Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

PennyMac Loan Services v. Boling — Court dismissed foreclosure action for lack of federal jurisdiction

Reported / Citable

Case
PennyMac Loan Services, LLC v. Angeline Diane Boling, Estate of David D. Boling, and United States of America, on Behalf of the Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Judge
Marcia A. Crone
Date Decided
September 4, 2026
Docket No.
1:25-cv-00243
Topics
Subject Matter Jurisdiction; Mortgage Foreclosure; Federal Liens; Sovereign Immunity

Background

PennyMac Loan Services sued Angeline Diane Boling, the Estate of David D. Boling, and the United States on behalf of the Small Business Administration, seeking to foreclose on real property in Vidor, Texas. PennyMac alleged that the SBA held a subordinate lien and asserted federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 2410.

After approving a consent judgment between PennyMac and the SBA, the court ordered supplemental briefing on whether it had subject matter jurisdiction. PennyMac maintained that § 2410 supplied jurisdiction because the foreclosure concerned property encumbered by a federal lien.

The Court’s Holding

The court held that § 2410 waives the United States’ sovereign immunity in specified lien proceedings but does not independently confer federal subject matter jurisdiction. The underlying claim sought enforcement of a mortgage lien and foreclosure, and its resolution did not turn on the construction of federal law, so § 1331 did not supply federal-question jurisdiction.

Applying the Fifth Circuit’s published decision in Hussain v. Boston Old Colony Insurance Co., the court concluded that federal jurisdiction in this setting exists when the government removes a state-court action under 28 U.S.C. § 1444. Because PennyMac originally filed this action in federal court, rather than the government removing it from state court, jurisdiction was absent. The court dismissed the case without prejudice, vacated the consent order, and directed the clerk to close the matter and deny pending motions as moot.

Key Takeaways

  • Section 2410 waives sovereign immunity for certain actions involving federal liens but does not independently create federal subject matter jurisdiction.
  • A state-law mortgage foreclosure does not present a federal question merely because the United States holds a subordinate lien.
  • Because the action was filed originally in federal court rather than removed by the government under § 1444, the court dismissed it without prejudice and vacated the previously entered consent order.

Why It Matters

Lenders cannot establish original federal jurisdiction over an otherwise state-law foreclosure simply by naming the United States as a lienholder under § 2410. In the Fifth Circuit, the statute’s waiver of sovereign immunity must be paired with an independent jurisdictional basis, or with government removal of a qualifying state-court proceeding under § 1444.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top