ANOTHER Two-Week Breather for Defendants Highlights Bias in Judicial Time Allocation and Defies Judge’s Own Strict Scheduling Order
OCT 23, 2024 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: OCT 23, 2024
This SECOND SUCCESSIVE order further highlights concerns about judicial bias. The Defendants were permitted to request that the Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time be limited, and the court agreed to this request, implying that the Plaintiff’s actions were seen as attempts to “thwart” the foreclosure process.
In part;
“This case is the most recent of many cases that Plaintiff has filed over the past several years to thwart foreclosure proceedings on real property located in Fort Bend, County, Texas. [Incorrect County]”
“Plaintiff filed a Verified Motion for an Extension of Time seeking a 60-day extension of time to respond due to “ongoing and debilitating symptoms as a result of [Hurricane] Beryl”
“PHH is opposed to a 60-day extension of time due to Plaintiff’s extensive litigation history and pattern of delay but does not oppose a short extension of time.”
The court granted a 20-day extension, keeping in mind that the pro se litigant lacks access to electronic filing. In contrast, PHH and their counsel have been allotted 28 days to respond, despite their spurious assertions.
This is a prejudgment of the Plaintiff’s intentions, undermining these proceedings. By prioritizing the Defendants’ concerns and limiting the Plaintiff’s time to respond, the court is brazenly favoring one party over the other.
This not only raises questions about impartiality but also about the equitable treatment of all parties in the judicial process. The swift agreement to restrict the Plaintiff’s extension can only be interpreted that the court has already formed an opinion about the case, eroding all trust in the judicial system’s objectivity.
Continued Warfare from Magistrate Judge Christina Bryan
(S.D. Texas, Houston Div’n, Doc. 37, Oct. 16, 2024, AND Doc. 39, Oct. 23, 2024)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant PHH Mortgage Corporation’s (PHH’s) Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiff’s Plea to the Jurisdiction.1
ECF 38.
It is ORDERED that PHH’s Motion (ECF 38) is GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that PHH may file its Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (ECF 33) on or before November 11, 2024.
Signed on October 23, 2024, at Houston, Texas.
Christina A. Bryan
United States Magistrate Judge
Signed on October 23, 2024, at Houston, Texas.
1 The District Judge referred this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), the Cost and Delay Reduction Plan under the Civil Justice Reform Act, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. ECF 26.
Once Again, PHH and BDF Hopkins: Deceptive Practices Revealed
OCT 15, 2024 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: OCT 17, 2024
PHH’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION
PHH Mortgage Corporation (“PHH”) files this Motion for Extension of Time, requesting the Court permit a short extension of time for PHH to file a response to Joanna Burke’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
[Doc. 33].
In support thereof, PHH would respectfully show the Court as follows.
1. Plaintiff filed her Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on October 7, 2024. [Doc. 33].
2. On the same day, Plaintiff also filed her Response to PHH’s Second Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant [Doc. 34] and Response to PHH’s Motion for Summary Judgment. [Doc. 35].
Pursuant to the Court’s Order granting extension, PHH has until November 4, 2024, to file its Replies. [Doc. 37].
4. PHH respectfully requests an extension of time to file its Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss for fourteen (14) days to November 11, 2024.
Due to the necessity of time and attention to devote to the Replies, along with multiple hearings, mediations and previously scheduled deadlines of Counsel for PHH between the filing of Plaintiff’s Motion and the deadline, Counsel for PHH need additional time to review the Motion and prepare a response and objections (if necessary).
5. PHH makes this request in good faith and without intent to unduly delay these proceedings.
This extension will not prejudice Plaintiff or represent substantial burden to the Court.
6. PHH assumes Pro Se Plaintiff is opposed to this request for extension of time, as no response was received to email attempt to confer.
For the foregoing reasons, PHH respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion for Extension of Time, extending the deadline for filing its Response for fourteen days, until November 11, 2024. PHH further requests and prays for such other relief, at law or in equity, to which it has shown itself to be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Shelley L. Hopkins
Shelley L. Hopkins
State Bar No. 00793975
Southern District ID No. 926469
Mark D. Hopkins
State Bar No. 00793975
Southern District ID No. 20322
HOPKINS LAW, PLLC
2802 Flintrock Trace, Suite B103
Austin, Texas 78738
(512) 600-4320
mark@hopkinslawtexas.com
shelley@hopkinslawtexas.com
Counsel for
PHH Mortgage Corporation
From: Shelley Hopkins <Shelley@hopkinslawtexas.com>
Date: Friday, October 18, 2024 at 3:13 PM
To: joanna@2dobermans.com <joanna@2dobermans.com>, Piper Armstrong <piper@hopkinslawtexas.com>
Subject: Burke v. PHH
We are filing a motion for extension on a response to your motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction for 14 days.
I will assume you are opposed.
Shelley L. Hopkins
2802 Flintrock Trace, Suite B103 | Austin, Texas 78738
512.600.4320 main | 512.600.4323 direct | www.hopkinslawtexas.com
UPDATE; Wilmington FSB responds to Texas Most Wanted: Walsh Hires Bandit Lawyer Robert Clayton “Clay” Vilt to Stop Harris County Foreclosure – Laws In Texas https://t.co/sTn1OQuxlM pic.twitter.com/VO7N5FpdKW
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) October 23, 2024
MAR 12, 2024 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: SEP 19, 2024
SEP 19, 2024
Above is the date LIT Last updated this article.
General Order: 2024-08
In the Matter of Referral of Civil Cases and Motions to Magistrate Judges
The high-profile scandals in the media spotlight this year from the third branch of the federal judiciary is Texas is indicative of past and ongoing bad faith and biased behavior by both federal judges and officers of the court.
Judge Edith Jones re Judge Lynn Hughes a decade earlier: “However, a recording of the proceedings indicates that Judge Hughes was extremely solicitous toward them, suggested at the outset that they should retain counsel, and did not ridicule them or their claims in any way.” pic.twitter.com/Dyt2RT6RXy
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) October 10, 2024
Team Texas: The Judicial Anthem Blares Out as the Federalists Replace the Old Guard of Ochlocracy, still housed in Scandal-soaked Houston’s Rusk Street Federal Courthouse. pic.twitter.com/jud2ROuR6q
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) October 10, 2024
“You’ve Won the Battle; Don’t Lose the War”,
Lynn Liberato, Hittner, Haynes & Boone, LLP, former President of State Bar of Texas, and co-Author with Judge David Hittner on the “pocket-book” on Summary Judgment in Texas, was counsel in trial before Hittner worth $$$ in fees. pic.twitter.com/2VgRGx4A6N— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) October 10, 2024
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 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) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 09/18/2024 18:46:16 |
Stitched-Up Justice: Sarah Sewing’s Family Foreclosure Avoidance Scheme Points to Harris County Corruption
Despite orders of foreclosure in 2010, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2019, 2022 and another suit in 2023, Sewing avoids foreclosure auctions continually.
Priority Mail: USPS Consistently Loses Time Sensitive Federal Court Filings for Weeks, Not Days
The excessive delays are when legal mailings are sent from Kingwood to the federal court mailing address in Houston, Texas from Joanna Burke.
Operation Elder Abuse: PHH Mortgage Corporation and Deutsche Bank Judge Shopping Continues
Forum Shopping aka Judge Shopping is a disease in Texas courts says Congress, demanding this form of case assignment be outlawed.
