United States v. Mendoza-Reyes

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that under Maryland law, “there is no separate cause of action for respondent superior” and that it is instead “a doctrine that imputes liability for a cause of action to a principal”
• citing, inter alia, Lloyd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 397 Md. 108, 143 (2007)
• citing, inter alia, Lloyd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 397 Md. 108, 143 (2007)
• to state a claim under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, plaintiffs must plead reliance and causation
• “Plaintiffs’ § 1692f claim should be dismissed because Plaintiffs fail to allege any misconduct separate and distinct from the § 1692e claims.”
• a claim under section 1692f of the FDCPA requires allegations that are “separate and distinct” from the allegations supporting the 1692e violations

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).