CJ-2025-789 - Bruce Jorge Sifuentez Sandoval v. Mario Medoza

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: this is not a story about a bad loan. This is a story about a loan that turned into a financial exorcism, where two people allegedly paid over three times the principal in interest—$198,025 on a $65,000 loan—and were then threatened with deportation if they didn’t sign over their house. Yes, you read that right. We’re not in The Godfather, we’re in a County Court in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, and somehow, it feels like we’ve stumbled into a mafia movie disguised as a civil complaint.

Meet Bruce Jorge Sifuentez Sandoval and Sandra Fabiola Lopez Esparza—our plaintiffs, a couple living in Tulsa County, trying to build a life in the U.S. as migrants. On the other side: Mario Medoza and Cristina Mendoza (note: spelling inconsistencies aside, we’ll assume these are the same people), also residents of Tulsa County, who apparently moonlight as informal lenders with a sideline in psychological warfare. Back on March 8, 2022, the Sandovals needed cash—$65,000, to be exact—and the Mendozas had it. A contract was signed. Terms were laid out: 12% annual interest. Sounds reasonable, right? Not predatory, not wild, not insane. Just… normal people lending normal money with normal terms. Or so it seemed.

But then the payments started. And the payments kept coming. And coming. And coming. In 2022 alone, the Sandovals paid $45,000. In 2023? A cool $107,425. In 2024? Another $83,600. Let’s do the math real quick: that’s $198,025 in total payments—on a $65,000 loan. The complaint calculates the effective interest rate at 304.65%. For context, that’s not just above the legal limit—that’s vampire bat levels of interest. Credit card companies would weep at the audacity. Payday lenders would file a restraining order. This isn’t lending. This is financial arson.

Now, you might think, “Wait, why didn’t they just stop paying?” Ah, but here’s where it gets juicy. According to the complaint, the Mendozas didn’t just send polite payment reminders. They allegedly turned up the heat—hard. The Sandovals claim the Mendozas used extortionist tactics, including demanding they deed their home over as collateral. And here’s the kicker: they allegedly dangled the threat of contacting U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)—a terrifying prospect for any migrant, regardless of status. It’s the kind of move that turns a financial dispute into a full-blown psychological siege. You don’t just owe money—you’re being told your entire life in America could vanish if you don’t comply.

So the Sandovals kept paying. They paid way more than they should have. According to their own accounting, even after factoring in $27,375 in legitimate late fees (which, fine, maybe they missed a few payments), they still overpaid by $146,118. That’s not chump change. That’s a house. That’s retirement. That’s a lot of tacos. And when they finally said, “Hey, this doesn’t add up,” and sent a formal written demand for repayment of the overage? Crickets. The Mendozas allegedly ignored it. No refund. No explanation. Just silence.

Which brings us to the courthouse. On February 27, 2025, the Sandovals, represented by attorney Jason M. Lile of LILE LEGAL SERVICES, PLLC (yes, all caps, because why not?), filed a verified complaint in the County Court of Tulsa County. They’re not asking for punitive damages. They’re not demanding the Mendozas be jailed. They’re not even asking for a jury trial. What they are asking for is $146,118 in restitution—plus interest, attorney’s fees, and court costs. In plain English: “Give us back the money you illegally took from us.”

Legally, they’re making three claims, but two matter most. First: Breach of Contract. The deal was 12% interest. You charged us 304.65%. That’s not just a violation—it’s a demolition of the agreement. Second: Unjust Enrichment. Even if the contract were somehow void, you can’t keep $198,000 from someone when you only loaned $65,000 and used threats to extract it. That’s not business. That’s theft with a smile.

Now, let’s talk about that $146,118. Is it a lot? Well, sure. But in the context of being extorted into paying nearly $200,000 on a loan that should’ve cost less than $75,000 total, it’s practically a discount. The Sandovals aren’t trying to get rich. They’re trying to survive. They’re trying to get back what was taken under duress. And let’s be real—this isn’t just about money. It’s about power. One side had leverage. They allegedly used it like a weapon.

So what’s our take? Look, we’re entertainers, not lawyers. We don’t know who’s telling the full truth. Maybe the contract has clauses we haven’t seen. Maybe there were side agreements. Maybe the Mendozas feel they were wronged. But here’s what jumps out: the threat of immigration enforcement as a debt collection tool. That’s not just unethical—it’s the kind of allegation that makes your skin crawl. Using someone’s status in this country as a cudgel? That’s not capitalism. That’s coercion. That’s fear. That’s the kind of thing that makes you wonder if the real crime here isn’t just financial, but human.

And honestly? We’re rooting for the Sandovals. Not because they’re perfect, but because they’re fighting back. They’re saying, “No, you don’t get to take everything and then threaten us into silence.” Whether the court agrees or not, that’s a victory in itself. Because in a system where the powerful often win just by showing up, sometimes the bravest thing you can do is file a complaint, swear under oath, and say: This was wrong.

Now, let’s see if Tulsa County agrees.

Case Overview

$146,118 Demand Complaint

Jurisdiction

County Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Jason M. Lile

LILE LEGAL SERVICES, PLLC

Relief Sought

$146,118 Monetary

Plaintiffs

Bruce Jorge Sifuentez Sandoval individual
Rep: Jason M. Lile
Sandra Fabiola Lopez Esparza individual
Rep: Jason M. Lile

Defendants

Mario Medoza individual
Cristina Mendoza individual

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Contract	Plaintiffs claim Defendants charged excessive interest rates and overpayment, breaching their contract.
2	Unjust Enrichment	Plaintiffs claim Defendants unjustly enriched themselves through extortionist tactics and overpayment.

Petition Text

1,375 words

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF TUSA COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA BRUCE JORGE SIFUENTES SANDOVAL, and SANDRA FABIOLA LOPEZ ESPARZA Individuals, Plaintiffs, vs. MARIO MEDOZA, and CRISTINA MENDOZA, Individuals, Defendants. Case No.: CJ-2025-00789 KELLY M. GREENOUGH Judge: VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT COMES NOW, BRUCE JORGE SIFUENTES SANDOVAL and SANDRA FABIOLA LOPEZ ESPARZA Plaintiff, by and through counsel Jason M. Lile, of LILE LEGAL SERVICES, PLLC and files this civil action for Breach of Contract and Unjust Enrichment against Defendants, MARIO MEDOZA, and CRISTINA MENDOZA and in support thereof would show the following: 1. Plaintiffs are individuals residing in Tulsa County, in the State of Oklahoma, and have for at least six (6) before the filing of this complaint. 2. Defendants are individuals residing in Tulsa County, in the State of Oklahoma, and have for at least six (6) before the filing of this complaint. 3. Plaintiffs entered into a Contract with Defendants whereby Defendants agreed to lend Plaintiffs sixty-five thousand dollars ($65,000.00) and Plaintiffs assumed responsibility for repayment of the same, on or about March 8, 2022 with various renewals of said contract between March 8, 2022 through the present time. A copy of the Contract is attached hereto as “Exhibit A”. 4. The interest rate outlined in the Contract was twelve percent (12%) annual rate. 5. The Defendants subsequently charged the Plaintiffs forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000.00) in 2022, one hundred seven thousand four hundred twenty-five dollars ($107,425.00) in 2023, and an additional eighty-three thousand six hundred dollars ($83,600.00) in 2024, totaling one hundred ninety-eight thousand twenty-five dollars ($198,025.00) creating an effective interest on this loan coming to three hundred and four and sixty-five hundredths percent (304.65%) interest on this loan. COUNT I. CLAIM ON AN OPEN ACCOUNT 6. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 5 as set forth above are realleged in full and incorporated herein by reference. 7. The Parties maintain an open account between them, only recently interrupted by the Plaintiffs demand for reconciliation of the account for drastic overpayment. 8. The total sum of repayment based on the plain face of the Contract should have been sixty-five thousand dollars ($65,000.00) with a twelve percent (12%) annual rate of interest. 9. Under the terms of the Contract, the Plaintiffs were properly assessed twenty-seven thousand three hundred and seventy-five dollars ($27,375.00) in various late-payment fees, nonetheless resulting in a total over-payment of one hundred forty-six thousand one hundred and eighteen dollars ($146,118.00). 10. Plaintiffs have made written demand upon Defendants for reimbursement of the amount overpaid on said account but Defendants have failed and/or refused to pay same within sixty (60) days of Defendant's receipt of Plaintiff's written demand. A copy of the written demand and evidence of receipt by Defendant is attached and made part of Exhibit "B" hereto and is incorporated herein by reference. 11. Because of the failure or refusal of Defendant to pay the amount due Plaintiff, Plaintiff has been forced to hire counsel to file suit against Defendant to recover the amount due Plaintiff. Plaintiff has agreed to pay said counsel a reasonable fee for the services rendered in connection with the collection of the amount due Plaintiff. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover from Defendant the unpaid principal amount plus prejudgment interest thereon plus reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to 12 O.S. §936(a) and all costs of court. COUNT II. BASED ON BREACH OF CONTRACT 12. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 11 as set forth above are realleged in full and incorporated herein by reference. 13. By way of an alternative claim for relief, Plaintiff shows the current principal sum totally due for overpayment by defendants to Plaintiffs as a result of a contract and agreement entered into by and between Plaintiffs and Defendants is one hundred forty-six thousand one hundred and eighteen dollars ($146,118.00). Plaintiffs have made written demand upon Defendants for re-payment of said sums but Defendants have failed and/or refused to pay the same. Said refusal by Defendants to pay the sum due Plaintiffs constitute a breach of contract and agreement entered into by and between the parties. Defendants are presently indebted to Plaintiffs for said sum, plus post-judgment interest pursuant to 12 O.S.1991 §727. 14. Because of the failure or refusal of Defendant to pay the amount due Plaintiff, Plaintiff has been forced to hire counsel to file suit against Defendant to recover the amount due Plaintiff. Plaintiff has agreed to pay said counsel a reasonable fee for the services rendered in connection with the collection of the amount due Plaintiff. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover from Defendant the unpaid principal amount plus prejudgment interest thereon plus reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to 12 O.S. §936(a) and all costs of court. 15. Further, the Defendants suborned this breach of Contract by way of extortionist tactics, including a demand for them to deed their home over to Defendants, and implying there would be Court action which threatens the attention of the United State Citizenship and Immigration Services, as Plaintiffs are migrants to the United States. COUNT III. ALTERNATIVE CLAIM BASED ON UNJUST ENRICHMENT 16. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 12 as set forth above are realleged in full and incorporated herein by reference. 17. By way of an alternative claim for relief, Plaintiffs would show Defendants requested and induced Plaintiffs to over-pay amounts due under the loan Contract by way of extortionist tactics, including a demand for them to deed their home over to Defendants, and implying there would be Court action which threatens the attention of the United State Citizenship and Immigration Services, as Plaintiffs are migrants to the United States; that said over-payment was not provided as a gratuity; that Plaintiffs did fulfill the terms of the Contract for the benefit of Defendants and at the request of Defendant as more fully set forth in the sales agreement and invoice attached hereto as Exhibits "A", "B", and "C" (schedule of repayment") and incorporated herein by reference; that Plaintiffs provided the repayment appropriate under the terms of the Contract with full knowledge and approval of Defendants; and that the over-payment was rendered based on fraudulent and spurious claims that the Plaintiffs owed those monies, accompanied by the threatening behavior described herein. 18. Defendants have failed and/or refused to compensate Plaintiffs for the over-payment, rendered within the course of repayment under the Contract, to and for the benefit of Defendants. Plaintiffs have made written demand upon Defendants for said repayment of the over-payment but Defendants have still failed and/or refused to pay same. The value of the over-payment and reasonable costs thereon is one hundred forty-six thousand one hundred and eighteen dollars ($146,118.00) plus post-judgment interest pursuant to 12 O.S.1991 §727. The failure of Defendants to pay and compensate Plaintiffs for this substantial over-payment will result in unjust enrichment to Defendants. 19. By virtue of the over-payment rendered by Plaintiffs to the benefit of Defendants, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants the value of said overpayment of one hundred forty-six thousand one hundred and eighteen dollars ($146,118.00) plus post-judgment interest pursuant to 12 O.S.1991 §727. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff's prays that Summons be issue against Defendants, that Defendants be cited to appear and answer herein and that on a final hearing hereof, Plaintiffs have judgment entered against Defendants in the principal amount of one hundred and eighteen dollars ($146,118.00) plus post-judgment interest pursuant to 12 O.S.1991 §727 on the entire amount from and after the date of judgment until paid, reasonable attorney's fees and all costs of court incurred herein. In the alternative, Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered against Defendant for the reasonable value of the overpayment provided to Defendants including interest from the date of judgment until paid.. Plaintiff prays for such other relief to which it may be entitled. This the 27th day of January, 2075. Respectfully Submitted. LILE LEGAL SERVICES, PLLC Jason M. Lile, OBA #21014 1615 South Eucalyptus Street, #207 Broken Arrow, OK 74012 Telephone: (918) 800-9874 Email: [email protected] VERIFICATION STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) COUNTY OF TULSA ) We, BRUCE JORGE SIFUENTES SANDOVAL, and SANDRA FABIOLA LOPEZ ESPARZA, being of lawful age and having been first duly sworn on oath, says that we are the Petitioners herein; that we have read the above and foregoing Claim; and that the same is true and correct to the best of our information, knowledge, and belief. BRUCE JORGE SIFUENTES SANDOVAL SANDRA FABIOLA LOPEZ ESPARZA Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21 day of Feb., 2025 Patricia A. Huether Notary Public My Commission Expires: 1-11-25 My Commission Number Is: '1000667