Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Hernandez, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
PECOS DIVISION
LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING,
LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
RUDOLFO HERNANDEZ, III, and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON
BEHALF OF THE SECRETARY OF
HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
PE:25-CV-00018-DC-DF
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On this day, the Court considered the status of this case. This case is before the
undersigned through a Standing Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Appendix C of
the Local Court Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
After due consideration, the undersigned RECOMMENDS this case be DISMISSED.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC, (“Lakeview”) has repeatedly failed to
prosecute this case and comply with Court Orders. (Doc. 20). Lakeview filed their
Complaint on April 28, 2025. (Doc. 1). Lakeview was thus required to serve Defendants
on or before July 28, 2025. FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m). Lakeview failed to serve Defendant
Rudolfo Hernandez, III (“Hernandez”) by this deadline. (Doc. 6). The Court then
ordered Lakeview to accomplish service or otherwise show cause as to why it had been
unable to do so by August 12. Id. This deadline passed with Lakeview again failing to
serve Hernandez. (Doc. 10). The Court then extended Lakeview’s deadline to serve
Case 4:25-cv-00018-DC Document 21 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Hernandez until September 17. (Doc. 11). Lakeview again failed to meet this deadline,
so the Court issued a second Show Cause Order. (Doc. 12). Lakeview failed to serve
Hernandez within the deadline for a third time, so the Court issued a third Show Cause
Order. (Doc. 18). Lakeview once again did not serve Hernandez. (Doc. 19). This Court
has repeatedly ordered Lakeview to serve Hernandez, to no avail. (Docs. 6, 12, 18).
On December 3, the Court ordered Lakeview to show cause within fourteen days
as to why this case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b), which allows courts to dismiss a case if a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply
with court orders. (Doc. 20 at 2). Accomplishing service on Hernandez also would have
satisfied the Order. Id. Despite this final warning, Lakeview did not file anything in
response or provide proof of service on Hernandez.1
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
At this point, the Court is left with no option other than to recommend dismissal
under Rule 41(b). Lakeview has failed to comply with multiple Show Cause Orders.
(Docs. 6, 12, 18, 20). The Court has also warned Lakeview multiple times that this case
was at risk of being dismissed. (Docs. 6, 12, 18, 20). Even so, Lakeview has continued in
its failure to prosecute this case. The Court therefore RECOMMENDS that this case be
dismissed under Rule 41(b).
1. Though it does not affect the outcome here, the Court notes that this is not the first time Lakeview has
wasted the time and resources of a court in this Circuit by failing to prosecute its case. Lakeview Loan
Servicing, LLC, v. Lee, No. 25-CV-00525, 2025 WL 2816781, at * 2 (W.D. Tex. July 30, 2025) (recommending
dismissal under Rule 41(b) because “Lakeview has failed . . . to prosecute this lawsuit”); Lakeview Loan
Servicing, LLC, v. Perez, No. 25-CV-00064, 2025 WL 2723142, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2025), R&R adopted,
2025 WL 2722663, (N.D. Tex. Sept. 24, 2025) (same).
Case 4:25-cv-00018-DC Document 21 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 4

3
SIGNED this 5th day of January, 2026.
DAVID B. FANNIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-00018-DC Document 21 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 4

4
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
In the event that a party has not been served by the Clerk with this Report and
Recommendation electronically, pursuant to the CM/ECF procedures of this District,
the Clerk is ORDERED to mail such party a copy of this Report and Recommendation
by certified mail, return receipt requested. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), any party
who desires to object to this report must serve and file written objections within
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy unless the time period is modified by
the District Court. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings,
conclusions, or recommendations to which objections are being made; the District Court
need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. Such party shall file the
objections with the Clerk of the Court and serve the objections on the Magistrate Judge
and on all other parties. A party’s failure to file such objections to the proposed
findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report shall bar the party
from a de novo determination by the District Court. Additionally, a party’s failure to
file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations
contained in this report 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, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996).
Case 4:25-cv-00018-DC Document 21 Filed 01/05/26 Page 4 of 4