Estrada v. Mendoza

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an action under the UCSPA against a debt collector for allegedly obtaining inflated writs of garnishment was not barred by res judicata
• holding that the plaintiffs’ UCSPA claim “is not a collateral attack” where the plaintiffs did not “seek to have those judgments vacated or reversed or modified, or to prevent their enforcement” (citation and alteration omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).