Acceleration

Who is Catalina Azuero, a Liar Lawyer at Goodwin Procter LLP?

This complaint is against an attorney registered with the Florida State Bar. The lawyers’ name is Catalina Azuero and she works for Goodwin Procter, LLP.

LIT COMMENTARY

We’re reviewing the attorneys who are listed on the CFPB v. Ocwen case in Florida, who are representing Ocwen. This article focuses on the background of liar lawyer Catalina E. Azuero, a Goodwin Attorney and her unethical practices in this and the ‘hot potato’ cases in Illinois and Georgia.

Update, Thursday, 22nd October, 2020

Below is the Burkes’ reply to Goodwin attorney Catalina Azuero’s response to the Florida Bar ethics complaint.

BURKE’S RESPONSE TO AZUERO’S REPLY

Upon receipt of Ms. Catalina Azuero’s (“Azuero”) tardy reply – despite a 3-week extension of time which shows contempt towards the Florida Bar[1] and the Burkes – Azuero’s reasons for her perjury and misconduct are unavailing and manufactured.  Based on her reply, she not only ratifies the Burkes allegations but enlarges on her untruthfulness. This expands Azuero’s rules violations 3-4.3[2], 4-3.3[3], 4-3.4[4], 4-4.1[5], 4-4.4[6], 4.8.4(c)[7], 4-8.4(d)[8] and conflict[9] rules. The Burkes assume the Bar will have read the Burkes complaint and Azuero’s reply. To begin, the Burkes wish to clarify the seriousness and scope of the misconduct and why Azuero is a ‘key player’.

I. BAR(S) COUNSEL INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES MISPLACED

The complaint against Ms. Azuero is the fourth Bar complaint the Burkes filed.  The Burkes filed three complaints against partners at Goodwin, all active attorneys in the Florida and Illinois cases. As discussed herein, Azuero is one of a group of Goodwin attorneys who violated the Rules of Professional Conduct in their respective Bar’s while representing clients in the named cases. These unethical and rogue Goodwin lawyers should be held accountable for their code violations and criminal conduct.[10] The legal system requires individual Bar complaints be filed against attorneys who violate the rules. The Burkes are in the process of fulfilling this requirement. However, there have been unexpected and alarming roadblocks experienced with certain Bars who are violating their own rules. This is addressed below.

A. The Burkes can verify that both VSB and DC Bar are violating their own rules.  Please refer to former Fl. Supreme Justice Barbara Lagoa’s statement in the Supreme Court’s YouTube Channel.[11] First, the Florida Bar’s counsel, Linda I. Gonzalez, took the same position as the VSB and D.C. Bar[12] had with the Burkes

[1] It is a violation, per the Bar letter Azuero received re Burke’s complaint. See; e.g. 4-8.4(g)(2); Fla. Bar v. Petersen, 248 So. 3d 1069, 1081 (Fla. 2018)

[2] In re Decker, 212 So. 3d 291, 302 (Fla. 2017); Fla. Bar v. Draughon, 94 So. 3d 566, 569-70 (Fla. 2012)

[3] In re Decker, 212 So. 3d 291, 305 (Fla. 2017); Florida Bar v. Head, 84 So. 3d 292, 301 (Fla. 2012).

[4] Fla. Bar v. Whitney, 132 So. 3d 1095, 1105 (Fla. 2013); Fla. Bar v. Dupee, 160 So. 3d 838, 849 (Fla. 2015); Fla. Bar v. Swann, 116 So. 3d 1225, 1234 (Fla. 2013).

[5] Fla. Bar v. Dupee, 160 So. 3d 838, 847 (Fla. 2015); Florida Bar v. Head, 27 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2010); Fla. Bar v. Petersen, 248 So. 3d 1069, 1081 (Fla. 2018).

[6] Fla. Bar v. Petersen, 248 So. 3d 1069, 1081 (Fla. 2018); Fla. Bar v. Blackburn, No. SC17-1514, at *6 n.2 (Fla. May 24, 2018).

[7] In re Decker, 212 So. 3d 291, 302 (Fla. 2017); Fla. Bar v. Swann, 116 So. 3d 1225, 1234 (Fla. 2013)

[8] In re Decker, 212 So. 3d 291, 301-02 (Fla. 2017); Fla. Bar v. Swann, 116 So. 3d 1225, 1234 (Fla. 2013)

[9] See; Young v. Achenbauch, 136 So. 3d 575, 581-82 (Fla. 2014); In re Decker, 212 So. 3d 291, 303-04 (Fla. 2017).

[10] See Exhibit ‘Complaints Against Goodwin Lawyers’.

[11] See; SC18-562 The Florida Bar v. Stephen Bruce Rakusinhttps://youtu.be/056TuNcpeUs

[12] See See; Exhibit ‘Complaints Against Goodwin Lawyers’.

complaints. At 21.42 mins, Justice Lagoa[1] addressed Bar Counsel, and asserted “There does not need to be any trial court finding or order issued before someone can make a complaint with the Florida Bar, correct? (Gonzalez: “Correct”)…I don’t have to wait for the trial court or an appellate court to make a finding of fact, correct?  (Gonzalez: “That’s correct”).”  Despite agreeing with Judge Lagoa, Bar counsel would continue her incorrect interpretation of the rules; at appx 35 minutes into the video she once again inaccurately says at 35.20 “We’re not going to step into the shoes…” and after bantering with Judge Lagoa… “The Florida Bar is not going to become a litigant for the complainants. We’re not going to influence the court…”   However, Justice/Judge Lagoa already obtained the correct answer from Gonzalez, namely a Bar complaint can be submitted without waiting on any Court decisions. In applying the rules per Florida Supreme Court to the Burkes complaint against Azuero, the Florida Bar does not need to wait for an opinion from the 11th Circuit appeal nor the judicial complaint re Judge Marra as submitted to the Chief Judge.

II. IT’S BIG LAW, NOT SOLE PRACTITIONER(S)

Azuero admits to being one of at least a dozen Goodwin lawyers of record on the Florida case.[2] It is well known that Goodwin flood staff onto cases to exploit billing and they have been censured and sued for that practice before.[3]

III.  SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY – LAWYERS UNETHICAL OBEDIENCE

A law practice tends to produce excessive obedience.[4] A factor that contributes to obedience is that attorney misbehavior will typically affect victims who are more remote in time and place than the victims in Milgram’s experiments.[5]

This applies in the instant case. Azuero is based in Boston, MA, the court case in Fl., appeal in Georgia and the related cases in Ill. and GA. Meantime the victims, the

[1] Hon. Barbara Lagoa is now a Judge at the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

[2] There’s 11 Goodwin lawyers per the docket at the 11th Cir., with ave. length of employment of 10.6 years. See Exhibit ‘Goodwin Lawyers 11th Circuit Appeal’.

[3] See “$540,000 overcharge sheds light on law firm bills” – https://2dobermans.com/woof/1 and https://2dobermans.com/woof/7 ; “Cumberland Farms accuses Goodwin of excessive billing”.

[4] See: Unethical obedience by subordinate attorneys; Lessons from social psychology, Andrew M. Perlman (2007). https://2dobermans.com/woof/2

[5] Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View is a 1974 book by social psychologist Stanley Milgram concerning a series of experiments on obedience to authority figures he conducted in the early 1960s. https://2dobermans.com/woof/3

Burkes are in Houston, TX. They have not attended a hearing in any of these stated cases – it’s all been paper-driven, remote [in]justice.

For example, the failure to produce a smoking gun document will affect an adverse party, but in a much more indirect way than the application of an electric shock. Similarly, assisting a company’s financial fraud (e.g., the Enron scandal) will primarily harm shareholders and lower level employees, people with whom lawyers have little contact. Because a lawyer will perceive these harms to be less immediate and proximate than someone suffering painful electric shocks in an adjoining room, this factor favors obedience in the lawyering context even more strongly than what Milgram found in many of his experiments.[1]

Azuero is a long-serving lawyer and employee at Goodwin Procter, LLP (“Goodwin”), rising from Associate to Senior Attorney in her 13 years with this ‘big law’ firm in the creditor rights defense legal division of Goodwin (defending banks and nonbanks e.g. Bank of America and Ocwen).  That said, despite 13 years at Goodwin, Azuero has not become a Partner.

The Burkes suggest the case of John Gellene could easily apply to the facts of this complaint. John Gellene, the subject of “Eat What You Kill”, is the only Wall Street bankruptcy lawyer to serve a federal prison term for violating his disclosure obligations under Bankruptcy Rule 2016.[2] Whilst Gellene was a partner, he was not a “rainmaker”, an income producer and so relied upon befriending the new partner and known rainmaker, Larry Lederman to cultivate his relationship with him in order that Lederman would provide Gellene with billable work e.g. cases. However, Gellene would cross the line, commit perjury and violated his disclosure obligations.

Similarly, Azuero is not a “rainmaker” and relies upon her working relationship with her Partners and colleagues at Goodwin to be assigned to cases. That, as Milgram found, favors obedience and as with Gellene, there is more social pressure to ‘win at any cost’. In this case, the victims are the Burkes and Azuero is responsible. She committed perjury[3], withheld evidence and as with Gellene, violated her disclosure obligations. We know what happened to Gellene.[4] Indeed, upon reading the book review by Michael St James, he goes on to say; “The large firm bankruptcy community’s lack of respect for disclosure obligations was exacerbated by the

[1] Unethical obedience by subordinate attorneys; p. 465.

[2] That statement, according to A Book Review of Eat What You Kill by Milton C. Regan, Jr., University of Michigan Press (2004) – Michael St James – https://2dobermans.com/woof/4

[3] See; Walker v. Walker, 515 F.3d 1204, 1212-13 (11th Cir. 2008) – “Lying under oath is lying under oath”.

[4] See; Matter of Gellene, 153 N.J. 353 (N.J. 1998).

response from the bankruptcy courts…” and goes on to discuss forum shopping where certain courts would turn a blind eye to non-disclosure by unethical lawyers. This mirrors the Burkes attempted intervention in Florida. It is memorialized in black and white print from the Judge himself. Judge Kenneth A. Marra committed perjury and conspired with both Ocwen and CFPB’s counsel to deny the victims, the Burkes, access to sealed documents for their case(s) in Houston. He stated;

“In addition to the grounds stated in the Court’s Order Denying Intervention (ECF No. 375), the Court notes that intervention is not permitted to allow a party to seek or obtain evidence for other litigation as asserted by the proposed Intervenors. (See ECF No. 408 at 4).” – Doc. 411.

A. The Senior Judge’s statement is untruthful – and so is Azuero’s response: As detailed in the Burkes complaint and in this reply, the Burkes were entitled to seek and obtain evidence for other litigation. The Burkes have proven, based on the record alone and without the benefit of depositions or live testimony, that rogue lawyer Azuero absolutely did know the Judge’s uncorroborated codicil above was legally flawed – as the Greens in Houston had recovered evidence from the Florida case for their own Bankruptcy case in S.D. Tex.[1] Note; Ocwen settled with the Greens in Houston on July 16, 2020. As part of the settlement, Judge Marvin Isgur ordered the sealed transcripts (the evidence) be destroyed or returned to Ocwen.

IV. THE S.D. FL. CASE; CFPB v. OCWEN

A. Bar Memberships, Disclosure and Transparency: It is unconfirmed by Azuero when she states in her response that ‘she was discussing the complaint with “colleagues”’, whether colleagues would include “ethics counsel”[2] and/or whether ethics counsel drafted the response either on her behalf or in tandem with her.

(i)  Bar Memberships: Azuero admits to being a registered member of the Florida Bar and as such would be subject to the Professional Code of Conduct in Florida. She also confirms membership of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Bar. In the Burkes complaint, which Azuero has read and now responded to, the Burkes stated, in part;

“And there’s also former Goodwin lawyer, now law professor, Associate Professor Luke M. Scheuer who previously held adjunct positions at Boston College Law School, the University of Massachusetts School of Law, and Boston University

[1] See IV.(C)(iv).

[2] E.g. Mr. Dinger who is listed as Goodwin counsel for Bank of America Corp. in both the Cook/Cobb cases.

School of Law and his paper; “Duty to Disclose Lawyer Misconduct” (2010), Available at: https://works.bepress.com/luke_scheuer/2/, wherein he discusses cases like In Re Himmel.

(ii)  Disclosures: Scheuer states; “Some state rule comments give more specific direction on the materiality issue” and then goes on to cite Massachusetts Rule 8.3, comment 3 (Duty to report attorney misconduct). Azuero should be familiar with this higher specificity and materiality, as she admits she is domiciled and works in Boston (as well as being a member of the Massachusetts Bar).

(iii)  Transparency: Scheuer, a former Goodwin lawyer himself, goes on to discuss “[F.] Firm Reporting” and then provides scenarios, including discussing ‘ethics counsel’.[1] See IV.A. above.

B.  Azuero’s Statements, Rebuttals and Denials are Not Authentic:  The Burkes now provide a summary of Azuero’s replies. (1-2) Azuero admits to being a member of the Florida Bar and the Massachusetts Bar. She is domiciled in Boston and works out of Goodwin’s Boston offices on creditor rights lawsuits. She has been employed at Goodwin for 13 years and she holds the position of Senior Attorney. (3) Azuero admits she ‘signed’[2] the opposition to the Burkes Motion to Intervene. (4) Azuero discusses the Burkes 11th Cir. Appeal. She admits to being listed as a counsel but states ‘I have filed no appearance on appeal’. (5) Azuero questions the Burkes allegations that she ‘committed perjury, made false and untruthful statements’ and that the complaint does not identify such statements[3] or reference those in the motion she signed (Doc. 224). Azuero further states that the only ‘sworn declarations’ she has submitted relate to discovery and are ‘completely unrelated to the Burkes allegations’. (6)  Azuero returns to the 11th Cir. Appeal and states; (a) She did not write or sign the offending statement or brief (b) admits being listed as counsel (c) states she is counsel ‘along with twelve other additional counsel’ (d) the complaint fails to articulate that ‘any particular statement in the quotation is false’ (e) Azuero then contradicts (a-d) by denying the statement is false and (f) denies she ‘viciously maligned’ the Burkes. (7) Azuero confirms the Burkes allegations – that

[1] See footnotes IN Scheuer’s paper; Footnote 27. In-House Consulting on Ethical Issues, ABA Formal Op. 08-453 (2008), and Footnote 28. See id. for a discussion of the role of ethics counsel. Note that Rule 1.6 provides an exception from client confidentiality for the purpose of consulting with an ethics counsel.

[2] See S.D. Fl. Local Rules, Rule 11.1 Attorneys, (c) Professional Conduct.

[3] See; Complaint, The Burkes allege there had to be joint collusion between counsel for Ocwen, CFPB and Judge Marra to unlawfully deny rightful intervenors Burkes from joining the lawsuit, which is proven by the filings on the docket itself”, p.5 and “knowingly committing perjury in signed statements and filings in the lower court”, p.6 and “preamble and disclaimer” p.7

she withheld evidence from the Greens case in S.D. Tex. – but claims Goodwin does not represent Ocwen in that action. (8) Azuero baselessly refers to the date of Senior United States District Judge Atlas’s Order (26 Aug. 2020) as her excusable defense. (9) Verbatim (Part I); “While the complaint suggests that I must have known about the Green order, I deny that I knew about the case prior to learning about its citation by the Burkes in the Eleventh Circuit (and, Part II)[1]; And had I known about the case, I do not believe I would have thought I had any obligation to disclose the case or the referenced order to the Burkes.”

C. The Record Shows Azuero is Lying in Her Reply to the Bar : Azuero’s response is ruinous to her integrity. The record confirms she has actually committed more crimes by the blatant lies, lack of candor and remorse in her reply. Let’s list them.

(i)  Azuero’s Notice of Appearance Confirms Her Request for ‘All Papers’: As admitted by Azuero, she joined the civil lawsuit per Doc. 57, Notice of Appearance, dated 22 Feb., 2018, where she requests ‘…copies of ALL PAPERS in this action BE SERVED UPON ME’.[2] This rebuts Azuero’s answer above. See B(9).

(ii)  Azuero’s Docket Activity is Prolific in the Florida Lawsuit: As at October 18, 2020, Azuero has filed into this case 79 times per the docket and also another declaration (filed by another Ocwen attorney, Doc. 195). In total, she’s named on 80 documents in 30 months. Azuero is undoubtedly the most active attorney for Goodwin on this docket and only usurped by the court clerk’s filings in this voluminous ECF record. As important, it should also be noted the majority of these filings are under seal and/or protective order and/or redacted. Where Goodwin and Azuero deemed necessary, she would file requesting such relief from the court, which would generally be granted.

(iii)  Azuero’s Professional Qualifications and Federal Court Experience Defies Her Ignorance of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1): Azuero spends an inordinate amount of time discussing pleadings, signings, sworn declarations, notice of appearance and such. See B.(3), (4), (5), (6) generally, and (7). This is a deliberate smokescreen.  Simply stated, Azuero is held jointly liable for any and all statements by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1) (“If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate

[1] Part II is patently false. See; e.g. The Florida Bar v. Miller, 863 So. 2d 231, 233-34 (Fla. 2003).

[2] See Exhibit “Azuero Notice of Appearances”.

sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.”). Furthermore, addressing B.(4), (6)(a-c), and upon review of the 11th Circuit website, it instructs attorney’s “To File a Web-Based Certificate of Interested Persons: All attorneys are required to complete the web-based CIP.” See 11th Cir. R. 26.1-1(b)[1] and R. 28-1(b). In summary, whether or not Azuero filed a Notice of Appearance, wrote the offending statements in the brief or signed the brief is immaterial to the ethics complaint filed with the Florida Bar. Azuero is held personally liable.

(iv)  The Greens – Azuero’s Scandalous Statement: Azuero’s first statement in B.(9) can be swiftly discredited. All you need to do is read the following – it speaks for itself; Below is an extract of the Joint Case Discovery and Management Plan, (Doc. 9, p. 5, (Jan. 1, 2019) – Case #18-03351, S.D. Tex. (Bankruptcy)).

“A copy of the CFPB Complaint, Docket sheet, and contact information for Ocwen’s counsel in the CFPB litigation has been provided to Mr. Curran, Ocwen’s counsel in this adversary proceeding.”

(v)  The Date of Judge Nancy Atlas’s Order: Azuero, clutching at straws, implies the date of the order, Aug. 26, 2019, relieves her of any liability as to knowledge of the Greens and the evidence they received from Ocwen in the instant Florida case. Incorrect. The adversary proceedings by the Greens commenced in Nov. 26, 2018 and Ocwen were on notice from that date of the allegations in their complaint and Greens reliance on the CFPB v. Ocwen case in Florida.

(vi)  The Missing Documents and Premeditated Answers: Azuero’s coached response, which excludes key documents filed by the Burkes and omits to recognize the Burkes material statements and answers therein, mirrors the complaints the Burkes expressed in motions to the lower court and in their Brief(s) filed on appeal.[2] This violates the Professional Rules of Conduct.

SUMMARY (CFPB v. OCWEN, FL.): Unlike Azuero, the Burkes have provided documented facts, not falsehoods in their complaint and response, proving beyond a reasonable doubt Azuero is guilty of professional misconduct. That said, the Burkes are limited in their reply due to the sheer volume of docket filings under lock and

[1] FRAP 26.1 and 26.1-1 is detailed over several pages, from 91-94. CIP is essential and as stated per the rules, “must include a complete list of all persons and entities known to that filer to have an interest in the outcome of the particular case or appeal.”

[2] See Exhibit ‘Intervention Docket Entries’.

key in the Fl. case and also the relevant filings in the Greens case in S.D. Tex. Certainly, interviewing counsel for the Greens and Ocwen in Texas would confirm C.(iv) above, namely that Azuero did know about the Greens case during the Burkes intervention in Fl.

V. THE ILL. AND GA CASES; COOK/COBB v. BANK OF AMERICA

A. Azuero Deflects: In Azuero’s response, pages 1-2[1] focuses on the Florida case. From pages 2-5[2] she focuses on the Bank of America case(s) in Illinois and Georgia. Finally, from 5-7 she focuses on listing the Burkes related cases, Bar and Judicial complaints – all of which the Burkes have fully disclosed.

(i)  Bank of America Cases: Azuero admits ‘she is familiar with the filings in both these cases’ (point 10, p.2 of her reply) and claims again (see IV.(b)(5) above) deficient complaint by the Burkes; Point 10: States the Burkes are not parties to these cases; Points 11/12: Distancing herself from the case(s); Point 13: Decrying specificity and falsehoods undetermined; Points 14/19: She discusses withdrawal  and hot potato (doctrine); Point 15-17: Confirming court actions; Point 18: Azuero denies direct involvement, or any improper conduct and then makes hearsay statements; Point 20: Hot potato denials based on her hearsay ‘beliefs’.

(ii)  I’m on the Case, But I am Not Responsible: Azuero’s arguments mirror what’s already been discussed in the Fl. case. She does not take responsibility for her own actions. This contravenes federal laws and conduct rules. After distancing herself[3], she then proceeds to deny any and all allegations, makes hearsay statements and generally contradicts herself. It’s a shambolic defense which woefully fails to answer her misconduct and attempts to push these claims onto other Goodwin team lawyers.

(iii)  You Do Not Need to Be a Party: Point 10, p.2 is not relevant to filing a Bar complaint.[4] Anyone can file a complaint and they do not need to be a party.[5] See “You do not have to be a client to file a grievance. Anyone can report allegations of professional misconduct or problems with a lawyer.” – State Bar of Texas.[6]

[1] Points 1-9.

[2] Points 10-20.

[3] See Exhibit “Azuero Notice of Appearances” – Conflicting with her reply statements – again. Note; Azuero is counsel on the County of Cook, Illinois case, but not listed in the related Cobb County, Georgia case.

[4]Bars have violated their own rules by rejecting the Burkes complaints, in part, based on the view the Burkes were ‘not a party’. See; Exhibit ‘Complaints Against Goodwin Lawyers’.

[5] Similarly, with Judicial complaints, non-parties (‘anyone”) can file. See; https://2dobermans.com/woof/5.

[6] See; https://2dobermans.com/woof/6

(iv)  Threatening a Bar Complaint: Point 18, p.5, in part; “So far as I know, no bar complaint has been filed against me by any of the counties.” The Burkes have already stated that the Bar(s) have not followed their own rules, including the Fl. Bar counsel’s misguided interpretation of the rules before Justice Lagoa. The Burkes can only assume this is based on the Florida Bar’s Ethics Opinion 94-5 (1995), which disavows lawyers from ‘threatening’ bar complaints.[1] However, ethics opinions are not binding on the courts and was not supported by a later Fl. case.[2]

(iv)  The Burkes Purpose in Referencing these ‘Related’ Bank of America Cases: Azuero is deflecting the real reasons for the Burkes inclusion of these two related cases. It shows the same team of Goodwin lawyers who are listed of counsel in the ongoing CFPB v. Ocwen case acting unethically in the two  ongoing Bank of America cases.[3] It shows ongoing and repetitive misconduct by these big law firm lawyers and that includes Azuero. The Burkes have disclosed they disagree with the opinion of the Illinois in the sanctions motions and order by the magistrate judge. As stated, a Bar complaint is not defined nor should it rely upon this erroneous court judgment.[4] Goodwin breached the ethics rules by abandoning witnesses (clients).[5]

SUMMARY (BANK OF AMERICA CASES, ILL. & GA.): Azuero cannot shirk her misconduct. The fact she did not self-report her failure to disclose or report her ‘colleagues’ for their misconduct is sufficient to warrant disbarment.[6]

CONCLUSION

It is true: The Burkes are complaining to the relevant state bars about Goodwin’s team of lawyers and federal judicial complaint about a judge on the case. That is how the system is set up by the federal Courts, the State(s) Supreme Courts and Bars. As such, the Burkes are only adhering to the process and should not be slighted – as they have been – for invoking their legal rights in their quest to ensure these rogue

[1] “In conclusion, if an attorney is obligated to report another attorney’s professional misconduct pursuant to Rule 4-8.3, then it is ethically impermissible for the attorney to threaten the other attorney with the filing of a disciplinary complaint.”

[2] See; In re Evergreen Sec., Ltd., 363 B.R. 267, 288 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2007).

[3] See; Florida Bar v. Herman, 8 So. 3d 1100, 1104 (Fla. 2009).

[4] See, e.g., rules 4–1.2(c), 4–1.6(a), 4–1.7(b), and 4–1.18.

[5] See; In re Ralph Roberts Realty, LLC, 500 B.R. 862, 868 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2013).

[6] “The last person in the world that should degenerate into a potential liar, crook or fraud is the lawyer. The Code of Ethics, his obligation to the client, his profession and his country admonish him to be square. He is draped with the insignia of a great profession and he cannot afford to drag it in the dirt.” – Dodd v. Florida Bar, 118 So. 2d 17, 21 (Fla. 1960).

lawyers are held accountable for their malicious behavior, perjurious statements, incl. conspiring to withhold evidence and misconduct as stated herein.

In conclusion: Azuero’s answers in regards the Florida case are not authentic, she has not shown candor to the Bar in her reply, e.g. admission of her unassailable guilt or remorse for her misconduct. As such, it makes her responses in the two Bank of America cases unbelievable, tarnishing her diminishing reputation further. The Burkes return to III. above; unethical obedience is rife in law firms.  It is obvious, the remote distance from the victims, the Burkes, has made it acceptable – in Azuero’s mendacious plan – for her to commit inexcusable code violations to deny the Burkes rights to a fair hearing, incl. access to important documents. It may be claimed Azuero could be a victim herself, controlled by her creditor rights team Partner(s) like Thomas Hefferon, a 25 year Goodwin veteran. Nevertheless, as with John Gellene, she should be held accountable for her own greed, perjury, bad faith[1], contempt and conspiracy against her victims, the elder Burkes, her own material omissions (incl. concealing evidence)[2] and misrepresentations, including failure to disclose and report the patent misconduct and rule violations by her colleagues.

The Burkes are litigating nationwide to keep their homestead from wrongful foreclosure and a roof over their heads. As such, Azuero’s premeditated acts prevented the Burkes from obtaining documents to which they were entitled.[3] This in turn has further extended litigation and now includes Bar complaint(s). The Burkes have been materially affected, both financially and by increased mental anguish. This should significantly enhance her misconduct and ethical violations to include aggravated abuse of elderly person(s). The Burkes are fully aware no compensation is recoverable, but Azuero’s reply has shown she is a very willing participant, a key player in the deceit and deception perpetrated against the elder Burkes. She is part of this big law firm’s nationwide and ongoing illegal schemes to ‘win at any and all costs’, and the Burkes would suggest, denigrating the Fl. Bar’s Professional Code of Conduct for lawyers. Disbarment[4] is wholly warranted, and should be decreed in this complaint, in the matter of Catalina E. Azuero.

[1] The Florida Bar v. Miller, 863 So. 2d 231, 233 (Fla. 2003)

[2] “However, concealing a document even temporarily, and even when the information may be available to opposing counsel by other means or from other sources, has been held to be misconduct. See Fla. Bar v. Forrester, 818 So.2d 477, 481–82 (Fla.2002).” – Fla. Bar v. Dupee, 160 So. 3d 838, 849 (Fla. 2015)

[3] The Florida Bar v. Miller, 863 So. 2d 231, 233-34 (Fla. 2003).

[4] See “Disciplinary or disbarment proceedings are solely for the purpose of purging the roll of legal practitioners of unworthy or disreputable members…” – The Florida Bar v. King, 174 So. 2d 398, 403 (Fla. 1965).

Update, Friday, 16th October, 2020

Below is the response to the Burkes’ ethics complaint against Goodwin attorney Catalina Azuero.

October 10, 2020

 

William W. Wilhelm,
Bar Counsel
Attorney Consumer Assistance Program
The Florida Bar
651 East Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300

 

Re:       Complaint by Joanna Burke against Catalina E. Azuero The Florida Bar File No. 2021-00,102 (2A)

Dear Mr. Wilhelm:

I write in response to your request dated September 4, 2020, that I respond to the complaint filed against me by Joanna and John Burke, residents of Texas. While the request states that my response is due by September 21, 2020, I was granted an extension to October 12, 2020.

1.  My name is Catalina Azuero. I received my law degree from the University of North Carolina School of Law in 2004. I have been a senior attorney at Goodwin Procter LLP since 2013. I joined Goodwin as an associate in 2007. I practice from the Boston office of the firm. I am a member of the bars of the State of Florida and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I am also a member of the bars of four federal courts, and I have been admitted pro hac vice in six state and federal courts. I have never been disciplined by any bar or any court.

2.  I assist in Goodwin’s nationwide practice representing financial institutions in diverse actions, including consumer class actions and other unfair lending practices cases as well as securities actions and contract disputes.

3.  As the complaint states, on January 4, 2019, the Burkes moved to intervene in an ongoing enforcement action by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) against Ocwen Financial CFPB v. Ocwen Financial Corp., No. 17-cv-80495 (S.D. Fla.) (Doc. 220).

Goodwin represents Ocwen in that proceeding, and I appeared in the proceeding in February 2018. The Burkes are proceeding prose. The CFPB and Ocwen jointly opposed the motion to intervene on January 14 , 2019 (Doc. 224), and I signed that opposition.

The court denied the motion on May 30, 2019 (Doc. 411) (Marra, J.).

The Burkes are neither current nor former clients of Goodwin.

4.  The Burkes’ appeal from the denial of the motion to intervene is pending sub nom. Burke v. Ocwen Financial , No. 1 1″13015 (11th Cir.) (docketed Aug. 5, 2019).

The Burkes continue to proceed pro se.

Goodwin represents Ocwen in that appeal, and I am listed as a counsel that appeal, although I have filed no appearance on appeal.

The appeal is fully briefed.

William W. Wilhelm, Bar Counsel Attorney Consumer Assistance Program The Florida Bar
October 10, 2020
Page 2

5.  The complaint states (at 3) that I committed perjury in the CFPB v. Ocwen And while the complaint states (at 6) that my filings and statements in the proceeding were “false and untruthful,” it does not identify any such statements.

The statement quoted on page 6 of the complaint as allegedly false did not appear in the joint Ocwen/CFPB opposition to the motion to intervene, which I signed.

Indeed, the only sworn declarations I have submitted have been related to the discovery process in the Bureau case, completely unrelated to the Burke’s allegations.

6. The statement quoted on page 6 of the complaint and alleged to be false appears in the introduction to the Ocwen brief as appellee in the Eleventh Circuit (filed March 11, 2020).

I did not write that statement or sign that brief, although my name (misspelled “Aquero” ) appears as an additional counsel {along with twelve other additional counsel} on that brief.

The complaint does not explain, much less demonstrate, that any particular statement in the quotation is false, and I deny that any statement is false.

I further deny that the quoted statement ” viciously maligned” the Burkes, as opposed to fairly introducing Ocwen’s arguments.

7.  The complaint also alleges (at 3, 4-6) that I improperly withheld from the Burkes an order, which the Burkes cite (at S) as “Green Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (In re Green), Bankruptcy No. 12-38016 (13) (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2019)”.

The correct citation is Green v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (In re Green), Ch. 13 Case No. 12-bk-38016, Adv. No. 18-3351 (Bank S.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2019).

The complaint states (at 4) that the Green order “allowed the Greens to retain access to ‘discovery’ documents as evidence for their own case against Ocwen.”

I believe that the implication is that the same or similar documents might have been obtainable through the Burke’s intervention and thus that the Green order would have been useful in the Burkes’ separate lawsuit against Ocwen. Burke v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 2018-82450 (Tex. 55t h Jud. Dist. Ct., Harris Cty.), dismissed after removal, No. 4:18-cv-4544 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2019), appeal docketed, No. 19-20267 (5th Cir. April 22, 2019).

As stated above, Goodwin does not represent Ocwen in that action.

8. While the complaint implies that withholding that order would have been violation of the applicable ethical rules, the order came down after the district court denied the motion for intervention, and the Burkes themselves cited the Green order in their reply brief on appeal in the Eleventh Burkes Reply Brief (filed June 10, 2020) (at 19-20).

9.  While the complaint suggests that l must have known about the Green order, I deny that I knew about the case prior to learning about its citation by the Burkes in the Eleventh Circuit. And had I known about the case, I do not believe I would have thought I had any obligation to disclose the case or the referenced order to the Burkes.

10. The complaint also alleges (at 7-11) that Goodwin and I acted unethically with respect to certain witnesses in two cases brought by counties in Illinois and Georgia alleging that the Bank of America and related entities violated the Fair Housing Act: County of Cook v. Bank of America, 14-cv- 2280 (N.D. Ill.), and Cobb County v. Bank of America Corp., No. 15-cv-04081 (N.D. Ga.). Goodwin

William W. Wilhelm, Bar Counsel Attorney Consumer Assistance Program The Florida Bar
October 10, 2020
Page 3

represents the Bank of America entities in those proceedings, and I appeared in the County of Cook case.

I am familiar with the filings in both cases. The same counsel represented the counties in the two cases.

The Burkes are neither parties nor movants for intervention in either proceeding.

11.  As the complaint states, eleven of the counties’ witnesses, whose statements were referred to and relied upon in the counties’ complaints, were former Bank of America employees, five of whom had given the counties’ lawyers sworn I was in not  directly involved in the process of obtaining the sworn declarations from any of the witnesses, as that was done by my colleagues.

The Cook County case is large, complex, and required a large team running separate parts of the case. My understanding from speaking to my colleagues is that after obtaining the statements, Goodwin offered to represent the witnesses in the event that the counties deposed them and that they accepted.

12.  The plaintiff counties moved to disqualify Goodwin from representing the witnesses and the bank and for various sanctions, supported by an affidavit from Professor Roy Simon of New York1

Goodwin opposed the motions,2 supported by sworn declarations from a responsible partner3; other declarations from the Goodwin associate who had virtually all of the contacts with witnesses4; and by declarations from respected ethics authorities: Steven F. Pflaum in the County of Cook case and Professor Patrick E. Longan in the Cobb County case.5

The declarations of the Goodwin associate explained in detail the disclosures he had made to the witnesses both at the time the statements were obtained and at the time that Goodwin representation was offered and finalized.

The two experts both concluded that Goodwin had acted properly in its dealings with the witnesses.

13. The Burkes’ complain t, in complaining about my alleged conduct and Goodwin’s, does not specify any statement of mine or any statement in Goodwin’s filings that it claims were false.

14. Although Goodwin believed and continues to believe that its conduct was proper, Goodwin advised the court and the plaintiffs of its willingness to withdraw from the representation of

1 Cook Country motion to disqualify counsel and memorandum ln support, Doc. 388 (filed Dec. 2, 2019) in County of Cook, supra; Cobb Coun ty motion to disqualify counsel and memorandum in support , Doc. 53 (Dec. 18, 2020) in Cobb County, supra.

2 Opposition to Plaintiff’ s Motion to Disqualify Counsel, Doc. 439 (filed Jan. 21, 2020) in County of Cook, supra; id.,

Doc. 66 (filed Jan. 28, 20 20} in Cobb County, supra.

3 Declaration of Thomas M. Hefferon, Doc. 442 (filed Jan. 21, 2020) in County of Cook, supra; id., Doc. 66.3 (fi led Jan. 28, 2020) in Cobb County, supra.

4 Declaration of Benjamin R. Cox, Doc. 441 (filed Jan. 21, 2020) in County of Cook , supra; id., Doc. 66-2 (filed Jan. 28, 2020) in Cobb Count y, supra.

5 See Declaration of St ev en F. Pflaum, Doc. 440 (filed Jan. 21, 2020) in County of Cook, supra; Declaration of (Professor) Patrick E. Longan, Doc. 66-1 (filed Jan. 28, 2020) in County of Cook, supra.

William W. Wilhelm, Bar Counsel Attorney Consumer Assistance Program The Florida Bar
October 10, 2020
Page 4

the nine former employees and to provide independent counsel should the witnesses need it.6

The court held a status hearing that confirmed the bank’s willingness to withdraw on communication and other terms acceptable to the court and referred the matter to a magistrate judge to oversee the withdrawal.7

15.  After the withdrawal was complete, the district court in the Cook County case denied the motion to disqualify Goodwin as 8 The court granted none of the sanctions that Cook County had sought in its motion.

16.  Goodwin promptly filed the Cook County order with the Northern District of Georgi a in the Cobb County case, and that court denied as moot the Georgia Counties motion to disqualify Goodwin.9

It denied other requested relief with respect to the witnesses and the requested sanctions, noting that plaintiffs did not specifically rely on the statements from the witnesses in question in their Second Amended Complaint and that defendants had not referenced them in their pending motion to dismiss, so that those issues were moot at the time of order.

The court left often the possibility of addressing the requested relief and sanctions “[i]f the confidential witnesses become relevant ” 10

No subsequent filing attempts to raise the issues again.

17.  Cook County moved in the Northern District of Illinois for sanctions against Goodwin in the amount of its expert expenses in connection with the motion for disqualification proceedings and relief from the twenty-deposition limit that Court had imposed.11

Goodwin opposed that motion, arguing in part that the Court had already denied the requested 12 On August 25, 2020, the court denied the motion for sanctions, finding it to be “without merit.”13

18.  While I was not directly involved in Goodwin’ s allegedly improper conduct, I continue to believe that Goodwin’s actions with respect to the witnesses were No client or former client of

6 Notification of Docket Entry, Doc. 450 (Jan. 31, 2020), in County of Cook, supra.

7 Id. For the magistrate judge’s order on the terms of withdrawal, see Notification of Docket Entry, Doc. 460 (Feb.

11, 2020) in County of Cook, supra.

8 Notification of Docket Entry, Doc. 478 (Mar. 23, 2020), in County of Cook, supra.

9 Order, Doc. 86 (May 10, 2020) in Cobb County, supra.

10 Id.

11 Doc. 493 (June 8, 2929) in County of Cook, supra

11 Doc. 506 (July 14, 2020) in County of Cook, supra.

13 Magistrate Judge Order of Aug. 25, 2020 (Doc. 518) in County of Cook, supra, at 1. The order is attached to this response as Exhibit 1.

William W. Wilhelm, Bar Counsel Attorney Consumer Assistance Program The Florida Bar
October 10, 2020
Page 5

Goodwin in these cases – not the bank and not any of the witnesses at issue – has complained about Goodwin’s conduct. So far as I know, no bar complaint has been filed against me by any of the counties.

19.  With respect to the allegation (at 9) that Goodwin violated the “hot potato” doctrine in withdrawing from the representation of the witnesses, the counties raised that issue in their motion to disqualify Goodwin14 (unsupported by Professor Simon). Goodwin’s experts explained in detail why that doctrine was inapplicable.15 Thereafter, as we have shown, both courts specifically approved the withdrawals, declined to disqualify Goodwin from continuing its representation of  the  bank, and declined to issue sanctions against Goodwin .

20.  With respect to the complaint’s assertion (at 10) that “‘ [p]rima facie evidence exists that Goodwin suborned perjury fr om the confidential witnesses by obtaining false declarations under penalty of perjury …”‘, complainants are quoting a passage from Professor Simon’s initial declarations in support of disqualification,16 which was filed before Goodwin’ s detailed explanation of the communications with the witnesses.

Complainants’ only evidence of perjury is that five of the witnesses each signed a declaration that was allegedly inconsistent with a prior declaration obtained by Cook County investigators.17

But in my experience there are many reasons short of perjury why witnesses might sign a declaration (or give testimony) that is inconsistent with a prior declaration, as both of Goodwin’s experts explained in their declarations, relying on the descriptions of the communications with the witnesses that Goodwin had provided. 18

I do not believe that any of the later witness declarations were false, and I do not believe that there is any good reason to conclude that they were false.

21.  Two bar complaints virtually identical to mine were filed with the Virginia State Bar against two partners at Goodwin who have been active in these cases.

Those complaints were also filed as attachments in the Eleventh Circuit appeal from the denial of the Burkes’ motion to intervene.

Burkes’ motion for relief to retain the three reply briefs on the record (filed June 9, 2020), in Burke v.

14 Cook Country motion to disqualify counsel and memorandum in support , supra, at 7; Cobb County motion to disqualify counsel and memorandum in support , supra, at 7.

15 Declaration of Steven F. Pflaum, supra, at paras 72-76; Declaration of [Professor] Patrick E. Longan, supra at 24- 25.

16 Declaration of Prof. Roy D Simon, in County of Cook, supra, at 3-4; id. in Cobb County, supra, at 5

17 The counties and the bank vigorously disputed whether and to what extent the later declarations were in fact inconsistent with the earlier ones. The order denying sanctions against Goodwin labeled Professor Simon’s statement about suborning perjury as “brashly stated.” Magistrate Judge Order of Aug. 25, 2020 (Doc. 518) in County of Cook, supra, at 2.

18 Declaration of Steven F. Pflaum, supra, at paras 42 & 65-67; Declaration of [Professor] Patrick E. Longan, supra at 17- 18. Three of  the  five declarations  at  issue were four years apart (Arnold Fishman, Amul Modhera, and Kimberly Abbott), which might be a factor in explaining alleged discrepancies, should any of the five witnesses be deposed or called to testify at trial. Of these five, the complaint mentions only Mr. Fishman. Complaint at S-10 .

William W. Wilhelm, Bar Counsel Attorney Consumer Assistance Program The Florida Bar
October 10, 2020
Page 6

Ocwen Financial Corp., LLC, No. 19-13015 {11th Cir.), Ex. A and Ex. B.

According to the Burkes, the Virginia Bar decided after preliminary review not to proceed on the basis of the complaints.

See Third opposed motion to stay proceeding and motion to hold case in abeyance (filed July S, 2020), in Burke v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 19-20267 (5th Cir. docketed April 22, 2019), Exhibit VSB (Burke June 29, 2020 request for reconsideration and Virginia State Bar response of July 5, 2020).

22.  Another bar complaint virtually identical to mine was done June 15, 2020, with the D.C. disciplinary authorities against a third partner at Goodwin who has been active in the relevant cases.

That complaint was also filed in the Burkes’ Fifth Circuit appeal from the dismissal of their suit against Ocwen.

See Third opposed motion to stay proceeding and motion to hold case in abeyance (filed July 5, 2020), in Burke v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 19-20267 (5th Cir. docketed April 22, 2019), at 7 and Exhibit DCBar.

According to the Burkes, the D.C. disciplinary authorities rejected the complaint on August 4, 2020.

See Burke letter to Chief Judge Pryor of the Eleventh Circuit, filed in No. 19-13015 (Aug. 6, 2020) at 3.

23.  The instant bar complaint against me was also filed in the Burkes’ Fifth Circuit appeal from the dismissal of their suit against Ocwen.

See Third opposed motion to stay proceeding and motion to hold case in abeyance (filed July 5, 2020}, in Burke Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 19-20267 (5th Cir. docketed April 22, 2019}, at 7 [CHECK] and Exhibit FLBar.

24.  The complaint states (at 4-5) that the Burkes have filed a judicial complaint against Judge Marra, the judge who denied the Burkes’ motion to intervene in the Southern District of Florida.

The judicial complaint was filed on June 9, 2020, in the appeal from Judge Marra’s denial, Burke v. Ocwen Financial Corp., No. 19-13015 (11th Cir.).

The judicial complaint has also been filed as an attachment in Burke v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 19-20267 (5th Ctr. docketed April 22, 2019).

See Third opposed motion to stay proceeding and motion to hold case in abeyance (filed July 5, 2020), Exhibit Marra.

The judicial complaint alleges (at 4-5) that Judge Marra’s assertions were “false, untruthful and for the purposes of this judicial complaint, personaI and pervasive bias against these pro se elderly citizens from Texas.”

I am not aware of any action on this judicial complaint.

William W. Wilhelm, Bar Counsel Attorney Consumer Assistance Program The Florida Bar
October 10, 2020
Page 7

25. I would be happy, if necessary, to submit copies of any documents referenced in this response.

 

 

 

 

CC: Joanna and John Burke

Exhibit 1: Order denying sanctions in County of Cook v. Bank of America, No. 14-cv-2280 (N.D. HI.), Doc. 518 (Aug. 25, 2020)

UPDATE; 2nd September, 2020

Emailed: 2:23 PM (2nd Sept., 2020)

Dear Mr. Wilhelm

COMPLAINT; CATALINA AZUERO; REF; 21-112 

Per your email stating it would arrive “shortly”. – Fri. 21st Aug.
Postmarked (reg. mail) – Mon. 24th Aug.
Arrived Kingwood TX, – Fri. 28th Aug. (p.m.)
Your letter demanded return by Mon. 31st Aug.
We ignored the prepaid reg. email and posted USPS priority mail (2 day delivery) same day, Friday, 28th Aug. as it took 5 days reg. mail to arrive.
Our priority shipping letter to the Florida Bar arrived today, 1.31 p.m – Wed., 2nd Sept.
As you are most likely aware, USPS deliveries are severely affected by the pandemic.
We are questioning why there was even a deadline applied to your letter, it’s not in any rules and certainly the demand timeline was unreasonable at a minimum.
We assume this will not affect our complaint.

Your earliest confirmation via EMAIL is respectfully requested.

Sincerely

Joanna Burke

RESPONSE;

From: Wilhelm, William W <wwilhelm@floridabar.org>
Date: Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 2:35 PM
Subject: RE: YOUR LETTER W/AFFIDAVIT
To: Joanna Burke <kajongwe@gmail.com>

All good with your affidavit….Your complaint will be processed in a few days….be well…www

UPDATE; 30th August, 2020

The Burkes timeline. Filed a complaint via email submission on June 18th, 2020. Assigned case ref. 21-112 on July 6th, 2020. Letter dated July 9th sent to Burkes declining to process complaint without originals which was received by Burkes in last 3rd of July. The Burkes complaints end up with Mr Wilhelm of the Fl. Bar stating via late Friday evening email (Aug. 21) that the Burkes would receive a letter with stamped address envelope to return blue ink affidavit “soon”. No mention of deadlines. On Mon., Aug 24th Bar posted letter by regular mail. It arrived Friday afternoon, 28th Aug. The Burkes, returned it sameday via USPS priority mail. See short video below for details.

UPDATE; 4th August, 2020

The Burkes received a letter via snail mail dated 9th July from the Florida Bar declining to process the complaint. The Burkes only received this letter at the end of July due to the fact USPS is so far behind on delivering mail. Here’s the Burkes emailed response;

Dear Ms. Austin,

We refer to your email on July 6th with case reference number, 21-112 re Catalina Azuero complaint.

We were both surprised and appalled by the content of the copy letter attached, signed by William W. Wilhelm three days later. Not only did he decline to process the case via efiling, which we made clear was due to COVID-19 – you acknowledged the complaint with a reference number via email. For Mr. Wilhelm to then issue a letter by post and not even copy his curt and erroneous arguments and remit a copy via email is obtuse and quite frankly unacceptable.

We are elderly citizens (80+ years old) of Texas and have been following the stay at home order since Gov. Abbott announced it. As you are most likely aware, there is a pandemic and we are at risk due to our age and health. As such, we are still following the stay at home order (as recommended).

We can assure you that State Bar email complaints are more than acceptable – we have submitted complaints against other Goodwin Procter lawyers who were part of Ms. Azuero’s legal team in the related case with several other state bars. Florida is the only Bar which is attempting to usurp an executive order.

With that in mind, we anticipate an email by return confirming the Florida Bar is going to process our complaint as submitted via email OR advise the specific rule(s) which prevent your Bar from complying with the executive order(s) (and relying upon our age, health and location in Texas). We’d also like to know why the United States Constitution, the Due Process Clause and your Oath is being violated by your Bar during an international pandemic.

With prejudice.

Sincerely

United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois – CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:14-cv-02280

County Of Cook v. Bank of America Corporation et al
Assigned to: Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo
Referred to: Honorable Sunil R. Harjani
Cause: 42:405 Fair Housing Act
Date Filed: 03/31/2014
Jury Demand: Both
Nature of Suit: 443 Civil Rights: Accommodations
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff
County Of Cook represented by David J. Worley
Evangelista Worley, LLC
8100A Roswell Road
Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30350
404-205-8400
Email: david@ewlawllc.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDDolgora D. Dorzhieva
Milberg Phillips Grossman LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza
Suite 1920
New York, NY 11109
(212) 594-5013
Email: ddorzhieva@milberg.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDEzra Salami
Milberg Phillips Grossman LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza
Suite 1920
New York, NY 10119
(212)594-5300
Email: esalami@milberg.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJ. Birt Reynolds
Milberg Phillips Grossman LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza
Suite 1920
New York, NY 10119
(212) 594-5300
Email: breynolds@milberg.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJames M. Evangelista
Evangelista Worley, LLC
500 Sugar Mill Road
Suite 245A
Atlanta, GA 30350
(404) 205-8400
Email: jim@ewlawllc.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJames D. Montgomery , Sr.
James D. Montgomery & Associates, Ltd.
One North LaSalle Street
Suite 2450
Chicago, IL 60601
(312)977-0200
Email: james@jdmlaw.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJennifer Sarah Czeisler , F
Milberg Phillips Grossman LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza
Suite 1920
New York, NY 10119
(212) 594-5300
Email: jczeisler@milberg.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDKenneth A. Wexler
Wexler Wallace LLP
55 West Monroe
Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60603
(312) 346-2222
Email: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDKristi Stahnke McGregor
Evangelista Worley LLC
500 Sugar Mill Rd.
Suite 245A
Atlanta, GA 30350
404-205-8400
Email: kristi@ewlawllc.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMark J. Tamblyn
Wexler Wallace LLP
333 University Avenue
Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
916-565-7692
Email: mjt@wexlerwallace.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMichelle M. Montgomery
James D. Montgomery and Associates
1 N. LaSalle Street
Suite 2450
Chicago, IL 60602
312-977-0200
Email: mmm@jdmlaw.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDPeggy J Wedgworth
Milberg Phillips Grossman LLP
1 Pennsylvania Plaza
Suite 1920
New York, NY 10119
212 591-5300
Email: pwedgworth@milberg.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRoy Shimon
Milberg Phillips Grossman LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza
Suite 1920
New York, NY 10119
(212) 594-5300
Email: rshimon@milberg.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDSanford P. Dumain
Milberg Phillips Grossman LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza
Suite 1920
New York, NY 10119
(212) 594-5300
Email: sdumain@milberg.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDUmar Sattar
Wexler Wallace Llp
55 West Monroe St.
Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60603
(312) 346-2222
Email: us@wexlerwallace.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
Bank of America Corporation represented by Alicia Rubio
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
(617) 570-1736
Email: arubio@goodwinprocter.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCatalina E. Azuero
Goodwin Procter Llp
Exchange Place
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
(617) 570-1000
Email: cazuero@goodwinprocter.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDThomas M Hefferon
Goodwin & Procter LLP
1900 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202)346-4000
Email: thefferon@goodwinprocter.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDBenjamin Cox
Goodwin Procter Llp
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
(617) 570-1000
Email: bcox@goodwinprocter.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDChristopher J.C. Herbert
Goodwin Procter LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
(617) 570-1000
Email: CHerbert@goodwinlaw.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCourtney L. Hayden
Goodwin Procter LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
(617) 570-1000
Email: CHayden@goodwinlaw.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDHenry C. Dinger
Goodwin Procter LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
(617) 570-8347
Email: HDinger@goodwinlaw.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJames W. Mcgarry
Goodwin Procter Llp
Exchange Place
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
(617) 570-1000
Email: jmcgarry@goodwinprocter.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph Laurence Motto
Winston & Strawn LLP
35 W. Wacker Dr.
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 558-3728
Email: jmotto@winston.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph F Yenouskas
Goodwin Procter LLP
1900 N Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202)346-4000
Email: Jyenouskas@goodwinlaw.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDLevi Swank
Goodwin Procter LLP
1900 N Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 346-4000
Email: LSwank@goodwinlaw.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMatthew S. Sheldon
Goodwin Procter Llp
1900 N Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(212) 346-4000
Email: msheldon@goodwinprocter.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRyan Marc Dunigan
Winston & Strawn, Llp
35 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 558-3213
Email: rdunigan@winston.com (Inactive)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDSabrina M. Rose-Smith
Goodwin Procter Llp
1900 N Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 346-4000
Email: srosesmith@goodwinprocter.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDYvonne W Chan
Goodwin Procter Llp
Exchange Place
Boston, MA 02109
(617) 570-1000
Email: ychan@goodwinprocter.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Bank of America N.A. represented by Alicia Rubio
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCatalina E. Azuero
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDThomas M Hefferon
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDBenjamin Cox
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDChristopher J.C. Herbert
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCourtney L. Hayden
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDHenry C. Dinger
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJames W. Mcgarry
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph Laurence Motto
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph F Yenouskas
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMatthew S. Sheldon
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRyan Marc Dunigan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDSabrina M. Rose-Smith
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDYvonne W Chan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Countrywide Financial Corporation represented by Alicia Rubio
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCatalina E. Azuero
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDThomas M Hefferon
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDBenjamin Cox
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDChristopher J.C. Herbert
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCourtney L. Hayden
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDHenry C. Dinger
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJames W. Mcgarry
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph Laurence Motto
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph F Yenouskas
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMatthew S. Sheldon
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRyan Marc Dunigan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDSabrina M. Rose-Smith
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDYvonne W Chan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Countrywide Home Loans Inc. represented by Thomas M Hefferon
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDBenjamin Cox
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDChristopher J.C. Herbert
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCourtney L. Hayden
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDHenry C. Dinger
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJames W. Mcgarry
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph Laurence Motto
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph F Yenouskas
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMatthew S. Sheldon
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRyan Marc Dunigan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDSabrina M. Rose-Smith
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDYvonne W Chan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Countrywide Bank FSB represented by Alicia Rubio
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCatalina E. Azuero
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDThomas M Hefferon
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDBenjamin Cox
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDChristopher J.C. Herbert
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCourtney L. Hayden
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDHenry C. Dinger
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJames W. Mcgarry
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph Laurence Motto
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph F Yenouskas
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMatthew S. Sheldon
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRyan Marc Dunigan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDSabrina M. Rose-Smith
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDYvonne W Chan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Countrywide Warehouse Lending LLC represented by Alicia Rubio
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCatalina E. Azuero
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDThomas M Hefferon
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDBenjamin Cox
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDChristopher J.C. Herbert
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCourtney L. Hayden
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDHenry C. Dinger
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJames W. Mcgarry
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph Laurence Motto
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph F Yenouskas
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMatthew S. Sheldon
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRyan Marc Dunigan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDSabrina M. Rose-Smith
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDYvonne W Chan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
BAC Home Loans Servicing LP represented by Alicia Rubio
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCatalina E. Azuero
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDThomas M Hefferon
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDBenjamin Cox
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDChristopher J.C. Herbert
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCourtney L. Hayden
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDHenry C. Dinger
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJames W. Mcgarry
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph Laurence Motto
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph F Yenouskas
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMatthew S. Sheldon
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRyan Marc Dunigan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDSabrina M. Rose-Smith
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDYvonne W Chan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. represented by Alicia Rubio
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCatalina E. Azuero
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDThomas M Hefferon
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDBenjamin Cox
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDChristopher J.C. Herbert
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCourtney L. Hayden
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDHenry C. Dinger
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJames W. Mcgarry
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph Laurence Motto
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph F Yenouskas
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMatthew S. Sheldon
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRyan Marc Dunigan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDSabrina M. Rose-Smith
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDYvonne W Chan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Merrill Lynch Mortgage Captial Inc. represented by Alicia Rubio
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCatalina E. Azuero
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDThomas M Hefferon
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDBenjamin Cox
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDChristopher J.C. Herbert
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCourtney L. Hayden
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDHenry C. Dinger
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJames W. Mcgarry
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph Laurence Motto
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph F Yenouskas
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMatthew S. Sheldon
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRyan Marc Dunigan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDSabrina M. Rose-Smith
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDYvonne W Chan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc. represented by Alicia Rubio
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCatalina E. Azuero
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDThomas M Hefferon
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDBenjamin Cox
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDChristopher J.C. Herbert
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCourtney L. Hayden
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDHenry C. Dinger
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJames W. Mcgarry
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph Laurence Motto
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph F Yenouskas
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMatthew S. Sheldon
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRyan Marc Dunigan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDSabrina M. Rose-Smith
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDYvonne W Chan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Movant
Cook County Sheriff’s Office
Movant
Office of the Chief Judge
Movant
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
06/08/2020 494 NOTICE of Motion by Kenneth A. Wexler for presentment of motion for sanctions, 493 before Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo on 7/15/2020 at 09:45 AM. (Wexler, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/08/2020)
06/08/2020 493 MOTION by Plaintiff County Of Cook for sanctions against Goodwin Procter LLP and Memorandum in of Law in Support Thereof (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Professor Roy D. Simon, Jr. in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Against Goodwin Procter LLP)(Wexler, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/08/2020)
06/08/2020 492 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: The district judge has set a discovery schedule for the parties. To the extent the parties need a hearing on any discovery matter before the Magistrate Judge, they are requested to contact the Courtroom Deputy. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 06/08/2020)
06/05/2020 491 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: Per the parties’ joint status report, fact discovery is extended and ordered closed by 8/28/2020. Deadline for County to serve expert reports: 10/12/2020. Deadline for Defendants to serve expert reports: 11/24/2020. Deadline for County to serve rebuttal expert reports: 12/14/2020. All expert discovery to be completed by 1/22/2020. Dispositive motions with supporting memoranda due by 3/31/2021. Status hearing is reset for 8/28/2020 at 9:45 a.m. (to track the case only, no appearance is required). The parties shall file a joint written status report by 8/21/2020. The court will enter a scheduling order in response to the status report. Mailed notice. (mgh, ) (Entered: 06/05/2020)
06/05/2020 490 STATUS Report (Joint) Report Concerning Discovery & Settlement by BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America N.A., Countrywide Bank FSB, Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans Inc., Countrywide Warehouse Lending LLC, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch Mortgage Captial Inc., Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc. (Sheldon, Matthew) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

Lawyer Complaint (Fl. Bar) : Catalina E. Azuero

This complaint is against an attorney registered with the Florida State Bar. The lawyers’ name is Catalina Azuero and she works for Goodwin Procter, LLP. Her law firm  represents Ocwen in the cited case below and she is one of the named counsel of record. The Burkes claim that Ms. Azuero violated (at a minimum) “Based on these facts, the Florida referee found Hagendorf guilty of violating rules 4-3.3 (candor toward the tribunal), 4-3.4 (fairness to opposing party and counsel), 4-4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others), 4-8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and 4-8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar.” – The Florida Bar v. Hagendorf, 921 So. 2d 611, 613-14 (Fla. 2006).

“The referee recommended that Niles be found guilty of violating the following provisions of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar: Rule 3-4.3 (misconduct and minor misconduct) of the Rules of Discipline; Rules 4-1.2(a) (scope of representation), 4-1.4 (communication), 4-1.5 (fees for legal services), 4-1.6(a) (confidentiality of information), 4-1.7(b), 4-1.8(b), (d), (i), 4-1.9(b) (conflict of interest), 4-1.15 (safekeeping property), 4-2.1 (adviser), 4-4.1(a) (truthfulness in statements to others), 4-4.4 (respect for rights of third persons), and 4-8.4(b), (c), (d) (misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.” – Florida Bar v. Niles, 644 So. 2d 504, 506 (Fla. 1994).

Then there’s the Cobb County cases described herein, of which Ms. Azuero is counsel. Then there is the violation of  “The trial court found that the attorneys had violated Florida’s Rule of Professional Conduct 4–1.7, governing conflicts with current clients, and Rule of Professional Conduct 4–1.9, governing conflicts with former clients. ” Young v. Achenbauch, 136 So. 3d 575, 579 (Fla. 2014) with respect to Ms. Azuero. This resulted in suspensions for both lawyers, see; The Florida Bar v. Steven Kent Hunter, Case No.: SC16-1006, TFB No. 2014-70,728(11C) and The Florida Bar v. Philip Maurice Gerson, Case No.: SC16-1009, TFB No. 2014-70,729(11C).  The April 11, 2018 Supreme Court opinion is here:

https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2016/1006/2016-1006_disposition_141625_d31a.pdf .

Other cases specific to Goodwin are discussed below. The Burkes also draw the Bar’s attention to;  Cruickshank v. Dixon (In re Blast Fitness Grp., LLC), No. 16-10236-MSH (Bankr. D. Mass. Jan. 8, 2019)

And there’s also former Goodwin lawyer, now law professor, Associate Professor Luke M. Scheuer who previously held adjunct positions at Boston College Law School, the University of Massachusetts School of Law, and Boston University School of Law and his paper; “Duty to Disclose Lawyer Misconduct” (2010), Available at: https://works.bepress.com/luke_scheuer/2/, wherein he discusses cases like In Re Himmel.

The Burkes Motion to Intervene in Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Ocwen Fin. Corp., No. 9:17-CV-80495-MARRA-MATTHEWMAN  (S.D. Fla. 2017-2020)

Background: The CFPB initiated the civil case on April 20, 2017, alleging that Ocwen, in servicing borrowers’ loans, engaged in various acts and practices in violation of federal consumer financial laws.

On January 4, 2019, Joanna and John Burke sought leave to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. (Doc. 220).

The CFPB and Ocwen jointly opposed the motion to intervene (Doc. 224) and the Burkes filed a reply brief (Doc. 237).

On May 30, 2019, the district court denied the Burkes’ motion to intervene (Doc. 375).

The Burkes moved for reconsideration (Doc. 408).

The Court denied that motion on July 3, 2019, (Doc. 411), and the Burkes noticed an appeal on August 2, 2019 to the Eleventh Cir., Case No. 19-13015.

The Burkes have argued that Ocwen’s counsel, Ms. Catalina Azuero knowingly committed perjury and withheld evidence of the Greens case from the Burkes.

Denial of Intervention ‘As of Right’: Judge Marra denied the Burkes intervention as of right (Doc. 375, p. 4).

Denial of Intervention ‘Permissively’: Judge Marra also concluded the Burkes should be denied permissive intervention.

Analysis of Judge Marra’s Order [Reconsideration]; The Burkes then asked Judge Marra to reconsider. The courts fleeting order follows (Doc. 411, p. 3);

“In addition to the grounds stated in the Court’s Order Denying Intervention (ECF No. 375), the Court notes that intervention is not permitted to allow a party to seek or obtain evidence for other litigation as asserted by the proposed Intervenors. (See ECF No. 408 at 4).”

Judge   Marra’s  Implausible  Statement:  The Burkes address the proclamation that the ‘intervention is not permitted for the purposes of seeking or obtaining evidence for other litigation’ and which refers to p. 4 of the Burkes motion for reconsideration (wherein the Burkes detail reasons for their request to intervene, included obtaining documentation to assist with their ongoing and active litigation in Texas against Ocwen).

Obtaining “Evidence” as a Non-Party Without a Motion to Intervene: Recently, and most certainly after Doc. 411 was published by Judge Marra, the pro se Burkes were researching cases and citations which would help prove their arguments for their current appeal at the Eleventh Cir. (Case No. 19-13015). The results now raise a serious question as to the truth of the uncorroborated statement in law by United States District Judge Kenneth A. Marra (Doc. 411, p.3).

Disclosure; While it is a thorny issue, the Burkes have been left no alternative but to [separately] file a judicial complaint against Judge Marra. This CFPB v Ocwen case indirectly involves important matters pertaining to the Burkes litigation and homestead. When they located this titanic case, which could provide a vehicle for the Burkes to obtain either documentation and information that would assist in the Texas case(s) or could provide relief directly, they did so in a quick and legally correct basis. This is why the Burkes intervened in the S.D. Fl. Action.  The Burkes allege there had to be joint collusion between counsel for Ocwen, CFPB and Judge Marra to unlawfully deny rightful intervenors Burkes from joining the lawsuit, which is proven by the filings on the docket itself.

In the Texas case of Green v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (In re Green), Bankruptcy No. 12-38016 (13) (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2019), which will be referenced as “Greens” for short, is one of a series of actual cases by the Greens, who are Texas homeowners, at the S.D. Tex. court against Ocwen. The order In Re Green was published on August 26th, 2019, e.g. After Judge Marra had disposed of the Burkes motion to intervene and reconsideration and after the Burkes Notice of Appeal (Doc. 414, Aug. 2, 2019).

A summary of the Greens own foreclosure case(s) is provided by U.S. District Judge Nancy Atlas’s order affirming Bankruptcy Judge Marvin Isgur’s order, and allowing the Greens to retain access to ‘discovery’ documents as evidence for their own case against Ocwen.

The documents which the Greens actually obtained and Ocwen attempted to quash, would be from the lower court case in Florida. That is correct, these are documents (currently under seal at S.D. Tex.), from the CFPB v. Ocwen case before Judge Marra. See Green v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (In re Green), Bankruptcy No. 12-38016 (13), at *2-4 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2019).

The Burkes hold Ms. Azuero’s filings and statements to be false and untruthful. Ms. Azuero’s responses went further than zealously defending her client, she viciously maligned these pro se elderly citizens from Texas and all the while knowingly committing perjury in signed statements and filings in the lower court.

“Ocwen and the CFPB jointly opposed the Burkes’ motion, which the district court denied. On appeal, the Burkes repeat many of the same conspiracy theories and unsupported attacks on Ocwen and the CFPB that they alleged below, while failing to articulate any comprehensible, legally-supported rationale for why their intervention in this case is warranted. The Court should ignore the Burkes’ baseless and irrelevant attacks on the parties and affirm the district court’s well- reasoned decision.”

Then, without a flicker of foreboding that as an attorney she had an ethical duty to tell the truth, she repeated these lies again, months later, at the appeal court level.

This was prejudicial to the Burkes by premeditated cheating and trickery e.g. lying and knowingly hiding the Greens case from the Burkes. Below is the introduction from Burkes’ reply brief on appeal at Eleventh Circuit (No. 19-13015):-

PREAMBLE AND DISCLAIMER

“First, a rather lengthy reply brief, including a recap of the case is necessary due to the bad faith conduct of the parties, the appellees in this appeal. While the Burkes wished to keep the reply short and concise, this has proven impractical due to the [mis]conduct as detailed here.

The Burkes summary argument truly attempts to focus on the evidence, the facts, the pleadings and the law, but it ends up being sabotaged by a litany of ethical violations which include, but are not by any means exhaustive;

(i)    Collusion and Conspiracy.

(ii)   Bad Faith Conduct.

(iii)  Dishonesty towards the Tribunal.

(iv)  New evidence showing the Court and the parties must have known about the Greens case in S.D. Tex.

Second, the pro se Burkes have been left searching for the truth, rather than focusing on the appeal, due to apparent known concealment and dishonesty by the lower court.

The Cobb County Federal Court Cases in Illinois and Georgia

Ms. Azuero is counsel in the two actions the Burkes wish to reference in this matter. These are; Cobb County v. Bank of America Corporation (1:14-CV-02280), District Court, N.D. Illinois and Cobb County v. Bank of America Corporation (1:15-cv-04081-LMM), District Court, N.D. Georgia where the Burkes recently uncovered more unethical practices. Cobb Cnty. v. Bank of Am. Corp., 183 F. Supp. 3d 1332, 1333 (N.D. Ga. 2016)).

Here, Goodwin Procter approached the County’s named eleven witnesses, former loan officers who signed affidavits which explained the illegal loans the banks were issuing for financial avarice and not in the interests of consumers.

Once Goodwin contacted them, these ex-employees of the Bank recanted in the majority, their claims from their first affidavit. Both the Illinois and Georgia judges stated that they were very troubled by the actions of Goodwin. In the Illinois case, there is a transcript of the hearing.

Ms. Azuero and her law firm represented the Bank in the Illinois case and her fellow partner, Matthew Sheldon was grilled by Judge Bucklo. (See transcript from Dec. 5, 2019 hearing, which was submitted to Judge May in Georgia; Doc. 53.14, Cobb County v. Bank of America Corporation (1:15-cv-04081-LMM) District Court, N.D. Georgia). Here’s a snippet;

“I really don’t understand how you can represent them.” – “I do find it DISTURBING.”- Judge Bucklo.

After that hearing Goodwin promptly discarded the new witnesses (Doc. 83, March 25th, 2020) to fend for themself and after signing agreements to represent them.

The courts found that this meant the witness statements were moot [at this time]. While the Burkes dispute that opinion in law, the purpose of this complaint is the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Burkes now highlight the fact that ethically, the lawyer(s) actions are certainly not ‘moot’. Actually, in the Georgia action, Judge May has kept the ‘sanctions’ against Goodwin Procter, LLP, firmly on the table (Doc. 86, April 10th, 2020). As of Monday, June 8th, 2020, the Cobb County lawyers have officially filed for sanctions. See Doc’s 493/494.

Furthermore, it was clear that the judges and all counsel recognized that these witnesses could be charged with perjury upon independent review. Goodwin dropped them faster than a hot potato but the ‘hot potato rule’ does not support that decision; Under the “hot potato” rule, a “‘law firm that knowingly undertakes adverse concurrent representation cannot avoid disqualification by withdrawing from the representation of the less favored client.’”  The “hot potato” rule reflects that the “duty of loyalty to an existing client is so important, so sacred, so inviolate that “not even by withdrawing from the relationship can an attorney evade it.

See also; https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hot-potato-rule/  and State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Drobot, 192 F. Supp. 3d 1080 (C.D. Cal. 2016)

Certainly, from afar, the Burkes performed a quick audit and now question witness Jim Morelli’s employment history. Mr. Morelli is also a licensed notary public. So from a truth-seeking viewpoint, the fact that his Linkedin profile shows he worked from 1999-2007 – 8 years+ at First Franklin. But his affidavit states;

“I worked as an account executive at First Franklin from 2002 to 2006.” (Doc. 53.11, signed 30th Sept., 2019 by Mr. Morelli) – That’s 4 years.  It begs the question – which is the truth?

As another example, when you look at Arnold “Arnie” Fishman’s before (Doc. 53.19, signed 22nd June, 2015) and after affidavit (Doc. 53.3, signed 26th July, 2019), it is extremely troubling. Mr. Fishman is a licensed mortgage broker and very active in the mortgage industry, currently employed by BMO Harris Bank for the last 8+ years as a mortgage loan originator, according to his Linkedin profile.  From the outside looking in, it appears Mr. Fishman now does not wish to jeopardize the mortgage and banking industry, where he’s spent the best part of his career as a mortgage loan originator. It is indicative that if Mr. Fishman was interviewed, his statements could form the basis  of perjury as a result of intimidation. See “Courts have noted that “a unilateral communications scheme . . . is rife with potential for coercion.”  Kleiner v. The First Nat’l Bank of Atlanta, 751 F.2d 1193, 1202  (11th Cir. 1985)”. This is also affirmed by the expert report and declaration of Professor Roy D. Simon, Jr., an expert in the field of legal ethics and professional responsibility.

“Prima facie evidence exists that Goodwin Procter suborned perjury from the confidential witnesses by obtaining false declarations under penalty of perjury and, by analogy to the “sham affidavit doctrine…”

Please review Law professor Roy Simon’s credentials, including his declaration and opinion that these lawyers violated Georgia’s professional codes of conduct.

In connection with this motion, the Counties retained Professor Roy D. Simon, Jr., a leading expert in the field of legal ethics. He is the Distinguished Professor of Legal Ethics Emeritus at Hofstra University School of Law, serves as a legal ethics advisor to law firms, and is the author of the twenty editions of Simon’s New York Rules of Professional Conduct Annotated, as well as other books in the field of professional responsibility. (See Declaration of Roy D. Simon (“Simon Decl.”), ¶¶ 1, 4, Ex. A.) and his profile; https://www.hofstra.edu/faculty/fac_profiles.cfm?id=1410

Ms. Azuero’s Actions are Below the Bar

Ms. Azuero’s resume identifies her role in the law firm (Attorney, resume attached), her experience in litigation in consumer related cases and her many years of attorney experience (Admitted to the Fl. Bar in 2004). In the CFPB v. Ocwen case, she is listed as counsel.

Ms. Azuero’s attempts to defend this unethical approach to witnesses, merely reaffirms the cold and calculated deceitfulness she is and was prepared to take e.g. risking her reputation and law license to win the case. Aggregating the CFPB case and the Cobb cases, the evidence is sufficient to show by clear and convincing proof that Ms. Azuero’s dishonesties and deception are on the record and cannot be contested and she personally elected to commit this fraudulence in court filings.

Elder Abuse Demands Revocation of License

The Burkes point to the conduct of the lawyer in the filing of this complaint, and rely upon the local Supreme Court in Texas when citing; for example the 1994 case before the Texas Supreme Court where they concisely summarized the difference, rejecting the Texas Bar’s argument;

“Our inquiry relates to the classification of the crime, not the tribunal’s subjective judgment of character of the particular lawyer convicted. In short, we classify the crime, not the lawyer.” Thacker, Matter of, 881 S.W.2d 307, 309 (Tex. 1994).

Due to the seriousness of her harmful acts against the Burkes who are in their 80’s, in poor health and litigating to keep their home, this is elder abuse fraud when the Burkes’ legal and civil rights have been completely violated.

Ms. Azuero has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, has abused her attorney role and experience of many, many years, which was used to act unlawfully and substantively injured the Burkes in their ongoing case(s).

Indeed, in Michigan, the Judge summed up ‘big law firms’ as being more accountable than smaller firms; see El Camino Resources, Ltd. v. Huntington National Bank, 623 F. Supp. 2d 863 (W.D. Mich. 2007). , citing;

“This Court is fully aware of the “changes” in the “legal world” and attempts to stay abreast of them and deal with cases in an up-to-date fashion. Keeping that in mind, however, does not somehow lead this Court to believe that “changes” also mean adopting a set of principles and ethics for “mega corporations” and “monster law firms” which is something less than that imposed on small companies and lesser-size law firms.

Rule 1.7 stands as is for everyone. This Court notes that, if anything, large law firms have an even greater responsibility to incorporate satisfactory computer conflicts check systems simply because of their size and the fact the lawyers in these firms are not able to manually check their client lists for potential conflicts.” –

Lemelson v. Apple Computer, Inc., 28 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1419 (rejecting SWS’s approach of a size- dependent application of ethical rules regarding disqualification).

In conclusion, taking the repetitive offenses as described holistically, the Burkes contend Ms. Azuero’s actions are so egregious against the elder Burkes, her license should be revoked, sending a strong message to lawyers that this type of behavior will not be tolerated and is ‘Below the Bar’.

Submitted this day, Thursday, June 18, 2020

Total Filings into the CFPB v OCWEN case by lawyer Catalina Azuero of Goodwin (for OCWEN); 79 Docket Entries from Feb 22, 2018 until July 28, 2020 plus one additional Declaration by Azuero (Doc. 195).

Docket No.’s 57 – 186; 21 entries by Catalina Azeuro

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5783758/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-v-ocwen-financial-corporation-inc/?page=1

Docket No.’s 187 – 358; 15 entries by Catalina Azeuro

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5783758/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-v-ocwen-financial-corporation-inc/?page=2

Docket No.’s 359 – 544; 19 entries by Catalina Azeuro

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5783758/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-v-ocwen-financial-corporation-inc/?page=3

Docket No.’s 545 – 706; 25 entries by Catalina Azeuro

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5783758/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-v-ocwen-financial-corporation-inc/?page=4

57

Feb 22, 2018

NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Catalina E Azuero on behalf of OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Attorney Catalina E Azuero added to party OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC(pty:dft), Attorney Catalina E Azuero added to party Ocwen Financial Corporation(pty:dft), Attorney Catalina E Azuero added to party Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.(pty:dft). (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 02/22/2018)

 

60

Feb 27, 2018

MOTION to Strike 53 Notice of Supplemental Authority, 31 MOTION TO DISMISS 1 Complaint FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, 52 Notice (Other) by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Responses due by 3/13/2018 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 02/27/2018)

 

61

Feb 27, 2018

RESPONSE in Support re 55 MOTION for Protective Order filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Declaration of Sabrina Rose-Smith in Support of Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion for Protective Order), # 2 Exhibit A (Exhibit A to the Declaration))(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 02/27/2018)

 

69

Mar 12, 2018

RESPONSE in Opposition re 59 MOTION to Intervene MOTION to Certify Class MOTION to Appoint Counsel MOTION to Add MGC Mortgage Inc. and LNV Corporation as Defendants filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Replies due by 3/19/2018. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 03/12/2018)

 

76

Mar 30, 2018

NOTICE by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc. Re: 55 ; Joint Notice Regarding Ocwen’s Motion for Protective Order (Azuero, Catalina) Modified to add document link on 4/2/2018 (pes). (Entered: 03/30/2018)

 

97

May 18, 2018

RESPONSE to 89 Order, (Response to Request to Unseal) by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 05/18/2018)

 

101

May 25, 2018

MOTION to Seal Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Answers to Its First Set of Interrogatories per Local Rule 5.4 by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 05/25/2018)

 

102

May 25, 2018

RESPONSE in Opposition re 95 MOTION to Compel Complete Answers to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Replies due by 6/1/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Catalina Azuero, # 2 Declaration of Andrew Combs)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 05/25/2018)

 

113

Jun 6, 2018

RESPONSE in Opposition re 106 Plaintiff’s MOTION to Challenge Defendants’ Confidential Designations and Incorporated Memorandum filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Replies due by 6/13/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Joseph J. Samarias)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 06/06/2018)

 

114

Jun 7, 2018

NOTICE by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc. re: DE 95 Joint Notice Regarding the Bureau’s Motion to Compel Answers to its First Set of Interrogatories (Azuero, Catalina) Modified link on 6/8/2018 (pes). (Entered: 06/07/2018)

 

126

Jun 15, 2018

RESPONSE in Opposition re 100 MOTION for Leave to File filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Replies due by 6/22/2018. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 06/15/2018)

 

127

Jun 15, 2018

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 115 MOTION to Compel Answer to Interrogatory 2 of its Second Set of Interrogatories by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 06/15/2018)

 

181

Oct 9, 2018

RESPONSE in Opposition re 173 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Produce Complete Borrower Servicing Files (Requests for Production 8 – 10) filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Replies due by 10/16/2018. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 10/09/2018)

 

182

Oct 9, 2018

Declaration of Catalina E. Azuero in Support to 181 Response in Opposition to Motion, by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 10/09/2018)

 

183

Oct 9, 2018

RESPONSE in Opposition re 175 MOTION to Compel Complete Responses to its Fourth Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Supporting Memorandum of Law filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Replies due by 10/16/2018. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 10/09/2018)

 

195

Oct 29, 2018

RESPONSE in Opposition re 190 MOTION to Compel COMPLETE RESPONSES TO ITS FOURTH AND FIFTH SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS and Supporting Memorandum of Law filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Replies due by 11/5/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Catalina E. Azuero, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2)(Wein, Andrew) (Entered: 10/29/2018)

 

235

Jan 22, 2019

RESPONSE in Opposition re 221 Plaintiff’s MOTION to Compel Defendants to Answer the Complaint filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Replies due by 1/29/2019. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 01/22/2019)

 

278

Mar 8, 2019

NOTICE by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc. (Joint Notice and Proposed Amended Discovery and Scheduling Order) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 03/08/2019)

 

279

Mar 8, 2019

RESPONSE in Opposition re 266 Plaintiff’s MOTION to Consolidate Cases with related action by Florida Attorney General and State of Florida OFR filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Replies due by 3/15/2019. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 03/08/2019)

 

291

Apr 1, 2019

MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiffs Third Set of Interrogatories by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 04/01/2019)

 

300

Apr 9, 2019

MOTION to Compel Plaintiff Florida Office of the Attorney General to Produce Responsive Documents and Provide Complete Discovery Responses by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Responses due by 4/23/2019 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 04/09/2019)

 

301

Apr 9, 2019

MOTION to Compel Plaintiff Florida Office of Financial Regulation to Participate in Discovery and Complete Discovery Responses by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Responses due by 4/23/2019 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 04/09/2019)

 

320

Apr 19, 2019

REPLY to Response to Motion re 291 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiffs Third Set of Interrogatories filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 04/19/2019)

 

326

Apr 22, 2019

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to file Notice of Intent to Request, and Motion/Request for, Redaction of Transcript of Hearing Procedures by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Responses due by 5/6/2019 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 04/22/2019)

 

327

Apr 22, 2019

RESPONSE in Opposition re 308 MOTION to Compel court-ordered RWG Reports and MAFs filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Replies due by 4/29/2019. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 04/22/2019)

 

337

Apr 24, 2019

RESPONSE in Opposition re 317 Plaintiff’s MOTION to Compel Defendants to Provide Complete Answers to Interrogatories 1-4 filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Replies due by 5/1/2019. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 04/24/2019)

 

341

Apr 26, 2019

NOTICE by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc. re 293 Order,, Set/Reset Deadlines,, Set/Reset Motion/R&R Deadlines and Hearings, (Joint Notice in Advance of May 2, 2019 Hearing) (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 04/26/2019)

 

345

May 1, 2019

NOTICE by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc. (Notice in Advance of May 2, 2019 Hearing) (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 05/01/2019)

 

351

May 9, 2019

MOTION to Seal Exhibit to Its Notice by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Azuero, Catalina) Modified on 5/10/2019 (dj). Modified on 5/10/2019 (dj). (Entered: 05/09/2019)351

 

352

May 9, 2019

NOTICE by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 05/09/2019)

 

434

Aug 26, 2019

RESPONSE in Opposition re 428 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to 421 Defendant’s MOTION For Leave to Use Certain Purportedly Privileged Documents, 419 Defendant’s MOTION for Sanctions Based on Plaintiff Florida Office o filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Replies due by 9/3/2019. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 08/26/2019)

 

441

Aug 27, 2019

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc. re 434 Response in Opposition to Motion, (AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE) (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 08/27/2019)

 

444

Aug 28, 2019

REPLY to Response to Motion re 420 Defendant’s MOTION to Compel Fact Discovery from Plaintiff Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1A, # 2 Exhibit 1B, # 3 Exhibit 1C, # 4 Exhibit 1D, # 5 Exhibit 1E, # 6 Exhibit 1F, # 7 Exhibit 1G, # 8 Exhibit 1H, # 9 Exhibit 1I, # 10 Exhibit 2, # 11 Exhibit 3, # 12 Exhibit 4, # 13 Exhibit 5, # 14 Exhibit 6, # 15 Exhibit 7, # 16 Exhibit 8)(Azuero, Catalina) Modified by Sealing Exhibits [444-1] through [444-10] pursuant to 446 Order on 8/30/2019 (nc). (Entered: 08/28/2019)

 

447

Aug 29, 2019

MOTION to Seal Reply Memorandum In Support of Its Motion For Discovery Sanctions Relating to Plaintiff’s At-Issue Loan Disclosures per Local Rule 5.4 by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 08/29/2019)

 

448

Aug 29, 2019

REPLY to Response to Motion re 422 Defendant’s MOTION for Sanctions Relating to Plaintiffs’ At-Issue Loan Disclosures (Redacted) filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 08/29/2019)

 

451

Sep 3, 2019

Corporate Disclosure Statement by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc. identifying Corporate Parent OCWEN Financial Corporation, Inc. for OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 09/03/2019)

 

465

Sep 18, 2019

REPLY to Response to Motion re 421 Defendant’s MOTION For Leave to Use Certain Purportedly Privileged Documents (Redacted) filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 09/18/2019)

 

466

Sep 18, 2019

REPLY to Response to Motion re 419 Defendant’s MOTION for Sanctions Based on Plaintiff Florida Office of Financial Regulation’s Violation of Discovery Orders filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 09/18/2019)

 

480

Oct 3, 2019

MOTION for Reconsideration of Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (DE 452) by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 10/03/2019)

 

501

Oct 24, 2019

Joint SCHEDULING REPORT – Rule by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., Office of Financial Regulation, Office of the Attorney General (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 10/24/2019)

 

505

Nov 1, 2019

ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 11/01/2019)

 

513

Nov 7, 2019

REPLY to Response to Motion re 480 MOTION for Reconsideration of Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (DE 452) filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 11/07/2019)

 

516

Nov 12, 2019

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Its Renewed Motion to Reopen and Compel Fact Discovery from Plaintiff Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. Responses due by 11/26/2019 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 11/12/2019)

 

523

Nov 18, 2019

Unopposed MOTION to Seal Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Reopen and Compel Fact Discovery from Plaintiff Consumer Financial Protection Bureau per Local Rule 5.4 by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 11/18/2019)

 

524

Nov 18, 2019

MOTION to Compel and Reopen Fact Discovery From Plaintiff Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. Responses due by 12/2/2019 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 – Filed Under Seal, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 11/18/2019)

 

541

Nov 22, 2019

Unopposed MOTION to Seal Defendants’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Use Certain Purportedly Privileged Documents (DE 522) per Local Rule 5.4 by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 11/22/2019)

 

542

Nov 22, 2019

MOTION for Reconsideration re 522 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Sealed Motion REDACTED by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 11/22/2019)

 

543

Nov 25, 2019

REPLY to Response to Motion re 515 Renewed MOTION to Compel Production of Improperly Logged Documents and Motion for Leave to Use Certain Purportedly Privileged Documents filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. Attorney Catalina E Azuero added to party PHH Mortgage Corporation(pty:dft). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 11/25/2019)

 

545

Nov 27, 2019

Unopposed MOTION to Seal Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Discovery per Local Rule 5.4 by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 11/27/2019)

 

546

Nov 27, 2019

RESPONSE in Opposition re 531 MOTION to Reopen Discovery redacted filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. Replies due by 12/4/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 11/27/2019)

 

550

Nov 27, 2019

Amended ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 11/27/2019)

 

551

Dec 2, 2019

REPLY to Response to Motion re 524 MOTION to Compel and Reopen Fact Discovery From Plaintiff Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 12/02/2019)

 

553

Dec 2, 2019

NOTICE by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation Joint Notice in Advance of December 4, 2019 Hearing (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 12/02/2019)

 

557

Dec 4, 2019

RESPONSE in Opposition re 527 MOTION to Strike 505 Answer to Amended Complaint Defendants’ Sixth Affirmative Defense filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. Replies due by 12/11/2019. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 12/04/2019)

 

563

Dec 9, 2019

Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 12/09/2019)

 

573

Dec 18, 2019

NOTICE by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation (Joint Notice Regarding Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Compel Production of Improperly Logged Documents and Motion for Leave to Use Certain Purportedly Privileged Documents) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 12/18/2019)

Main Doc­ument

 

579

Jan 13, 2020

RESPONSE in Opposition re 570 Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases on behalf of Bureau and Florida Plaintiffs filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. Replies due by 1/21/2020. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 01/13/2020)

 

588

Feb 7, 2020

RESPONSE in Opposition re 583 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Answer Third Amended Complaint and Allow for Limited Fact Discovery Related Thereto and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. Replies due by 2/14/2020. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 02/07/2020)

 

614

Apr 28, 2020

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation re 612 Response/Reply (Other), (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 04/28/2020)

 

617

Apr 29, 2020

NOTICE of Striking 614 Certificate of Service filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, PHH Mortgage Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., Ocwen Financial Corporation by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 04/29/2020)

 

618

Apr 29, 2020

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation re 612 Response/Reply (Other), (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 04/29/2020)

 

634

Jun 5, 2020

Defendant’s MOTION for Summary Judgment by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. Responses due by 6/19/2020 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

 

635

Jun 5, 2020

Statement of: Material Facts in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation re 634 Defendant’s MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Index, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9 (filed under Seal), # 11 Exhibit 10 (filed under Seal), # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14 (filed under Seal), # 16 Exhibit 15 (filed under Seal), # 17 Exhibit 16 (filed under Seal), # 18 Exhibit 17 (filed under Seal), # 19 Exhibit 18 (filed under Seal), # 20 Exhibit 19 (filed under Seal), # 21 Exhibit 20 (filed under Seal), # 22 Exhibit 21 (filed under Seal), # 23 Exhibit 22, # 24 Exhibit 23, # 25 Exhibit 24, # 26 Exhibit 25, # 27 Exhibit 26, # 28 Exhibit 27, # 29 Exhibit 28)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

 

639

Jun 5, 2020

Statement of: Material Facts in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation re 634 Defendant’s MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Index, # 2 Exhibit 29, # 3 Exhibit 30, # 4 Exhibit 31, # 5 Exhibit 32 (filed under Seal), # 6 Exhibit 33 (mailed to Chambers), # 7 Exhibit 34 (mailed to Chambers), # 8 Exhibit 35 (mailed to Chambers), # 9 Exhibit 36 (mailed to Chambers), # 10 Exhibit 37 (mailed to Chambers), # 11 Exhibit 38 (mailed to Chambers), # 12 Exhibit 39 (mailed to Chambers), # 13 Exhibit 40 (mailed to Chambers), # 14 Exhibit 41 (mailed to Chambers), # 15 Exhibit 42 (mailed to Chambers), # 16 Exhibit 43 (mailed to Chambers), # 17 Exhibit 44 (mailed to Chambers), # 18 Exhibit 45 (mailed to Chambers), # 19 Exhibit 46 (mailed to Chambers), # 20 Exhibit 47 (mailed to Chambers), # 21 Exhibit 48 (mailed to Chambers), # 22 Exhibit 49 (mailed to Chambers), # 23 Exhibit 50 (mailed to Chambers), # 24 Exhibit 51 (mailed to Chambers), # 25 Exhibit 52 (mailed to Chambers), # 26 Exhibit 53 (filed under Seal), # 27 Exhibit 54, # 28 Exhibit 55, # 29 Exhibit 55A (mailed to Chambers), # 30 Exhibit 55B (mailed to Chambers), # 31 Exhibit 56, # 32 Exhibit 57)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

 

640

Jun 5, 2020

Statement of: Material Facts in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation re 634 Defendant’s MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Index, # 2 Exhibit 58 (filed under Seal), # 3 Exhibit 59 (filed under Seal), # 4 Exhibit 60 (filed under Seal), # 5 Exhibit 61 (filed under Seal), # 6 Exhibit 62 (filed under Seal), # 7 Exhibit 63 (mailed to Chambers), # 8 Exhibit 64, # 9 Exhibit 65 (mailed to Chambers), # 10 Exhibit 66, # 11 Exhibit 67 (mailed to Chambers), # 12 Exhibit 68 (filed under Seal), # 13 Exhibit 69 (mailed to Chambers), # 14 Exhibit 70 (filed under Seal), # 15 Exhibit 71, # 16 Exhibit 72, # 17 Exhibit 73, # 18 Exhibit 74 (filed under Seal), # 19 Exhibit 75 (filed under Seal), # 20 Exhibit 76 (filed under Seal), # 21 Exhibit 77 (filed under Seal), # 22 Exhibit 78 (filed under Seal), # 23 Exhibit 79, # 24 Exhibit 80, # 25 Exhibit 81, # 26 Exhibit 82 (mailed to Chambers), # 27 Exhibit 83 (filed under Seal), # 28 Exhibit 84 (filed under Seal), # 29 Exhibit 85 (filed under Seal), # 30 Exhibit 86 (filed under Seal), # 31 Exhibit 87 (filed under Seal), # 32 Exhibit 88 (filed under Seal), # 33 Exhibit 89 (filed under Seal), # 34 Exhibit 90 (filed under Seal), # 35 Exhibit 91, # 36 Exhibit 92, # 37 Exhibit 93 (filed under Seal), # 38 Exhibit 94, # 39 Exhibit 95 (filed under Seal), # 40 Exhibit 96 (filed under Seal), # 41 Exhibit 97, # 42 Exhibit 98 (filed under Seal))(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

 

641

Jun 5, 2020

Statement of: Material Facts in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation re 634 Defendant’s MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Index, # 2 Exhibit 99 (filed under Seal), # 3 Exhibit 100 (filed under Seal), # 4 Exhibit 101 (filed under Seal), # 5 Exhibit 102 (filed under Seal), # 6 Exhibit 103 (filed under Seal), # 7 Exhibit 104 (filed under Seal), # 8 Exhibit 105 (filed under Seal), # 9 Exhibit 106 (filed under Seal), # 10 Exhibit 107 (filed under Seal), # 11 Exhibit 108 (filed under Seal), # 12 Exhibit 109 (filed under Seal), # 13 Exhibit 110 (filed under Seal), # 14 Exhibit 111 (filed under Seal), # 15 Exhibit 112 (filed under Seal), # 16 Exhibit 113 (filed under Seal), # 17 Exhibit 114 (filed under Seal), # 18 Exhibit 115 (filed under Seal), # 19 Exhibit 116 (filed under Seal), # 20 Exhibit 117 (filed under Seal), # 21 Exhibit 118 (filed under Seal), # 22 Exhibit 119 (filed under Seal), # 23 Exhibit 120 (filed under Seal), # 24 Exhibit 121, # 25 Exhibit 122 (filed under Seal), # 26 Exhibit 123 (filed under Seal), # 27 Exhibit 124 (filed under Seal), # 28 Exhibit 125, # 29 Exhibit 126, # 30 Exhibit 127, # 31 Exhibit 128, # 32 Exhibit 129 (filed under Seal), # 33 Exhibit 130 (filed under Seal), # 34 Exhibit 131, # 35 Exhibit 132, # 36 Exhibit 133 (filed under Seal), # 37 Exhibit 134, # 38 Exhibit 135, # 39 Exhibit 136, # 40 Exhibit 137, # 41 Exhibit 138)(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

 

651

Jun 24, 2020

Joint MOTION for Clarification of Matters Relating to Trial and Defendants’ Opposed Motion for a Case Management Conference re 647 Order on Motion to Seal by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 06/24/2020)

 

671

Jul 14, 2020

REPLY to Response to Motion re 637 Defendant’s MOTION to Exclude Testimony of Bureau Expert John Searson and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 07/14/2020)

 

672

Jul 14, 2020

REPLY to Response to Motion re 638 Defendant’s MOTION Motion to Exclude Testimony of Bureau Expert Daniel McFadden and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 07/14/2020)

 

674

Jul 24, 2020

RESPONSE in Opposition re 630 Plaintiff’s MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Joint) filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. Replies due by 7/31/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A – Navient Hearing Tr (Excerpted))(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 07/24/2020)

 

675

Jul 24, 2020

Statement of: Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Statement of Material Facts, and Defendants Counterstatement of Material Facts, in Support of Defendants Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation re 674 Response in Opposition to Motion, 631 Statement, (Attachments: # 1 Defendants’ Index of Exhibits to Defendants’ RSF, # 2 Exhibit 1 – SJ Opp. – Excerpts of Defendants Responses to Plaintiffs First Requests for Production of Documents to Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing, Inc., and Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC (Dec. 6, 2017), # 3 Exhibit 2 – SJ Opp. – Freddie Mac Single-Family Seller Servicer Guide, # 4 Exhibit 3 – SJ Opp. – Letter from Catalina E. Azuero to Sasha Funk Granai and Scott R. Fransen (July 5, 2018), # 5 Exhibit 4 – SJ Opp. – Redacted OCW-CFPB-001-02104570, # 6 Exhibit 5 – SJ Opp. – (filed under seal), # 7 Exhibit 6 – SJ Opp. – Excerpted Deposition of Christopher Kennedy (April 23, 2019), # 8 Exhibit 7 – SJ Opp. – Excerpted Hearing Transcript of Brian LaForest (May 26, 2016), # 9 Exhibit 8 – SJ Opp. – Excerpted Hearing Transcript of Mark Ehrenreich (June 8, 2016), # 10 Exhibit 9 – SJ Opp. – Errata Sheet to Deposition of William Erbey Deposition (June 21, 2019), # 11 Exhibit 10 – SJ Opp. – Excerpted Deposition of Thomas Arnett (April 25, 2019), # 12 Exhibit 11 – SJ Opp. – Ocwen Financial Corporation Form 8-K (Oct. 5, 2012), # 13 Exhibit 12 – SJ Opp. – Ocwen Financial Corporation Form 8-K (Feb. 19, 2013), # 14 Exhibit 13 – SJ Opp. – Redacted Declaration from Krysta Sebastian (“Sebastian Decl.”) (July 24, 2020), # 15 Exhibit 14 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 16 Exhibit 15 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 17 Exhibit 16A – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 18 Exhibit 16B – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 19 Exhibit 17 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 20 Exhibit 18 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 21 Exhibit 19 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 22 Exhibit 20 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 23 Exhibit 21 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 24 Exhibit 22 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 25 Exhibit 23 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 26 Exhibit 24 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 27 Exhibit 25 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 28 Exhibit 26 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 29 Exhibit 27 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 30 Exhibit 28 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers), # 31 Exhibit 29 – SJ Opp. – Excerpted Deposition of Benjamin Purser (April 3, 2019), # 32 Exhibit 30 – SJ Opp. – (mailed to chambers))(Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 07/24/2020)

 

684

Jul 28, 2020

RESPONSE in Opposition re 669 Plaintiff’s MOTION to Strike Declaration of Benjamin Verdooren and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., PHH Mortgage Corporation. Replies due by 8/4/2020. (Azuero, Catalina) (Entered: 07/28/2020)

General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 19-13015 Docketed: 08/05/2019
Nature of Suit: 2890 Other Statutory Actions
Joanna Burke, et al v. OCWEN Financial Corp., et al
Appeal From: Southern District of Florida
Fee Status: Fee Paid
Case Type Information:
     1) U.S. Civil
     2) U.S. Defendant – Non PLRA
     3) –
Originating Court Information:
     District: 113C-9 : 9:17-cv-80495-KAM
     Civil Proceeding: Kenneth A. Marra, Senior U.S. District Court Judge
     Secondary Judge: William Donald Matthewman, U.S. Magistrate Judge
     Date Filed: 04/20/2017
     Date NOA Filed:
     08/02/2019

 

JOANNA BURKE
Interested Party – Appellant
Joanna Burke
[NTC Pro Se]
Firm: 281-812-9591
46 KINGWOOD GREENS DR
KINGWOOD, TX 77339
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU
Plaintiff – Appellee
Bernard John Barrett, Jr.
Direct: 202-435-7000
[COR LD NTC U.S. Government]
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Office of the General Counsel
1700 G ST NW STE 509-B
WASHINGTON, DC 20552
JOHN BURKE
Interested Party – Appellant
John Burke
Direct: 281-812-9591
[NTC Pro Se]
Firm: 281-812-9591
46 KINGWOOD GREENS DR
KINGWOOD, TX 77339
versus
OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Florida corporation
Defendant – Appellee
Catalina E. Azuero
[NTC Retained]
Goodwin Procter, LLP
Firm: 617-570-1000
100 NORTHERN AVE
BOSTON, MA 02210Bridget Ann Berry
Direct: 561-650-7912
[NTC Retained]
Greenberg Traurig, PA
Firm: 561-650-7900
777 S FLAGLER DR STE 300E
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401Edwina Clarke
Direct: 617-570-1000
[COR NTC Retained]
Goodwin Procter, LLP
Firm: 617-570-1000
100 NORTHERN AVE
BOSTON, MA 02210Laura S. Craven
[NTC Retained]
Goodwin Procter, LLP
Firm: 617-570-1000
100 NORTHERN AVE
BOSTON, MA 02210Thomas Hefferon
Direct: 617-570-1000
[NTC Retained]
Goodwin Procter, LLP
Firm: 202-346-4000
1900 N ST NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20036Matthew P. Previn
[NTC Retained]
Buckley, LLP
1133 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS STE 3100
NEW YORK, NY 10036Amanda B. Protess
[NTC Retained]
Goodwin Procter, LLP
Firm: 212-813-8800
620 8TH AVE
NEW YORK, NY 10018-1618Matthew L. Riffee
[NTC Retained]
Goodwin Procter, LLP
Firm: 202-346-4000
1900 N ST NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20036Sabrina M. Rose-Smith
Direct: 202-346-4000
[COR NTC Retained]
Goodwin Procter, LLP
Firm: 202-346-4000
1900 N ST NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20036Matthew S. Sheldon
Direct: 202-346-4000
[COR NTC Retained]
Goodwin Procter, LLP
Firm: 202-346-4000
1900 N ST NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20036Tierney E. Smith
Direct: 202-346-4000
[NTC Retained]
Goodwin Procter, LLP
Firm: 202-346-4000
1900 N ST NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20036Laura A. Stoll
Direct: 213-426-2500
[NTC Retained]
Goodwin Procter, LLP
601 S FIGUEROA ST 41ST FL
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017W. Kyle Tayman
[NTC Retained]
Goodwin Procter, LLP
Firm: 202-346-4000
1900 N ST NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20036Andrew Stuart Wein
[NTC Retained]
Greenberg Traurig, PA
Firm: 561-650-7900
777 S FLAGLER DR STE 300E
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
Defendant – Appellee
Catalina E. Azuero
[NTC Retained]
(see above)Bridget Ann Berry
Direct: 561-650-7912
[NTC Retained]
(see above)Edwina Clarke
Direct: 617-570-1000
[COR NTC Retained]
(see above)Laura S. Craven
[NTC Retained]
(see above)Thomas Hefferon
Direct: 617-570-1000
[NTC Retained]
(see above)Matthew P. Previn
[NTC Retained]
(see above)Amanda B. Protess
[NTC Retained]
(see above)Matthew L. Riffee
[NTC Retained]
(see above)Sabrina M. Rose-Smith
Direct: 202-346-4000
[COR NTC Retained]
(see above)Matthew S. Sheldon
Direct: 202-346-4000
[COR NTC Retained]
(see above)Tierney E. Smith
Direct: 202-346-4000
[NTC Retained]
(see above)Laura A. Stoll
Direct: 213-426-2500
[NTC Retained]
(see above)W. Kyle Tayman
[NTC Retained]
(see above)Andrew Stuart Wein
[NTC Retained]
(see above)
OCWEN MORTGAGE SERVICING INC., a U. S. Virgin Islands corporation
Defendant – Appellee
Catalina E. Azuero
[NTC Retained]
(see above)Bridget Ann Berry
Direct: 561-650-7912
[NTC Retained]
(see above)Edwina Clarke
Direct: 617-570-1000
[COR NTC Retained]
(see above)Laura S. Craven
[NTC Retained]
(see above)Thomas Hefferon
Direct: 617-570-1000
[NTC Retained]
(see above)Matthew P. Previn
[NTC Retained]
(see above)Amanda B. Protess
[NTC Retained]
(see above)Matthew L. Riffee
[NTC Retained]
(see above)Sabrina M. Rose-Smith
Direct: 202-346-4000
[COR NTC Retained]
(see above)Matthew S. Sheldon
Direct: 202-346-4000
[COR NTC Retained]
(see above)Tierney E. Smith
Direct: 202-346-4000
[NTC Retained]
(see above)Laura A. Stoll
Direct: 213-426-2500
[NTC Retained]
(see above)W. Kyle Tayman
[NTC Retained]
(see above)Andrew Stuart Wein
[NTC Retained]
(see above)
——————————
SERVICE Tianna Elise Baez
[NTC Not Applicable]
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Legal Division
1625 I ST NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006Stephanie C. Brenowitz
[NTC Not Applicable]
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Office of the General Counsel
1700 G ST NW STE 509-B
WASHINGTON, DC 20552Shirley T. Chiu
[NTC Not Applicable]
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Office of the General Counsel
1700 G ST NW STE 509-B
WASHINGTON, DC 20552Lawrence DeMille-Wagman
[NTC Not Applicable]
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Office of General Counsel
Firm: 202-418-5122
1155 21ST ST NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20010Atur Ravi Desai
[NTC Not Applicable]
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Office of the General Counsel
1700 G ST NW STE 509-B
WASHINGTON, DC 20552Scott Ray Fransen
[NTC Not Applicable]
Office of Financial Regulation
Firm: 813-218-5364
1313 N TAMPA ST STE 615
TAMPA, FL 33602Sasha Funk Granai
[NTC Not Applicable]
Attorney General’s Office
Office of Statewide Prosecution
Firm: 813-287-7960
3507 E FRONTAGE RD STE 350
TAMPA, FL 33607-7013Jean Marie Healey
[NTC Not Applicable]
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Office of the General Counsel
1700 G ST NW STE 509-B
WASHINGTON, DC 20552Gregory Ryan Nodler
[NTC Not Applicable]
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Office of the General Counsel
1700 G ST NW STE 509-B
WASHINGTON, DC 20552Jennifer Hayes Pinder
[NTC Not Applicable]
Attorney General’s Office
Criminal Division
Firm: 813-287-7900
3507 E FRONTAGE RD STE 200
TAMPA, FL 33607Michael Posner
[NTC Not Applicable]
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Office of the General Counsel
1700 G ST NW STE 509-B
WASHINGTON, DC 20552Amanda Christine Roberson
[NTC Not Applicable]
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Office of the General Counsel
1700 G ST NW STE 509-B
WASHINGTON, DC 20552James Joseph Savage
[NTC Not Applicable]
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Firm: 212-328-7007
140 E 45TH ST FL 4
NEW YORK, NY 10017Jack Douglas Wilson
[NTC Not Applicable]
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Office of the General Counsel
1700 G ST NW STE 509-B
WASHINGTON, DC 20552Blaine H. Winship
Direct: 850-414-3657
[NTC Not Applicable]
Office of the Attorney General
Firm: 850-414-3300
PL-01 The Capitol
TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399

08/05/2019  Open Document
11 pg, 917.09 KB
CIVIL APPEAL DOCKETED. Notice of appeal filed by Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke on 08/02/2019. Fee Status: Fee Not Paid. No hearings to be transcribed. Awaiting Appellant’s Certificate of Interested Persons due on or before 08/19/2019 as to Appellant Joanna Burke. Awaiting Appellee’s Certificate of Interested Persons due on or before 09/03/2019 as to Appellee Ocwen Financial Corporation [Entered: 08/09/2019 01:49 PM]
08/09/2019  Open Document
3 pg, 503.46 KB
TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION form filed by Party John Burke. No transcript is required for appeal purposes. [Entered: 08/09/2019 01:55 PM]
08/15/2019  Open Document
2 pg, 260.02 KB
Appellate fee was paid on 08/15/2019 as to Appellants. [Entered: 08/19/2019 04:16 PM]
08/16/2019  Open Document
6 pg, 333.1 KB
Appellant’s Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. [Entered: 08/21/2019 09:21 AM]
08/16/2019  Open Document
12 pg, 447.77 KB
MOTION to request electronic filing permission (ECF) filed by Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. Opposition to Motion is Unknown [8858506-1] [Entered: 08/21/2019 09:27 AM]
08/21/2019  Open Document
2 pg, 16.28 KB
Briefing Notice issued to Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. The appellant’s brief is due on or before 09/24/2019. The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of the appellant’s brief. [Entered: 08/21/2019 10:46 AM]
08/27/2019  Open Document
7 pg, 494.65 KB
Notice of filing: Inquiry of filing motion as to Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. [Entered: 08/27/2019 09:24 AM]
09/03/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 56.4 KB
APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by Matthew S. Sheldon for OCN, Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC and Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. [19-13015] (ECF: Matthew Sheldon) [Entered: 09/03/2019 01:15 PM]
09/03/2019  Open Document
6 pg, 120.53 KB
Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Attorney Matthew S. Sheldon for Appellees OCN, Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC and Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. On the same day the CIP is served, the party filing it must also complete the court’s web-based stock ticker symbol certificate at the link here http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/web-based-cip or on the court’s website. See 11th Cir. R. 26.1-2(b). [19-13015] (ECF: Matthew Sheldon) [Entered: 09/03/2019 01:33 PM]
09/05/2019  Open Document
3 pg, 154.23 KB
ORDER: Appellants’ motion to allow Appellant John Burke permission to submit documents through the Court’s electronic case filing system in this appeal is GRANTED, and Mr. Burke may submit documents through the Court’s electronic case filing system in this appeal. Mr. Burke is directed to sign up for CM/ECF access within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order, and Mr. Burke must notify this Court’s Clerk’s Office once he has registered. Appellants are still required to file the requisite number of paper copies of any briefs. See 11th Cir. R. 31-3 (“Use of the ECF system does not modify the requirement that counsel must provide to the court seven paper copies of a brief.”). [8858506-2] AJ [Entered: 09/05/2019 03:27 PM]
09/09/2019  Open Document
11 pg, 191.5 KB
MOTION for extension of time to file appellant’s brief to 10/24/2019 filed by John Burke. Motion is Unopposed. [8874195-1] [19-13015]–[Edited 09/09/2019 by BWH] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 09/09/2019 01:03 PM]
09/12/2019  Open Document
3 pg, 194.9 KB
ORDER: Motion for extension to file appellant brief filed by Appellant John Burke is GRANTED. [8874195-2] Appellants brief due on 10/24/2019, with the appendix due seven days from the filing of the brief. BBM [Entered: 09/12/2019 12:19 PM]
10/07/2019  Open Document
74 pg, 745.23 KB
MOTION to take judicial notice filed by John Burke. Opposition to Motion is Unknown. [8899158-1] [19-13015] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 10/07/2019 07:57 AM]
10/07/2019  Open Document
14 pg, 230.89 KB
MOTION to stay lower court proceedings filed by John Burke. Opposition to Motion is Unknown. [8899164-1] [19-13015] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 10/07/2019 08:01 AM]
10/15/2019  Open Document
15 pg, 232.22 KB
TIME SENSITIVE MOTION to stay further appellate proceedings filed by John Burke. Opposition to Motion is Unknown. [8905974-1] [19-13015] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 10/13/2019 04:59 PM]
10/16/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 57.35 KB
APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by Sabrina M. Rose-Smith for OCN, Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC and Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. [19-13015] (ECF: Sabrina Rose-Smith) [Entered: 10/16/2019 12:58 PM]
10/17/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 39.85 KB
APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by Bernard Barrett for Consumer Financial Protection Bureau [19-13015] (ECF: Bernard Barrett) [Entered: 10/17/2019 12:42 PM]
10/21/2019  Open Document
14 pg, 216.44 KB
EMERGENCY MOTION to stay further appellate proceedings filed by John Burke. Opposition to Motion is Unknown. [8911198-1] [19-13015] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 10/20/2019 08:01 PM]
10/24/2019 *STRICKEN* Appellant’s brief filed by John Burke. [19-13015]–[Edited 11/19/2019 by BWH] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 10/24/2019 02:43 PM]
10/24/2019 *STRICKEN* Appendix filed [1 volume VOLUMES] by Appellant John Burke. [19-13015]–[Edited 11/19/2019 by BWH] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 10/24/2019 02:51 PM]
10/25/2019  Open Document
2 pg, 5.25 KB
ORDER: Appellants’ motions to stay further appellate proceedings until the matter of the CFPB’s Constitutionality is answered by the U.S. Supreme Court are DENIED. Appellants’ alternative request for a stay of (90) days is GRANTED. Appellants’ brief is due January 27, 2020. [8905974-2] BBM [Entered: 10/25/2019 02:39 PM]
11/04/2019 Notice of deficient Brief filed by John Burke. Please forward paper copies of brief and appendix immediately. See 11th Circ. R. 31-3. [Entered: 11/04/2019 04:32 PM]
11/04/2019  Open Document
2 pg, 18.08 KB
Per phone call with Brad Holland (tel: 404-335-6181) and this Courts Order; Appellants alternative request for a stay of (90) days is GRANTED. Appellants brief is due January 27, 2020. Burkes will refile (deficient) brief on or before said date filed by Party John Burke. [19-13015] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 11/04/2019 07:27 PM]
11/07/2019  Open Document
13 pg, 221.73 KB
MOTION for reconsideration of single judge’s order entered on 10/25/2019 filed by John Burke. Opposition to Motion is Unknown. [8927320-1] [19-13015] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 11/07/2019 12:13 PM]
11/18/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 6.3 KB
ORDER: Appellants’ “Motion to Stay Lower Court Proceedings” is DENIED.[8899164-2]; Appellants’ “Motion to Take Judicial Notice and/or Supplement the Record” is DENIED. [8899158-2] CRW, BBM and JP [Entered: 11/18/2019 12:25 PM]
11/19/2019  Open Document
2 pg, 90.66 KB
ORDER: Appellants’ “Motion for Reconsideration to Stay Proceedings” is DENIED. On November 4, 2019, Appellants indicated in a CM/ECF docket entry that they intend to re-file their initial brief by January 27, 2020 in accordance with this Court’s October 25, 2019 order. Accordingly, Appellants’ initial brief and appendix, each filed on October 24, 2019, are STRICKEN. Appellants may file their initial brief by January 27, 2020, with the appendix due 7 days after the filing of the initial brief. [8927320-2]; BBM and JP [Entered: 11/19/2019 10:32 AM]
01/27/2020  Open Document
76 pg, 572.27 KB
Appellant’s brief filed by John Burke. [19-13015] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 01/26/2020 02:41 PM]
01/27/2020  Open Document
211 pg, 5.77 MB
Appendix filed [1 VOLUMES] by Appellant John Burke. [19-13015] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 01/26/2020 02:50 PM]
01/28/2020 ***SEALED BY ORDER OF THE COURT dated 3/6/2020***TIME SENSITIVE MOTION for recusal filed by John Burke. Opposition to Motion is Unknown. [8992909-1] [19-13015]–[Edited 03/06/2020 by BWH] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 01/28/2020 12:06 AM]
02/07/2020 Notice of deficient Brief and Appendix filed by John Burke. The paper copies of the Brief and Appendix have not been received. See 11th Cir. R. 31-3. Please send paper copies immediately. [Entered: 02/07/2020 09:00 AM]
02/07/2020  Open Document
13 pg, 264.85 KB
TIME SENSITIVE MOTION 14 day extension of time to file initial brief and appendix (4 volumes) filed by John Burke. Opposition to Motion is Unknown. [9003453-1] [19-13015] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 02/07/2020 09:42 AM]
02/07/2020  Open Document
14 pg, 299.22 KB
Notice of receipt: TIME SENSITIVE MOTION 14 day extension of time to file initial brief and appendix (4 volumes) as to Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. [Entered: 02/07/2020 11:15 AM]
02/18/2020 Received paper copies of EBrief filed by Appellant John Burke. [Entered: 02/19/2020 10:16 AM]
02/18/2020 Received paper copies of EAppendix filed by Appellant John Burke. 4 VOLUMES – 2 COPIES [Entered: 02/19/2020 10:25 AM]
02/19/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 12.33 KB
Public Communication: Appellees’ briefs are due on February 26, 2020. [Entered: 02/19/2020 11:49 AM]
02/21/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 6 KB
ORDER: “Appellants Burkes’ Motion to Disqualify Judge Jill A. Pryor” is DENIED. [8992909-2] JP [Entered: 02/21/2020 02:17 PM]
02/25/2020  Open Document
8 pg, 170.68 KB
TIME SENSITIVE MOTION for extension of time to file appellee’s brief to 03/11/2020 filed by Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC and OCN. Motion is Unopposed. [9017598-1] [19-13015] (ECF: Matthew Sheldon) [Entered: 02/25/2020 11:28 AM]
02/25/2020 Over the phone extension granted by clerk as to Attorney Bernard John Barrett, Jr. for Appellee Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Appellee’s Brief due on 03/11/2020 as to Appellee Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.. [Entered: 02/25/2020 11:57 AM]
02/25/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 14.42 KB
ORDER: Motion for extension to file appellee brief filed by Appellees Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, OCN and Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc. is GRANTED by clerk. [9017598-2] Appellees brief due on 03/11/2020. [Entered: 02/25/2020 12:19 PM]
03/06/2020  Open Document
2 pg, 5.31 KB
ORDER: The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to seal “Appellants Burkes’ Motion to Disqualify Judge Jill A. Pryor.” ENTERED FOR THE COURT – BY DIRECTION [Entered: 03/06/2020 09:36 AM]
03/09/2020  Open Document
15 pg, 236.84 KB
MOTION to unseal filed by John Burke. Opposition to Motion is Unknown. [9028354-1] [19-13015] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 03/07/2020 04:08 PM]
03/11/2020  Open Document
8 pg, 114.41 KB
Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by. On the same day the CIP is served, the party filing it must also complete the court’s web-based stock ticker symbol certificate at the link here http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/web-based-cip or on the court’s website. See 11th Cir. R. 26.1-2(b). [19-13015] (ECF: Bernard Barrett) [Entered: 03/11/2020 03:44 PM]
03/11/2020  Open Document
37 pg, 203.33 KB
Appellee’s Brief filed by Appellee Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. [19-13015] (ECF: Bernard Barrett) [Entered: 03/11/2020 04:33 PM]
03/11/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 54.52 KB
APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by Edwina Clarke for OCN, Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC and Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc. [19-13015] (ECF: Edwina Clarke) [Entered: 03/11/2020 06:43 PM]
03/11/2020  Open Document
37 pg, 237.36 KB
Appellee’s Brief filed by Appellees OCN, Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC and Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. [19-13015] (ECF: Sabrina Rose-Smith) [Entered: 03/11/2020 06:58 PM]
03/13/2020 Received paper copies of EBrief filed by Appellees OCN, Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC and Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. [Entered: 03/13/2020 10:41 AM]
03/13/2020 Received paper copies of EBrief filed by Appellee Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. [Entered: 03/16/2020 07:42 AM]
03/18/2020  Open Document
393 pg, 4.83 MB
Supplemental Appendix [2 VOLUMES] filed by Appellees Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc., Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC and OCN. [19-13015] (ECF: Sabrina Rose-Smith) [Entered: 03/18/2020 10:09 AM]
03/19/2020 Received paper copies of EAppendix filed by Appellees OCN, Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC and Ocwen Mortgage Servicing Inc.. 2 VOLUMES – 3 COPIES [Entered: 03/23/2020 03:52 PM]
03/23/2020 Over the phone extension granted by clerk as to Party John Burke. Updated Reply Brief. Due on 04/29/2020 as to Appellant John Burke. [Entered: 03/23/2020 01:02 PM]
03/31/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 6.04 KB
ORDER: Appellants’ “Motion to Unseal” is DENIED. [9028354-2] ENTERED FOR THE COURT – BY DIRECTION [Entered: 03/31/2020 03:27 PM]
04/17/2020  Open Document
15 pg, 344.59 KB
MOTION for extension of time to file reply brief to 05/29/2020 filed by John Burke. Opposition to Motion is Unknown. [9064430-1] [19-13015]–[Edited 04/17/2020 by BWH] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 04/17/2020 10:24 AM]
04/20/2020  Open Document
2 pg, 5.04 KB
ORDER: The motion for extension of time to and including May 29, 2020 in which to file Appellants’ reply brief is DENIED. [9064430-2] CRW [Entered: 04/20/2020 09:34 AM]
04/24/2020  Open Document
13 pg, 175.9 KB
TIME SENSITIVE MOTION to stay the briefing schedule filed by John Burke. Opposition to Motion is Unknown. [9070402-1] [19-13015] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 04/24/2020 12:49 PM]
04/28/2020  Open Document
2 pg, 5.89 KB
ORDER: Appellants’ motions for stay is DENIED. Appellants request for an extension of time is DENIED. Appellants’ reply brief is due April 29, 2020. [9070402-2] CRW [Entered: 04/28/2020 10:08 AM]
04/29/2020  Open Document
98 pg, 1.01 MB
***DOCUMENT FILED WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE COURT***Reply Brief filed by Appellant John Burke. [19-13015]–[Edited 05/28/2020 by BWH]–[Edited 06/23/2020 by BWH] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 04/29/2020 03:56 PM]
04/29/2020  Open Document
2 pg, 16.55 KB
Notice of deficient Reply brief filed by Party John Burke.Deficiencies: Pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 28-1, IOP 2, You are only allowed to file One (1) Reply Brief. (See below). “One Attorney, One Brief”. Unless otherwise directed by the court, an attorney representing more than one party in an appeal may only file one principal brief (and one reply brief, if authorized), which will include argument as to all of the parties represented by that attorney in that appeal, and one (combined) appendix. A single party responding to more than one brief, or represented by more than one attorney, is similarly bound. [Entered: 04/29/2020 04:51 PM]
04/30/2020  Open Document
9 pg, 150.95 KB
Notice of inability to comply with the paper copy requirement due to COVID-19 filed by Party John Burke. Paper copies will be submitted at a future date established by the Court. [19-13015] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 04/30/2020 07:05 AM]
05/06/2020  Open Document
33 pg, 700.66 KB
SUPPLEMENTAL Appendix filed [1 VOLUMES] by Appellant John Burke. [19-13015] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 05/06/2020 12:35 PM]
05/18/2020  Open Document
27 pg, 291.04 KB
MOTION for recusal filed by John Burke. Opposition to Motion is Unknown. [9088536-1] [19-13015] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 05/16/2020 05:27 PM]
05/28/2020  Open Document
11 pg, 266.1 KB
MOTION to clarification filed by John Burke. Opposition to Motion is Unknown. [9098968-1] [19-13015] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 05/28/2020 06:30 PM]
06/09/2020  Open Document
8 pg, 400.71 KB
judicial complaint re judge kenneth marra, sd florida filed by Party John Burke. [19-13015] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 06/09/2020 11:05 AM]
06/09/2020  Open Document
42 pg, 1.06 MB
MOTION to adopt brief filed by John Burke. Opposition to Motion is Unknown. [9107502-1] [19-13015] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 06/09/2020 12:31 PM]
06/10/2020  Open Document
9 pg, 150.51 KB
EMERGENCY MOTION for extension of time to file reply brief to 08/10/2020 filed by John Burke. Opposition to Motion is Unknown. [9108174-1] [19-13015] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 06/10/2020 08:24 AM]
06/10/2020  Open Document
39 pg, 388.81 KB
Reply Brief filed by Appellant John Burke. [19-13015] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 06/10/2020 11:34 PM]
06/17/2020  Open Document
96 pg, 801.78 KB
Appendix filed [1 VOLUMES] by Appellant John Burke. [19-13015] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 06/17/2020 02:28 PM]
06/22/2020  Open Document
11 pg, 124.62 KB
RESPONSE to Motion filed by Appellant John Burke [9098968-2] filed by Attorney Bernard John Barrett, Jr. for Appellee Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. [19-13015] (ECF: Bernard Barrett) [Entered: 06/22/2020 12:17 PM]
06/25/2020  Open Document
2 pg, 211.9 KB
ORDER: “Appellants Burkes’ Motion to Clarify” is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY because The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau provided sufficient clarification in its response to the motion. “Appellants Burkes’ Motion for Relief to Retain the 3 Reply Briefs on the Record” is DENIED. “Appellants Burkes’ Motion for Extension of Time” is construed as a motion to accept the Appellants’ reply brief docketed on June 10, 2020 and is GRANTED. The reply brief docketed on June 10, 2020 will serve as Appellants’ reply brief in this appeal. [9108174-2] [9107502-2] [9098968-2] ELB [Entered: 06/25/2020 09:43 AM]
06/26/2020  Open Document
16 pg, 220.84 KB
TIME SENSITIVE MOTION for reconsideration of single judge’s order entered on 06/25/2020 filed by John Burke. Opposition to Motion is Unknown. [9122190-1] [19-13015] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 06/26/2020 07:21 AM]
07/02/2020  Open Document
2 pg, 156.24 KB
Re Marra, Kenneth Complaint filed by Party John Burke. [19-13015] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 07/02/2020 07:13 AM]
07/06/2020  Open Document
9 pg, 151.49 KB
MOTION for reconsideration of single judge’s order entered on 06/25/2020 filed by John Burke. Opposition to Motion is Unknown. [9128556-1] [19-13015] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 07/05/2020 11:27 PM]
07/10/2020 Notice of deficient Appearance of Counsel filed by John Burke. The required paper copies have not been received. Please promptly submit the paper copies OR file with this court a Notice of Inability to Submit Paper Copies due to COVID-19. [Entered: 07/10/2020 12:33 PM]
07/14/2020  Open Document
2 pg, 194.81 KB
Appendix filed [1 VOLUMES] by Appellant John Burke. [19-13015] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 07/14/2020 04:01 PM]
07/22/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 176.33 KB
ORDER: The June 26, 2020 “Appellant Burkes’ Motion for Reconsideration Re Motion to Clarify, In Part, Regarding CIP” and the July 6, 2020 “Appellant Burkes’ Motion for Reconsideration Re Motion to Clarify, In Part, Regarding 3 Briefs” are DENIED.[9128556-2] [9122190-2] AJ and ELB [Entered: 07/22/2020 03:30 PM]
08/04/2020  Open Document
11 pg, 159.18 KB
MOTION for reconsideration of a panel order CONSTRUED AS Motion for clarification entered on 07/22/2020 filed by John Burke. Motion is Opposed. [9154698-1] [19-13015]–[Edited 08/05/2020 by BWH] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 08/04/2020 04:29 PM]
08/06/2020  Open Document
69 pg, 1.1 MB
Letter to Chief Justice William Pryor re Burkes Judicial Complaint against Judge Kenneth Marra filed by Party John Burke. [19-13015] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 08/06/2020 10:26 PM]
08/11/2020 Notice of deficient Brief filed by John Burke. The required paper copies have not been received. Please promptly submit the paper copies OR file with this court a Notice of Inability to Submit Paper Copies due to COVID-19. [Entered: 08/11/2020 12:35 PM]
08/19/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 148.4 KB
Notice of inability to comply with the paper copy requirement due to COVID-19 filed by Appellant John Burke. [19-13015]–[Edited 08/20/2020 by BWH] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 08/19/2020 02:38 PM]
09/02/2020  Open Document
24 pg, 1.06 MB
MOTION to take judicial notice filed by John Burke. Motion is Opposed. [9178765-1] [19-13015] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 09/02/2020 01:32 PM]
09/02/2020  Open Document
10 pg, 153.21 KB
MOTION Answers to pending motions. filed by John Burke. Motion is Opposed. [9178771-1] [19-13015] (ECF: John Burke) [Entered: 09/02/2020 01:36 PM]

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION

OPINION 94-5

April 30, 1995
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.

Under most circumstances, it is unethical to threaten a fellow member of the bar with a grievance complaint.

Note: When this opinion was written, there was no express prohibition against such conduct in the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Supreme Court has since adopted Rule 4-3.4(h). See In re: Amendments to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, 718 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 1998).

RPC:              4-1.6, 4-3.1, 4-4.1, 4-4.4, 4-8.3, 4-8.3(a), 4-8.4(a), 4-.84(d)

Opinion:         89-3

Case:               The Florida Bar v. Fitzgerald, 541 So.2d 602 (Fla. 1989)

The Committee has been asked whether an attorney may threaten to file a disciplinary complaint against opposing counsel in order to obtain advantage in a civil matter.

Despite the absence of an express prohibition in the Rules of Professional Conduct (Chapter 4, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar), the Committee is of the opinion that such conduct is ethically impermissible under most circumstances.

Under the “Reporting Professional Misconduct” rule, Rule 4-8.3, an attorney is obligated to report another attorney’s misconduct if the attorney has actual knowledge of a misconduct that raises a substantial question as to the offending attorney’s “honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.” Rule 4-8.3(a).  An attorney, however, may not report the violation if the information is protected by the confidentiality rule, Rule 4-1.6, unless the attorney has the consent of the client.

As a result, in situations where an attorney is required to report a violation, the attorney’s failure to do so would constitute misconduct under Rule 4-8.4(a).

Similarly, an agreement not to file a grievance complaint would violate Rule 4-8.4(a) where the filing of a complaint would otherwise be required by Rule 4-8.3(a). See The Florida Bar v. Fitzgerald, 541 So.2d 602, 605 (Fla. 1989) (client’s agreement not to bring attorney’s unethical conduct to attention of the Bar is unenforceable).

Therefore, if an attorney is obligated to report another attorney’s professional misconduct, the attorney must report it rather than threaten to do so.

Even when an attorney is not required to report the professional misconduct under Rule 4-8.3, threatening a disciplinary action may violate one or more of Rules 4-8.4(b), 4-3.1, 4-4.1, 4-4.4 and 4-8.4(d).

Rule 4-8.4(b) prohibits an attorney from committing “a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.”

Therefore, an attorney is prohibited from conduct which would constitute extortion under criminal law.

Rule 4-3.1 generally prohibits an attorney from bringing a frivolous proceeding. This rule would prohibit an attorney from filing a disciplinary complaint that is not well founded in fact and in law.

Rule 4-4.1 requires an attorney to be truthful in dealing with others on a client’s behalf. Therefore, an attorney who threatens to file a disciplinary complaint without any actual intent to do so would violate this rule.

Rule 4-4.4 states that in representing a client an attorney “shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person.”

This rule would therefore prohibit an attorney from threatening to file a disciplinary complaint if the primary purpose of doing so was to harass or embarrass the other attorney.

Rule 4-8.4(d) provides that an attorney shall not “engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”

In our Opinion 89-3, the Committee concluded that an attorney is prohibited from threatening criminal prosecution solely to gain advantage in a civil matter.

In that opinion the Committee stated, “[t]he criminal process was not intended to be used as a means of settling private disputes and is undermined when it is misused in such a manner.”

Likewise, the disciplinary process is not intended to be used as a means of settling private disputes.

In conclusion, if an attorney is obligated to report another attorney’s professional misconduct pursuant to Rule 4-8.3, then it is ethically impermissible for the attorney to threaten the other attorney with the filing of a disciplinary complaint.

Even if an attorney is not obligated to report the other attorney’s misconduct, threatening to file a disciplinary complaint often will violate one or more of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Most Popular

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 Laws In Texas. | All Rights Reserved.

To Top