Poffenbarger v. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC

1 / 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
JEFFREY POFFENBARGER,
Plaintiff,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:26-CV-00022
PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Jeffrey Poffenbarger, appearing pro se, has filed this federal question case
against PennyMac Loan Services, LLC. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for
Declaratory Relief. (D.E. 12). Plaintiff seeks that this Court enter declarations regarding
the contract dispute and rights that exist between Plaintiff and Defendant. For the
reasons set forth below, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the District Court
DENY this motion.
I. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff moves the Court to declare: (1) the contractual monthly payment due
under the promissory note is $1,680.00 unless and until lawfully modified; (2) Defendant
lacks authority to unilaterally increase the payment absent strict compliance with
contractual and statutory requirements; (3) any escrow-based increase unsupported by a
valid escrow analysis and notice is unenforceable; (4) Plaintiff is not in default for
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 18, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:26-cv-00022 Document 25 Filed 06/18/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2 / 4
tendering the undisputed contractual payment; and (5) such other and further relief as the
Court deems just and proper. (D.E.12).
“[A] party may not make a motion for declaratory relief, but rather, the party must
bring an action for a declaratory judgment,” and “[t]he only way [a motion for
declaratory relief] can be construed as being consistent with the Federal Rules is to
construe it as a motion for summary judgment on an action for declaratory judgment.”
Matrix Partners VIII, LLP v. Natural Resource Recovery, Inc., No. 1:08-cv-547-TH,
2009 WL 10677790, at *1 (E.D. Tex. May 22, 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Thus, in order to properly consider Plaintiff's motion for declaratory relief properly under
the Federal Rules and in the context of this case, the Court must construe it as a motion
for partial summary judgment. See Enniss Family Realty I, LLC v. Schneider Nat'l
Carriers, Inc., 916 F. Supp.2d 702, 711 (S.D. Miss. 2013) (construing a motion seeking
declaratory relief as a motion for partial summary judgment).
The Declaratory Judgment Act states that “any court of the United States, upon the
filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any
interested party seeking such declaration.” 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (emphasis added). “[T]he
procedure for obtaining a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201” is governed by
the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. FED. R. CIV. P. 57. As such, “the
requirements of pleading and practice in actions for declaratory relief are exactly the
same as in other civil actions.” Kam–Ko Bio–Pharm Trading Co., Ltd–Australasia v.
Mayne Pharma (USA) Inc., 560 F.3d 935, 943 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 10B WRIGHT,
Case 2:26-cv-00022 Document 25 Filed 06/18/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3 / 4
MILLER & KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: CIVIL § 2768 (3d ed.
1998)); Matrix Partners VIII, LLP v. Nat. Res. Recovery, Inc., No. 1:08-CV-547-TH,
2009 WL 10677790, at *1 (E.D. Tex. May 22, 2009).
The Court is unaware of any Federal Rule of Civil Procedure authorizing a motion
for declaratory relief. Enniss Fam. Realty I, LLC., 916 F. Supp. 2d at 711; Thomas v. Blue
Cross & Blue Shield Ass'n, 594 F.3d 823, 830 (11th Cir.2010) (“[A] party may not make
a motion for declaratory relief, but rather, the party must bring an action for a declaratory
judgment.”) (citations omitted); Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. E. Conference of Teamsters,
160 F.R.D. 452, 456 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (“The only way plaintiffs' motion [seeking
declaratory relief] can be construed as being consistent with the Federal Rules is to
construe it as a motion for summary judgment on an action for declaratory judgment.”).
Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee for this case to proceed. Further, Plaintiff filed
his motion, construed as a motion for partial summary judgment, before any service of
process or any deadline for conducting discovery and filing dispositive motions. Plaintiff
has not attached any evidence to his motion in order to establish the absence of any
genuine issues of fact with respect to any of the claims seeking declaratory relief.
Plaintiff simply recites his request and entitlement to declaratory relief.
II. RECOMMENDATION
For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' motion is procedurally defective
and should be denied. It is therefore respectfully recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion
for Declaratory Relief (D.E. 12) be DENIED without prejudice.
Case 2:26-cv-00022 Document 25 Filed 06/18/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4 / 4
Respectfully recommended on June 18, 2026.
____________________________
Julie K. Hampton
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO PARTIES
The Clerk will file this Memorandum and Recommendation and transmit a copy to
each party or counsel. Within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of
the Memorandum and Recommendation, a party may file with the Clerk and serve on the
United States Magistrate Judge and all parties, written objections, pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), General Order No. 2002-13, United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions,
and recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon
grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual
findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court. Douglass v. United Servs.
Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc).
Case 2:26-cv-00022 Document 25 Filed 06/18/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4