Cooper v. PennyMac Loan Services

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: June 5, 2026
• Docket: 25-20114
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-20114 Document: 99-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/05/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED No. 25-20114 June 5, 2026 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Sedrick Cooper; Marquita Cooper, Clerk

Plaintiffs—Appellants,

versus

PennyMac Loan Services, L.L.C.,

Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:24-CV-1436 ______________________________

Before King, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Sedrick and Marquita Cooper (the “Coopers”) sued PennyMac Loan Services, L.L.C. (“PennyMac”), asserting various claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1623, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) related to the foreclosure of their home. The district court granted PennyMac’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-20114 Document: 99-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/05/2026

No. 25-20114

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and denied the Coopers’ motion for leave to amend their complaint. “We review the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo.” Romero v. City of Grapevine, 888 F.3d 170, 176 (5th Cir. 2018). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotation omitted). On appeal, the Coopers allege only that the district court erred by dismissing their claims under the FDCPA. They have thus abandoned any argument related to the dismissal of their claims under the FCRA and § 1623. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993). The Coopers also failed to challenge the district court’s conclusion that they did not sufficiently allege PennyMac was a debt collector subject to the provisions of the FDCPA. The Coopers have therefore not shown that the district court erred by dismissing their FDCPA claims. See Perry v. Stewart Title Co., 756 F.2d 1197, 1208 (5th Cir. 1985). The Coopers also argue the district court erred when it denied their motion to amend their complaint. But the proposed amendment did not supply information that would have corrected the deficiencies outlined by the district court in its order dismissing the complaint. As a result, the amendment would have been futile, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Coopers’ motion. See Aldridge v. Miss. Dep’t of Corr., 990 F.3d 868, 878 (5th Cir. 2021). AFFIRMED.