Mendoza et al v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
ISAIAH MENDOZA, et al.,
Plaintiffs.
V.
LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING,
LLC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-cv-00301
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs Isaiah Mendoza, Raymond Mendoza, Jr., and Abigail Mendoza
have sued Defendant Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC for breach of contract and
wrongful 	foreclosure. 	Lakeview 	moves 	to 	dismiss 	Plaintiffs’ 	First 	Amended
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Dkt. 19.
Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes a motion to dismiss for “failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.” As federal practitioners are well aware, “a Rule
12(b)(6) motion typically cannot rely on evidence outside the complaint.” C&C Inv.
Props., L.L.C. v. Trustmark Nat’l Bank, 838 F.3d 655, 660 (5th Cir. 2016). This
general rule is subject to two exceptions. In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, I
may consider evidence outside the complaint “if that evidence is either (a) a
document attached to the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, referred to in the complaint, and
central to the plaintiff’s claim; or (b) a matter subject to judicial notice under
Federal Rule of Evidence 201.” George v. SI Grp., Inc., 36 F.4th 611, 619 (5th
Cir. 2022).
When documents outside the complaint are filed with a motion to dismiss,
the district court has “complete discretion under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure to either accept the exhibits submitted or not, as it sees fit.” Isquith ex
rel. Isquith v. Middle S. Util. Inc., 847 F.2d 186, 196 (5th Cir. 1988). “If, on a
motion under Rule 12(b)(6) . . . matters outside the pleadings are presented to and
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 17, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 3:25-cv-00301 Document 22 Filed 06/17/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary
judgment under Rule 56.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). If the district court converts the
motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, “[a]ll parties must be
given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the
motion.” Id. According to the Fifth Circuit, this means that the non-moving party
must be given at least 10 days to submit its own evidence to the court. See Hodge
v. Engleman, 90 F.4th 840, 844 (5th Cir. 2024).
Here, Lakeview has attached five exhibits to its motions to dismiss. Some of
these exhibits may be considered in deciding Lakeview’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion. For
example, I may consider Exhibit A, the Deed of Trust, because that document is
referred to and attached to the live complaint, and central to Plaintiffs’ claims. I
may also review United States Postal Service tracking information, attached as part
of Exhibit C, because that documentation is subject to judicial notice. See GS
Holistic, LLC v. Upferno Inc., No. 3:23-cv-249, 2025 WL 1665182, at *2 (S.D. Tex.
June 12, 2025) (“Federal courts routinely take judicial notice that the USPS . . .
stores tracking records related to certified mail for two years. When the tracking
numbers at issue are within that two-year timeframe, courts also take judicial
notice of the information about that tracking number found on the U.S. Postal
Service’s website.” (cleaned up)).
I may not, however, consider other exhibits attached to Lakeview’s motion
to dismiss. Lakeview has attached a declaration signed by Charlene Broussard. See
Dkt. 19-4 at 1. Broussard states under oath that she deposited certain documents
addressed to Plaintiffs in the United States mail. See id. Because I may not look
beyond the face of the pleadings when considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and this
evidence does not fall within an exception to the rule, I am not permitted to
consider Broussard’s declaration. See, e.g., Rsch. Found. for State Univ. of N.Y. v.
Xiaomi Corp., No. 2:23-cv-00353, 2025 WL 923437, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2025)
(refusing 	to 	consider 	a 	declaration 	submitted 	as 	part 	of 	a 	Rule 	12(b)(6)
motion); Robinson v. CSL Plasma Ctr., Civ. Action No. 21-2520, 2022 WL
Case 3:25-cv-00301 Document 22 Filed 06/17/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
4295252, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2022) (refusing to consider affidavit that “is not
referred to in the plaintiff’s complaint or central to his claim, so it is not a part of
the pleadings”).
Faced with matters outside of the pleadings, I must decide whether to
exclude such documents from consideration or convert Lakeview’s motion to
dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Because the extrinsic materials
submitted by Lakeview might facilitate disposition of this action, I will exercise my
discretion to accept and consider those documents. As a result, I must convert
Lakeview’s motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56.
Accordingly, I will give Plaintiffs until July 1, 2026, to “present all the material that
is pertinent to the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d).
SIGNED this 	day of June 2026.
______________________________
ANDREW M. EDISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-00301 Document 22 Filed 06/17/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3