PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN FILED BY DEFENDANTS
NOV 14, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: NOV 16, 2021
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Plaintiffs Joanna & John Burke (“Plaintiffs”) entered into email correspondence with defendants, who have now claimed to file a ‘Joint Case Management Plan’. This is patently untrue, and Plaintiffs disavow any and all claims made by Defendants in this respect, including the full content of their sham filing. Let the record show, there is absolutely no agreement by Plaintiffs to this ‘Joint’ Plan. Plaintiffs had already filed their own separate Plan with this court several days before.
Plaintiffs request the court take notice of the verified falsity and perjury of Shelley L. Hopkins, who submitted this ‘Joint’ Plan for Defendants. It is yet another example of serious and habitual misconduct by the Defendants. See; Ranch v. Greeson, 167 F. Supp. 3d 835 (S.D. Tex. 2016).
Facts
The Plaintiffs submitted their own Case Management Plan (“Plan”) on the facts and belief that Hopkins had failed to answer three attempts to confer on the Plaintiffs draft Plan as detailed in the submitted and now docketed Plaintiffs only Plan (Doc. 22, Nov. 1, 2021).
On Nov. 5, 2021, Defendants docketed a “Joint” Plan (Doc. 24) wherein it states factually inaccurate information.
“PHH Mortgage Corporation (“PHH”), Successor by Merger to Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”), Mark Daniel Hopkins, Shelley Hopkins, and Hopkins Law, PLLC (“Attorney Defendants”) (collectively “Defendants,” and with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”) and file this their Joint Discovery Case Management Plan pursuant to Fed. Rules of Civ. P. 26(f).”
“The parties informally conducted a Rule 26(f) conference by email correspondence. Plaintiffs appeared pro se. Defendants were represented by Mark D. Hopkins and Shelley L. Hopkins. Plaintiffs emailed counsel for Defendants on September 21, 2021, October 6, 2021, and October 18, 2021 with a draft of their Case Management Plan. Counsel for Defendants responded on October 18, 2021 with a separate draft and did not receive a response. Plaintiffs then filed their own Discovery/Case Management Plan on November 1, 2021. [Doc. 22].”
The true facts are Hopkins ignored the first two emails to confer -spanning a month – and when they finally did respond, this is the actual verbatim content of the email from Shelley L. Hopkins;
“Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: Third and Final Request re Joint Case Management Collaboration
Your form is incorrect for Judge Bennett’s Court.
Please see attached our case management plan. If you have input to add to these, email me your input.
Otherwise, we will file as Defendants’ case management plan.”
Undoubtedly, a Defendants’ Plan is not a ‘Joint’ Plan. As such, when Hopkins filed the ‘Joint’ Plan, as transcribed above from Doc. 22, this is irrefutable evidence of perjury.
As you will note from the above email, it had a warning about the attachment and the email landed in Joanna Burke’s Gmail spam folder and unfortunately that meant it was missed.
Unlike the Plaintiffs, no reminder or follow-up to this email was received from Hopkins. What this does show, is the opening of Hopkins filing states “The parties informally conducted a Rule 26(f) conference by email correspondence” is factually erroneous as well. There was no conference.
See; KONAMI DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT v. HARMONIX MUS. SYST, CIVIL ACTION No. 6:08cv286 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2009).
The filing of the Plan(s) would be completed separately and independently by the parties.
This was also the case in Burke v. Hopkins, Civil Action H-18-4543 (S.D. Tex.), see Docs. 12 “Defendants” [Hopkins] Plan and 15 ‘Plaintiffs” [Burkes] Plan and wherein Hopkins filing clearly states:
“DEFENDANTS’ DISCOVERY / CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN UNDER RULE 26(f) FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Defendants Hopkins Law, PLLC, Mark Daniel Hopkins and Shelley Luan Hopkins submit this Discovery & Case Management Plan.
The joint conference has not been held.”
As shown above and by this latest false filing, Defendants are serial liars and have been proven to be untrustworthy since the Burkes unfortunately crossed paths with these contemptible lawyers in 2015. Absolutely nothing that they say or do can be trusted.
Plaintiffs reserve their rights in this matter.
PRAYER
Pursuant to the reasons set out herein, Plaintiffs John Burke and Joanna Burke respectfully request that the Court grant them all relief to which they may be justly entitled.
RESPECTFULLY submitted this 14th day of November, 2021.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals: Deutsche Bank Explicitly Slept On Its Rights
The First Circuit supports the Texas Supreme Court decision in PNC v Howard (2023), and Fifth Circuit Judge Oldham in Bryant v Ditech (2024).
Texas Rustlers: Corralling Calculated Legal Bandits and Villainous Practices by Courtroom Outlaws
Behind Closed Doors: The Coordinated Efforts of Legal Bandits and Complicit Courts to Deprive Homeowners of Their Rights and Property.
Authority to Act: Is it Baker Donelson or Bradley for New Residential or LoanCare?
Is it New Residential Mortgage Company LLC or New Residential Mortgage LLC? That was the question on appeal. LIT has an equally important one.
