Penson v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
KING-JOSEPH: PENSON II. SUI §
JURIS. EXECUTOR AND SECURED §
PARTY FOR THE ESTATE OF KING §
JOSEPH PENSON II, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
V. § No. 3:25-cv-1574-B
§
LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC §
and CODILIS & MOODY. P.C., §
§
Defendants. §
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings and conclusions in this case
recommending that, “[i]f within the time to file objections, Defendant Lakeview Loan Servicing,
LLC (‘Lakeview’), as the party invoking the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1332 through removal, provides evidence that is at least sufficient to support a jury finding of the
citizenship of each party, the Court should grant Lakeview’s motion for summary judgment on
Plaintiff King Joseph Penson, II’s claims [Dkt. No. 22], deny Penson’s motions for summary judgment
and leave to amend [Dkt. Nos. 16 & 25], and dismiss this lawsuit with prejudice” [Dkt. No. 49] (the
“FCR”).
Lakeview timely submitted evidence [Dkt. No. 50] that the Court finds sufficient to support
jury findings as to the parties’ citizenships, including a declaration setting out its citizenship as a
limited liability company (Delaware and Florida), see Dkt. No. 50-1; SXSW v. Fed. Ins. Co., 83 F.4th
-1-
Case 3:25-cv-01574-B-BN Document 52 Filed 03/11/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

405, 407-08 (5th Cir. 2023), and evidence that reflects that Penson is domiciled in Texas, see Dkt.
Nos. 50-2; 50-3; 50-4; 50-5; SXSW, 83 F.4th at 407; Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 251 (5th Cir. 1996).
And, so, Lakeview, as the party invoking the Court’s diversity subject matter jurisdiction
through removal, has satisfied its burden at summary judgment to “provide evidence sufficient to
support a jury finding of the citizenship of each” party. Megalomedia Inc. v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., 115
F.4th 657, 659 (5th Cir. 2024) (published order).
The District Court therefore reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed FCR to which
objection was made and reviewed the remaining portions for plain error.
Finding no error, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
of the United States Magistrate Judge [Dkt. No. 49].
SO ORDERED.
DATE: March 11th, 2026.
-2-
Case 3:25-cv-01574-B-BN Document 52 Filed 03/11/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>