Mark and Shelley Hopkins Are Appealing the PNC v Howard Case Again (1 Nov. 2021) to Texas Supreme Court, in Litigation which Commenced Before, But has Run In Tandem With, the Burkes Wrongful Foreclosure Litigation.
PNC Mortg. v. Howard, 618 S.W.3d 75, 79 (Tex. App. 2019) (“In November 2009, National City Bank was merged into PNC and PNC became the servicer of the Howard’s note. Four months later, in March 2010, Bank of Indiana, through its attorneys, sent a notice of acceleration to Amy Howard. The notice listed Bank of Indiana as the mortgagee and PNC as the mortgage servicer. On April 6, 2010, Bertrand sold the Howard’s property at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale on behalf of Bank of Indiana. According to the substitute trustee’s deed, the property was sold on behalf of, and also purchased by, Bank of Indiana. Ten days later, the Howards filed this suit against Bank of Indiana and PNC seeking to set aside the foreclosure sale and resulting substitute trustee’s deed. In their petition, the Howards asserted the foreclosure was void because Bank of Indiana was not the mortgagee at the time it appointed the substitute trustee and held no interest in the deed of trust at the time the property was sold on its behalf.”)
As such, it would be unlawful, unconstitutional and fraud to grant Hopkins harassing motion.
NOV 8, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: NOV 9, 2021
This Ain’t a Reply Hopkins, It’s a Begging Letter for Felonious Judicial Protection which was correctly denied.
The only decision in Burke’s reconsideration motion before the District Court is to apply @SupremeCourt_TX
judgment to your arguments. https://t.co/1YojCAYzjD pic.twitter.com/xJ2gCmiMP1— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) December 16, 2022
Hopkins relies upon the writ as the federal legal standard. Upon review, where similar vexatious litigant and/or sanctions motions have been filed and contested, case law favors the Plaintiffs request to deny the motion as meritless;
See; Chief Judge Lee Rosenthal deny Vexatious Litigant with at least nine (9) foreclosure filings spanning eighteen years (18), including six since 2017 and with three (3) of those against BDF Law Group per Shelley Hopkins Motion to Dismiss6;
Bondyopadhyay v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, CIVIL ACTION No. H-20-1340 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2020);
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFFS AS VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS
Defendants Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”), now known as PHH Mortgage Corporation as their Successor by Merger (“PHH”), and Mark Daniel Hopkins, Shelley Hopkins, and Hopkins Law, PLLC (“Attorney Defendants”) (collectively “Defendants”), file this Reply to Plaintiffs’ Response [Doc. 23] to Defendants’ Motion to Declare Plaintiffs Joanna Burke and John Burke (“Plaintiffs” or the “Burkes”) as Vexatious Litigants [Doc. 17] (“Plaintiffs’ Response”), and in support thereof, would respectfully show unto the Court as follows:
I. SUMMARY
Displeased with losing their seven-year litigation with Deutsche Bank over the foreclosure of the property, the Burkes once again brought The Burkes, since the Fifth Circuit ruled against them in 2018 have continued filing a flurry of new lawsuits, motions to intervene, judicial complaints and bar complaints about the attorneys and judges involved in the Burkes’ prior lawsuits. Though all the Burkes’ claims are barred by res judicata1, the Burkes continue to conjure any possible angle to prolong the legal assault against all Defendants. Defendants have been forced to defend suits brought by the Burkes over and over again, and this Court’s docket has been burdened by the Burkes’ meritless and unnecessary litigation.2 The Burkes’ harassment of Defendants and their counsel must end.
Though most of the Burkes’ Response is rambling and incorrect, the Burkes appear to argue that they should not be declared vexatious because Defendants failed to meet the numerosity, re-litigation and previous determination test for the vexatious motion.3 The Burkes’ response is misdirected. The applicable standard for issuing a declaration of vexatious litigant in Federal Court is not Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §11.054. Defendants did not file their motion
based upon this Texas law. Instead, Defendants rely on this Court’s inherent authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) and its interpretation. Judicial history clearly reveals that the Burkes qualify as vexatious litigants under the All Writs Act.
Due to the Burkes’ unrelenting abuse of Defendants and the judiciary, the Burkes should be enjoined from future filings without first obtaining this Court’s permission.
New post: The Ten Sins by Hopkins Law https://t.co/Mt093rNseU
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) November 8, 2021
II. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
The Burkes are mistaken that the vexatious standard under Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §11.054 applies to Defendants’ Motion to Declare the Burkes Vexatious. Defendants’ Motion was filed pursuant to the All Writs Act, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), which authorizes federal courts “to enjoin litigants who are abusing the court system by harassing their opponents.” See Harrelson v. United States, 613 F.2d 114, 116 (5th Cir. 1980).
Federal courts have the power to enjoin plaintiffs who abuse the court system and harass their opponents. This includes enjoining future filings to protect its jurisdiction and control of its docket.” Clark v. Mortenson, 93 F. App’x 643, 654 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (citing Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 360 (5th Cir. 1986))
As described in Defendants’ Motion, the four factors this Court must examine in issuing a vexatious declaration include: (1) the party’s history of litigation, in particular whether the party has filed vexatious, harassing, or duplicative lawsuits; (2) whether the party had a good faith basis for pursuing the litigation, or simply intended to harass; (3) the extent of the burden on the courts and other parties resulting from the party’s filings; and (4) the adequacy of alternative ” Baum v. Blue Moon Ventures, LLC, 513 F.3d 181, 189 (5th Cir. 2008).
The Burkes’ litigation history is extensive.4 At the heart of each subsequent suit is the Burkes’ disagreement with the foreclosure judgment, or their perceived The plain reality is that the Burkes failed to pay their mortgage and the Burkes blame everyone but themselves for that default. The Burkes have only ill intent in filing repetitive harassing lawsuits.
While certainly creative for people without legal education, the Burkes’ claims simply have no chance of success.5 The mere act of filing repetitive claims harasses Defendants and forces Defendants to incur substantial costs in defense – costs Defendants have no chance of recovering from The issues upon which the Burkes’ claims are based have been litigated and decided and/or should have brought such complaints within the prior action.
Accordingly, this Court should, under its inherent authority, bar the Burkes from future filings. The Burkes’ gamesmanship must be put to an end.
No other vehicle is adequate to deter the Burkes from pursuing other frivolous The Burkes’ harassment of Defendants, defense counsel, and court personnel and the judiciary is clearly an abuse of the judicial process. The Burkes have been embroiled in extended litigation with Ocwen, PHH, Deutsche Bank, or Attorney Defendants for more than a decade. Based on this litigation history, the Burkes will continue to abuse the court system unless this Court enjoins them from filing further vexatious litigation.
III. PRAYER
Pursuant to the reasons set out herein, Defendants pray that the Court grant the Motion to Declare Plaintiffs as Vexatious Litigants, enter an order enjoining Plaintiffs from filing in the Southern District of Texas without first obtaining the express permission of a district judge within the Southern District, and for any further relief, at law or in equity, to which they show themselves justly entitled.
Respectfully Submitted,
HOPKINS LAW, PLLC
By: /s/ Mark D. Hopkins
Mark D. Hopkins,
Attorney in Charge
State Bar No. 00793975
SD ID No. 20322
Shelley L. Hopkins
State Bar No. 24036497
SD ID No. 926469
3 Lakeway Centre Ct., Suite 110
Austin, Texas 78734
(512) 600-4320
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 8th day of November 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF filing system, and will send a true and correct copy to the following:
VIA CM/RRR # 7021 1970 0000 4526 6484 AND VIA REGULAR MAIL:
John Burke
46 Kingwood Greens Drive
Kingwood, Texas 77339 PRO SE PLAINTIFF
VIA CM/RRR # 7021 1970 0000 4526 6491 AND VIA REGULAR MAIL:
Joanna Burke
46 Kingwood Greens Drive
Kingwood, Texas 77339
PRO SE PLAINTIFF
/s/ Mark D. Hopkins
Mark D. Hopkins
