[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-12160

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

JOHN BURKE, 

JOANNA BURKE, 

Interested Parties-Appellants,

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, 

a Florida corporation, 

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC, 

a Delaware limited liability company, 

OCWEN MORTGAGE SERVICING INC., 

a U. S. Virgin Islands corporation, 

USCA11 Case: 21-12160 Date Filed: 03/01/2022 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 21-12160

PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, 

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 9:17-cv-80495-KAM

____________________

Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

John and Joanna Burke, pro se, appeal the denial of their renewed motion to intervene and their motion for reconsideration 

and for Judge Kenneth Marra’s recusal. The Burkes raise two issues 

on appeal. First, they argue that the district court erred by finding 

that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain their renewed motion to intervene because it was brought after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed its notice of appeal. Second, they argue that 

the district court abused its discretion by denying their motion to 

recuse.1 

1 We review de novo questions about the district court’s jurisdiction. 

Zakrzewski v. McDonough, 490 F.3d 1264, 1267 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). 

Regarding our jurisdiction, the so-called “anomalous rule” gives us provisional 

jurisdiction to determine whether the district court erroneously denied leave 

USCA11 Case: 21-12160 Date Filed: 03/01/2022 Page: 2 of 5
21-12160 Opinion of the Court 3

I 

The district court held that it lacked jurisdiction to decide 

the Burkes’ motion to intervene because the CFPB had filed a notice of appeal in the underlying case. Filing a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction “over those aspects of the case 

involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 

459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam). But the district court retains

jurisdiction over collateral matters that are separate and distinct 

from the questions presented on appeal. Weaver v. Fla. Power & 

Light Co., 172 F.3d 771, 773 & n.4 (11th Cir. 1999) (explaining that 

res judicata and waiver defenses were separate and distinct from 

the merits of employment discrimination claims).

Here, the district court erred by concluding that the CFPB’s 

notice of appeal divested it of jurisdiction over the Burkes’ renewed 

motion to intervene. The CFPB’s appeal relates to whether its suit 

against Ocwen was barred by an earlier consent judgment between 

those two parties. By contrast, the Burkes’ motion sought to intervene in the suit between the CFPB and Ocwen so that they could 

acquire certain documents. The issues presented by the Burkes in 

to intervene. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Falls Chase Special Taxing Dist., 

983 F.2d 211, 214 (11th Cir. 1993). We review de novo the denial of a motion 

to intervene as of right and for “clear abuse of discretion” the denial of permissive intervention. Fox v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 519 F.3d 1298, 1301 (11th Cir. 

2008). We may affirm the judgment of the district court on any ground supported by the record, even if the district court did not consider or rely on that 

ground in its ruling. Kernel Recs. Oy v. Mosley, 694 F.3d 1294, 1309 (11th Cir. 

2012).

USCA11 Case: 21-12160 Date Filed: 03/01/2022 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 21-12160

their motion for intervention were collateral to those presented in 

the CFPB’s appeal. Thus, the district court erred when it dismissed 

for lack of jurisdiction.

It may turn out that the Burkes’ motion is barred under the 

law-of-the-case doctrine. Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 

403 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). But that issue 

implicates the merits of their motion, not the district court’s jurisdiction to consider that motion. We cannot address the merits because “[w]ere we to range beyond the jurisdictional issue here and 

reject [the Burkes’] claim on the merits, we would, in effect, be directing a dismissal with prejudice—and thereby altering the district 

court’s judgment.” In re Breland, 989 F.3d 919, 923 (11th Cir. 2021)

(emphasis omitted). “That, we cannot do.” Id.2

II 

Judge Marra did not abuse his discretion in declining to 

recuse because the Burkes improperly requested recusal for the 

first time in a motion for reconsideration.3 A party may not use a 

motion to reconsider to “raise [an] argument or present evidence 

that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” 

2The Burkes abandoned their challenge to the denial of their motion to reconsider intervention by failing to present any argument about reconsideration in 

their opening brief. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 

(11th Cir. 2014). 

3 We review for abuse of discretion a judge’s decision not to recuse under 28 

U.S.C. § 455. Murray v. Scott, 253 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2001). 

USCA11 Case: 21-12160 Date Filed: 03/01/2022 Page: 4 of 5
21-12160 Opinion of the Court 5

Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th 

Cir. 2005). Additionally, the Burkes’ argument for recusal was 

based on Judge Marra’s adverse ruling on their motion to intervene, and “[o]rdinarily, a judge’s rulings in the same or a related 

case may not serve as the basis for a recusal motion.” McWhorter 

v. City of Birmingham, 906 F.2d 674, 678 (11th Cir. 1990) (per curiam); see also In re Walker, 532 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2008)

(per curiam) (“Adverse rulings are grounds for appeal but rarely are 

grounds for recusal.”); In re Evergreen Sec., Ltd., 570 F.3d 1257, 

1274 (11th Cir. 2009) (“Challenges to adverse rulings are generally 

grounds for appeal, not recusal.”).

The district court’s dismissal of the Burkes’ renewed motion 

for intervention is VACATED.

The district court’s denial of the Burkes’ motion for recusal 

is AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 21-12160 Date Filed: 03/01/2022 Page: 5 of 5