024
Wall Street Witch Hunt: From Cape Cod to California. The LA Judge Selected to Take Down LIT’s Non-Profit Entity
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Gail Killefer’s father and family heritage are part of America’s One Percenters Who Control America. https://t.co/rTDbnaMbyA
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) March 14, 2025
Federal Judge Reed O’Connor Sanctions the Couches n’ Counsel with Writ of Lawlessness
Court sanction: $1k fines and issues pre-filing injunction to deter the Couches and their Counsel from continuing to file meritless lawsuits.
Couchin’ The Truth: Dickey and Sharon Couch Battle The Unsung Fifth Circuit’s Three Straight Faces
The Fifth Circuit court has been reversed more times at SCOTUS than any other, and SCOTX continues to reject their Erie Guesses.
Morlock LLC’s 13 Years of “Thwarting Foreclosure” Ends With Free and Clear Title on $720k Valued Home
Another lawsuit on LIT involving Klein, aka Morlock LLC, who’s sanctioned lawyer Jerry Schutza obtains judgment that bank’s lien is void.
