Texas

Witness the New 3-Panel at the Eleventh Circuit Corruptly ‘White Out’ Judge Marra’s Written Admission In this Denial of Intervention

The Eleventh Circuit just issued an opinion which is ultimate proof the judiciary is corrupt right down to the seams of their dirty robes.
Posted on

Share this post:

Share on Pinterest Share on LinkedIn

LIT COMMENTARY

The Eleventh Circuit just issued an opinion which is ultimate proof the judiciary is corrupt right down to the seams of their dirty robes. When you ‘white out’ (definition; delete, expunge, obliterate, rub out) Judge Marra’s codicil wherein he admits to the fact the Burkes are entitled in law to intervene (due to the Greens case) and author a 15-page opinion of codswallop, it’s time the people to ensure change in the corrupt judiciary – and happens expeditiously – under the new Biden administration.

In the interim, the Burkes are penning an en banc reconsideration to highlight the legal errors, including  the newly assigned 3-panel circumventing the rule of law to protect a corrupt federal judge and the biglaw lyin’ attorneys from Goodwin Procter in the lower court proceedings.

Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

John and Joanna Burke, proceeding pro se, appeal from the denial of their motions to intervene as of right and by permission and for reconsideration in an action brought by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) against Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Mortgage Serving, Inc., and Ocwen Loan Serving, LLC (collectively, Ocwen).1 After careful review, we affirm the district court’s rulings.

I

The CFPB sued Ocwen, alleging violations of: (1) the Consumer Financial Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536; (2) the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e(2)(a), 1692e(10), 1692f; (3) the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2605, 2617; (4) the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1604(a); and (5) the Homeowners Protection Act of 1998, 12 U.S.C. § 4902(b).

1 Although a motion for intervention is not an appealable final order, we have provisional jurisdiction to determine whether the denial was proper. See AAL High Yield Bond Fund v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 361 F.3d 1305, 1309 n.4 (11th Cir. 2004).

Cannon replaces Judge Marra, who retires and Burkes judicial complaint which is percolating on Chief Judge Bill Pryor’s desk against Marra will be terminated as moot.

Separately, the Burkes were involved in two cases implicating their property.

First, in April 2011, Deutsche Bank initiated an action to foreclose the Burkes’ property. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Burke, 902 F.3d 548, 550 (5th Cir. 2018). That action concluded when the Fifth Circuit held that the foreclosure of the Burkes’ property could proceed. Id. at 551–52.

the-honest-judge-order-2017_dc7cbc46db9f014e5c557b6ca03d50e5

Second, after the Fifth Circuit’s decision on foreclosure, the Burkes sued Ocwen, alleging that Ocwen violated federal and state law in servicing their loan. Burke et al v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 18-cv-04544, Dkt. 1 (S.D. Tex.).

After the CFPB and Ocwen had already conducted extensive discovery, including filings under seal, the Burkes moved pro se to intervene in the case, both as of right and permissively.

The Burkes asserted that Ocwen was the mortgage servicer for their mortgage with Deutsche Bank, that they were under wrongful foreclosure, and that they were separately litigating against Ocwen in the Southern District of Texas.

The Burkes argued that they had direct knowledge of facts that would help the CFPB’s case and explained that they were intervening because they wanted to

“(1) make a ‘material’ impact on this Florida case, (2) help save their own homestead from wrongful foreclosure and (3) help homeowners in ‘distress’ nationwide.”

The Burkes further contended that they had a right to intervene and that their motion was timely because the CFPB’s case had not reached trial. They asserted that they had an interest in the suit, citing their Texas litigation against Ocwen, and claiming that they would be impaired if not allowed to intervene.

The Burkes also argued that they satisfied the requirements for permissive intervention.  Without their participation, the Burkes contended, the CFPB’s case would likely lead to a “political charade” of a settlement that would not actually compensate the victims.

cfpb-ocwen-fla5

The CFPB and Ocwen jointly opposed the Burkes’ intervention, and the Burkes filed a reply. By May 2019, when their motion to intervene was still pending, the Burkes inquired with the district court about the status of the motion. In that inquiry, the Burkes also asserted that they should be allowed to intervene to access sealed documents that would be useful in their separate litigation.

The district court denied the Burkes’ motion to intervene.

The Burkes then moved for reconsideration, raising a new argument not in their motion to intervene—that the district court should allow the Burkes to intervene to obtain information that they could use in their litigation against Ocwen.

The district court denied the Burkes’ motion for reconsideration, which it categorized as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The Burkes now appeal both the denial of their motion to intervene and their motion for reconsideration.

II A

We begin with the Burkes’ motion to intervene as of right. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 provides, in pertinent part:

Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who: . . .

(2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.

This Court has interpreted Rule 24(a)(2) to require a party seeking intervention as a right to demonstrate that:

(1) [their] application to intervene is timely; (2) [they have] an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) [they are] so situated that disposition of the action, as a practical matter, may impede or impair [their] ability to protect that interest; and (4) [their] interest is represented inadequately by the existing parties to the

Tech. Training Assocs., Inc. v. Buccaneers Ltd. P’ship, 874 F.3d 692, 695–96 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting Stone v. First Union Corp., 371 F.3d 1305, 1308–09 (11th Cir. 2004)). Putative intervenors—here, the Burkes—bear the burden of proof to establish all four bases for intervention as a matter of right. Chiles v. Thornburgh, 865 F.2d 1197, 1213 (11th Cir. 1989); Stone, 371 F.3d at 1308. We review the denial of a motion to intervene de novo, but subsidiary findings of fact for clear error. Tech. Training Assocs., 874 F.3d at 695.

The district court’s analysis focused on the third and fourth requirements— impairment and adequate representation. Specifically, it noted that the Burkes “failed to establish that their interests, if any, would be impaired by the disposition of this action,” and that “their interests, if any, would be adequately represented by CFPB, who seeks to hold Ocwen accountable for allegedly wrongfully foreclosing upon property based upon inadequate information.” The district court also indirectly addressed timeliness, noting that discovery had been “underway for over a year when the motion to intervene was filed.” We will address each of the four factors in turn.

First we consider timeliness. When evaluating timeliness, we look to:

[t]he length of time during which the would-be intervenor actually knew or reasonably should have known of his interest in the case before he petitioned for leave to intervene[;] 2. The extent of the prejudice that the existing parties to the litigation may suffer as a result of the would-be intervenor’s failure to apply for intervention as soon as he actually knew or reasonably should have known of his interest in the case[;] 3. The extent of the prejudice that the would-be intervenor may suffer if his petition for leave to intervene is denied[;] and 4. The existence of unusual circumstances militating either for or against a determination that the application is timely.

Salvors, Inc. v. Unidentified Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel, 861 F.3d 1278, 1294 (11th Cir. 2017). Although the district court did not directly address timeliness, “[t]his court may affirm a decision of the district court on any ground supported by the record.” Krutzig v. Pulte Home Corp., 602 F.3d 1231, 1234 (11th Cir. 2010).

Here, the CFPB filed its complaint on April 20, 2017; the Burkes first moved to intervene on January 4, 2019. On those facts alone, the Burkes’ motion was probably untimely. But the Burkes could, and did, argue that they “actually knew, or reasonably should have known of their interest in the case” much later than April 20, 2017. See Salvors, 861 F.3d at 1294. The Burkes emphasized that they filed their motion to intervene “only a month or so” after the entry of judgment of foreclosure in their Texas case.

But the Burkes first made this argument in their motion to reconsider—not their motion to intervene. We have long held that litigants may not use motions to reconsider to “relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005); Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998); Mays v. U.S. Postal Serv., 122 F.3d 43, 46 (11th Cir. 1997).

In any event, even if the Burkes had properly raised this argument in their motion to intervene, it remains unclear whether they would meet their burden on timeliness.

The Burkes do not explain why they could not have moved to intervene before the judgment of foreclosure in their Texas case, which commenced in 2011.

The Burkes state conclusorily that they “could not have intervened any earlier in law as the judgment of foreclosure in their case was by plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company.”

Further, they cite to “the recent Fifth Circuit decision in Riddle” for the proposition that “they had to sue Ocwen [] independently to show a direct and legally protectable interest.” Although the Burkes don’t provide a citation, we assume they mean Christiana Tr. Riddle, 911 F.3d 799 (5th Cir. 2018).

In any event, they fail to elaborate further on how the foreclosure and Riddle relate to the timing of their motion to intervene. The Burkes thus have not satisfied their burden.

The Burkes also contend that the district court acted in an untimely manner.

The Burkes note that the district court took six months to rule on their motion to intervene, even after the Burkes had reminded the court to rule on the motion. This point is simply irrelevant.

Whether or not the district court ruled quickly on the Burkes’ motion to intervene does not bear on whether the Burkes’ motion was timely.

Timeliness concerns the putative intervenor’s actions, not those of the district court. See Salvors, 861 F.3d at 1294. Accordingly, we conclude that the Burkes’ motion was untimely.2

Second, we consider whether the Burkes possess an interest relating to the property or transaction. To have a necessary interest, the putative intervenor “must be at least a real party in interest in the transaction which is the subject of the proceeding.” Purcell v. BankAtlantic Fin. Corp., 85 F.3d 1508, 1512 (11th Cir. 1996).

2 We also note, as the district court did, that “the potential for prejudice to both the existing parties and the putative intervenor” bears on timeliness. Salvors, 861 F.3d at 1294. Ocwen has already conducted extensive discovery. Should the CFPB and Ocwen be required to participate in expanded discovery, the likelihood of prejudice to them is real.

The interest must be “direct, substantial, [and] legally protectable,” id., and a generalized grievance is insufficient, see Chiles, 865 F.2d at 1212–13. The interest must be more than purely economic and cannot be speculative. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Sandy Lake Properties, Inc., 425 F.3d 1308, 1311 (11th Cir. 2005).

The Burkes’ motion identifies three possible interests: to “(1) make a material impact on this Florida case, (2) help save their own homestead from wrongful foreclosure and (3) help homeowners in distress nationwide.”

The desire to make a material impact on a case does not, on its own, constitute a “direct, substantial, [and] legally protectable interest sufficient” to intervene by right. Purcell, 85 F.3d at 1512.

Further, because generalized grievances do not amount to sufficient interests in the context of Rule 24, see Chiles, 865 F.2d at 1212–1213, the Burkes’ third putative interest, helping homeowners nationwide, is unavailing.

Although it is possible that the Burkes’ homestead would constitute an interest within the meaning of Rule 24, the motion to intervene offers no description of the Burkes’ interest in their homestead, and instead only cites to their Texas case.

The Burkes’ reply brief in support of their motion to intervene provides hardly any elaboration on the homestead, stating only that “a homestead is personally at risk for the Applicants if this application is denied.”

Accordingly, the Burkes have not established an interest for the purposes of Rule 24(a)(2).

Third, we consider whether the Burkes have established the possibility of impairment absent their intervention. They have not.

The Burkes may separately litigate, and they have done so here.

This Court has noted that the ability to separately litigate defeats the impairment element. See Worlds v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., State of Fla., 929 F.2d 591, 594 (11th Cir. 1991); see also Anderson Columbia Envtl., Inc. v. United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 880, 882 (1999) (“A prospective intervenor is also not likely to suffer impairment of its interests where it is free to assert its rights in a separate action.”).

Finally, we consider whether the CFPB adequately represents the Burkes’ interest in this case.

This court “presume[s] that a proposed intervenor’s interest is adequately represented when an existing party pursues the same ultimate objective as the party seeking intervention.” Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Falls Chase Special Taxing Dist., 983 F.2d 211, 215 (11th Cir. 1993).

When, as here, that existing party is a government entity, “

[w]e presume that the government entity adequately represents the public, and we require the party seeking to intervene to make a strong showing of inadequate representation.” FTC v. Johnson, 800 F.3d 448, 452 (8th Cir. 2015) (quotations omitted).

The CFPB’s complaint seeks relief “necessary to redress injury to consumers, including, but not limited to, rescission or reform of contracts; refund of moneys; restitution; and payment of damages or other monetary relief.”

The CFPB’s complaint also seeks relief under the Homeowners Protection Act, among other statutes. The Burkes share the same ultimate objective—“to protect homeowners in ‘distress’ nationwide.”

Although the presumption of adequate representation is “weak and can be overcome if the plaintiffs present some evidence to the contrary,” Stone, 371 F.3d at 1311, the Burkes have identified no such evidence here, so the presumption remains.3

To sum up, the Burkes have failed to establish

(1) that their intervention is timely,

(2) that they have a necessary interest,

(3) that failure to intervene would impair that interest, and

(4) that their interest would not be adequately protected absent intervention.

Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err in denying the Burke’s motion to intervene as of right.

3 The Burkes raise an additional basis for intervention as of right in their brief: “to ensure if Ocwens’ motion to dismiss on the Constitutionality question was granted (which was pending before the lower court at the time), it could allow the Burkes to become the lead Plaintiffs[] in the case.” The Burkes first raised this argument in their reply brief, so it is not properly before this Court. See United States v. Oakley, 744 F.2d 1553, 1556 (11th Cir. 1984).

B

We next consider whether the district court abused its discretion in denying permissive intervention. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) provides, in relevant part:

(b)  Permissive Intervention.

(1) In General. On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who: . . .

(B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact . . .

(3) Delay or Prejudice. In exercising its discretion, the court must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.

“If there is no right to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a), it is wholly discretionary with the court whether to allow intervention under Rule 24(b) and even though there is a common question of law or fact, or the requirements of Rule 24(b) are otherwise satisfied, the court may refuse to allow intervention.” Worlds, 929 F.2d at 595 (quotations and citations omitted).

We review the denial of a motion for permissive intervention for an abuse of discretion. Purcell, 85 F.3d at 1513. A district court abuses it discretion when it makes a clear error of judgment or applies the incorrect legal standard. Id.

At the appellate stage, the requirements for permissive intervention are “not really the focus of our inquiry, because we do not address the matter in the first instance.” Id. Rather, “we are concerned only with ‘clear error [s] of judgment’ that the district court may have made, or with ‘incorrect legal standard[s]’ that it may have applied.” Id. (quoting SunAmerica Corp. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 77 F.3d 1325, 1333 (11th Cir. 1996)).

In denying permissive intervention, the district court concluded:

In the Motion to Intervene, the proposed Intervenors fail to identify a common question of fact or law in support of permissive intervention.

Even if there were some overlap between CFPB’s case and the claims of the proposed Intervenors, the present parties in this action would suffer prejudice and undue delay if the proposed Intervenors were permitted to intervene in this case.

Permitting intervention would inevitably force the parties in this case to litigate factual questions not present at issue, and the scope of discovery, which had already been underway for over a year when the Motion to Intervene was filed, would necessarily expand to include those new issues.

Therefore the Court in its discretion finds that permissive intervention is not warranted.

The district court applied the right legal standard under Rule 24(b)—whether or not the Burkes identified a common question of fact or law.

Further, the Burkes discussed the existence of a common question of fact only in a brief, vague manner, and did not adequately connect their foreclosure to the issues underlying the CFPB’s suit.

We cannot say that the district court made a clear error of judgment in concluding that the Burkes did not identify a common question of fact or law.

Even if, as they claim, the Burkes properly identified a common question of fact, the district court did not abuse its discretion for two independent reasons.

First, the Burkes have other means of asserting their right—specifically, their lawsuit.

This Court has held that “

[w]hen an appellant has other adequate means of asserting its rights, a charge of abuse of discretion in the denial of a motion for permissive intervention would appear to be almost untenable on its face.” Worlds, 929 F.2d at 595 n. 20 (quoting Korioth v. Brisco, 523 F.2d 1271, 1279 n. 25 (5th Cir. 1975)).

Second, the district court applied the right legal standard and did not make a clear error of judgment, by considering the possibility of undue prejudice and delay.

Rule 24 provided the district court with authority to make this determination.

Rule 24(b)(3) specifically provides that courts “must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.”

Given the inevitability of expanded discovery, and the possibility that the existing parties would be forced to litigate new issues, the district court did not make a clear error of judgment in determining that the existing parties would suffer prejudice and undue delay had the Burkes intervened.

Finally, the Burkes argue that, in any event, they may intervene for the purpose of gaining access to sealed files and protected documents.

But the Burkes raised this argument for the first time in their motion to reconsider.

For the reasons explained above, we decline to consider the Burkes’ argument.  Michael Linet, Inc., 408 F.3d at 763 (noting that litigants cannot use motions to reconsider to “relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.”).

Because the district court applied the right legal standard and did not commit a clear error of legal judgment, we hold that the district court acted within its discretion in denying the Burkes’ motion for permissive intervention.4

4 We review a district court’s denial of a Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. Sanderlin v. Seminole Tribe of Fla., 243 F.3d 1282, 1285 (11th Cir. 2001). The district court applied the correct legal standard in its denial of the Burkes’ motion to reconsider. Further, for reasons similar to those described above, the district court did not make a clear error of judgment.

III

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district court:

(1) did not err in denying the motion to intervene as a right because the Burkes: (a) did not file a timely motion to intervene, (b) lacked a sufficient interest in the case, (c) would not be impaired by the litigation continuing without them, and (d) were adequately represented by the CFPB;

(2) did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for permissive intervention because it applied the correct legal standard and did not make a clear error of judgment; and

(3) did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider because it applied the correct legal standard and did not make a clear error of judgment.

AFFIRMED.
Read the Codswallop Opinion (PDF)
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that federal courts possess the inherent power to vacate their own judgments upon proof that a fraud has been perpetrated upon the court.

No Glossin’ Required on a Void Order Sayeth The Constitution. Fraud By The Court Commands Reversal.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that federal courts possess the inherent power to vacate their own judgments upon proof that a fraud has been perpetrated upon the court.

Read more
As a consequence of Branch’s majority opinion joined by Grant and others, however, Gogel will not have the opportunity to prove to a jury that she was fired by Kia in retaliation for filing an EEOC discrimination charge.

En Banc Granted at Eleventh Circuit in Order to Devastate Kia Employees Retaliation Claims

As a consequence of Branch’s majority opinion joined by Grant and others, however, Gogel will not have the opportunity to prove to a jury that she was fired by Kia in retaliation for filing an EEOC discrimination charge.

Read more

Full Case History until entry of Opinion/Judgment on Nov. 2, 2020 (19-13015)

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
Prior Cases:
     None
Current Cases:
     None

 

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 32399-1050

JOANNA BURKE,
JOHN BURKE,Interested Parties – Appellants,CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU,Plaintiff,OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
State of Florida, Department of Legal Affairs, et al.,Consolidated Plaintiffs,versusOCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
a Florida corporation,
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,
OCWEN MORTGAGE SERVICING INC.,
a U. S. Virgin Islands corporation,Defendants – Appellees.

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]
11/02/2020  Open Document
2 pg, 9.4 KB		 ORDER: Motion for recusal filed by Appellant John Burke is DENIED as MOOT. [9088536-2]; Motion to take judicial notice filed by Appellant John Burke is DENIED. [9178765-2]; Motion for clarification filed by Appellant John Burke is DENIED. [9154698-2]; Motion filed by Appellant John Burke is DENIED as MOOT. [9178771-2] KCN, BCG and BL [Entered: 11/02/2020 01:06 PM]
11/02/2020  Open Document
16 pg, 74.34 KB		 Opinion issued by court as to Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court’s Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions. [Entered: 11/02/2020 01:17 PM]
11/02/2020 Judgment entered as to Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. [Entered: 11/02/2020 01:24 PM]

Share this post:

Share on Pinterest Share on LinkedIn
Witness the New 3-Panel at the Eleventh Circuit Corruptly ‘White Out’ Judge Marra’s Written Admission In this Denial of Intervention
Related Items:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Recommended for you

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

To Top