CJ-2026-1388 - Mendez Cleaning Services, LLC v. Fairfax Best Living, LLC

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: this isn’t just a bounced check. This is a double bounced check — for over sixty grand — and it’s the opening act in what might be the most dramatic janitorial showdown in Oklahoma County history. Mendez Cleaning Services, LLC, a company that probably makes its living scrubbing toilets and mopping lobbies, is now suing three LLCs with names that sound like real estate investment podcasts, demanding $60,455 because — and this is not a typo — two checks were returned for insufficient funds. Twice. On the same payment. It’s like watching someone try to pay their bar tab with a fake hundred, then doubling down with another fake hundred when the first one gets rejected. The audacity is chef’s kiss.

So who are these people? On one side, we’ve got Mendez Cleaning Services, LLC — a local Oklahoma-based cleaning company run by a guy named Ronal Mendez, who personally verified this lawsuit under oath, which means he’s not messing around. These are the folks who show up with mops, vacuums, and probably a strong opinion about which brand of disinfectant actually kills 99.9% of germs. On the other side? Three LLCs with names so corporate they sound like they were generated by a real estate AI: Fairfax Best Living, LLC; Fairfax Investors, LLC; and Vesta Realty, LLC. Vesta acted as the property manager, which means they were the middlemen — the ones supposed to make sure the bills got paid and the grass got mowed and, apparently, the cleaning invoices didn’t just float into the void. These are the kind of companies that exist on paper, own buildings, collect rent, and presumably have bank accounts that don’t run dry like a teenager’s after spring break. And yet… here we are.

The story starts, like so many landlord-tenant disputes, with unpaid bills. Back in December 2024, Mendez filed a lawsuit over unpaid cleaning services — the kind of thing that probably began with polite reminder emails and ended with lawyers and mechanic’s liens (yes, you can put a lien on a building for unpaid janitorial work — the legal system is wild). But instead of dragging it out in court, both sides did the sensible thing: they settled. On December 29, 2024 — just five days before the new year — they signed a Settlement Agreement. The deal? $208,842 total, paid in four installments tied to specific properties. The first chunk, $60,455, was tied to the “Fairfax property” — likely a senior living or apartment complex given the LLC names — and had to be paid on time, because the agreement explicitly said “time is of the essence.” That’s legal code for “don’t mess around.”

Mendez held up their end. They released their mechanic’s lien on the property — basically taking their legal hammer off the table — trusting that the money would come through. But then… crickets. The check arrived, but it bounced. Not lost in the mail. Not delayed. Bounced. For insufficient funds. Okay, maybe it was a clerical error. A fluke. A rogue algorithm at the bank. Fine. So the defendants reissued the check — same amount, same purpose — and guess what? Also bounced. Two strikes. Two NSF returns. At that point, it’s not a mistake. It’s a statement. And the statement says: “We either can’t or won’t pay you.”

Now, here’s where it gets spicy. The Settlement Agreement wasn’t just a handshake and a “we’ll fix it soon.” It had teeth. Specifically, it included a pre-signed Agreed Judgment — a legal boomerang that says, “If you don’t pay, we can immediately file this with the court and it becomes enforceable like a court order.” It’s the financial equivalent of signing your own arrest warrant. And now Mendez is back in court, not to argue about whether they cleaned the building or whether the price was fair, but because the other side agreed to pay, promised to pay, wrote two checks, and still didn’t pay. It’s like ordering pizza, signing a contract that says you’ll pay in 10 minutes, then watching the delivery driver leave because your Venmo failed — twice.

So what exactly are they suing for? First, breach of contract — because the settlement was a binding agreement, and failing to pay (especially after two bounced checks) is a pretty clear violation. Second, enforcement of that Agreed Judgment — meaning Mendez wants the court to just stamp it official and let them start garnishing wages or seizing assets. And third, attorneys’ fees and costs — because the settlement said the winner gets reimbursed for legal bills, and let’s be honest, someone had to draft this 10-page petition with all the “hereby”s and “whereas”s, and it wasn’t free.

The amount in dispute? $60,455. Is that a lot? For a cleaning company, absolutely. That’s payroll, equipment, supplies, and maybe even a fancy vacuum that doesn’t sound like a jet engine. For a real estate investment group managing multiple properties? Probably less than the down payment on one unit. But it’s not about the money — it’s about the principle. Or the optics. Or the sheer embarrassment of having your LLC dragged into court because you couldn’t clear a $60k check. And let’s not forget: Mendez isn’t just asking for the principal. They want interest, fees, and costs too. This could snowball.

Now, here’s our take: the most absurd part isn’t the bounced checks. It’s the re-bounced check. One NSF? Okay, maybe the accountant was on vacation. Two? That’s either extreme financial distress or extreme disrespect. And given that this was a settlement — a peace treaty meant to end a lawsuit — the fact that the defendants couldn’t or wouldn’t honor it makes you wonder: were they ever serious about resolving this? Or did they sign the agreement just to get the lien lifted, planning to ghost afterward? That’s the kind of move that gets you blacklisted in small business circles. “Oh, you did a job for Vesta Realty? Yeah… good luck getting paid.”

We’re rooting for Mendez, not because they’re blameless — we don’t know the full backstory — but because they followed the rules. They sued, they negotiated, they compromised, they released their lien, and they got played. In a world where gig workers and small contractors get stiffed all the time, this is a rare case where someone’s actually fighting back with paperwork and persistence. Plus, the idea of a cleaning company outmaneuvering a trio of slick LLCs in court? That’s the kind of underdog story we live for. So go ahead, Mendez. File that Agreed Judgment. Send the process server. Maybe even clean their office on the way out — and leave the bill on the desk.

Case Overview

Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Aharon Hernández Manley

Maldonado & Hernandez Manley

Relief Sought

$60,455 Monetary

Plaintiffs

Mendez Cleaning Services, LLC business
Rep: Aharon Hernández Manley, OBA #22223

Defendants

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	breach of settlement agreement	alleged failure to pay $60,455.00
2	enforcement of agreed judgment	alleged breach of settlement agreement
3	attorneys' fees and costs	alleged entitlement to attorneys' fees and costs

Petition Text

957 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA MENDEZ CLEANING SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiff, v. FAIRFAX BEST LIVING, LLC; FAIRFAX INVESTORS, LLC; and VESTA REALTY, LLC, Defendants. PETITION FOR BREACH OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, ENFORCEMENT OF AGREED JUDGMENT, AND DAMAGES COMES NOW Plaintiff, MENDEZ CLEANING SERVICES, LLC ("Plaintiff" or "Mendez"), and for its causes of action against Defendants FAIRFAX BEST LIVING, LLC; FAIRFAX INVESTORS, LLC; and VESTA REALTY, LLC (collectively, "Defendants"), alleges and states as follows: I. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff MENDEZ CLEANING SERVICES, LLC is an Oklahoma limited liability company with its principal place of business in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. 2. Defendant VESTA REALTY, LLC is a Kansas limited liability company authorized to do business in Oklahoma and acted as agent and property manager for the co-Defendants. 3. Defendants FAIRFAX BEST LIVING, LLC and FAIRFAX INVESTORS, LLC are limited liability companies that owned the Fairfax property that was the subject of the unpaid installment under the Settlement Agreement. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. Venue and jurisdiction are proper in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma pursuant to the express forum-selection clause in the Settlement Agreement and because the underlying lawsuit, liens, and settlement arose in Oklahoma County. 5. The Settlement Agreement is governed by Oklahoma law and provides exclusive jurisdiction in Oklahoma County District Court. III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 6. On or about December 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendants in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, arising out of unpaid cleaning services and related mechanic’s liens (the "Underlying Lawsuit"). 7. On or about December 29, 2024, the parties entered into a written Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement"), which fully resolved the Underlying Lawsuit and all related mechanic’s liens. EXHIBIT “A” 8. Under the Settlement Agreement, Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff total compensation of $208,842.00 in four installments tied to specific properties, including a first installment relating to the Fairfax property in the amount of $60,455.00 (the "Fairfax Payment"). 9. The Settlement Agreement expressly provides that time is of the essence and sets forth mandatory deadlines for performance by Defendants. 10. Plaintiff fully performed all conditions precedent required of it under the Settlement Agreement, including executing and delivering the required lien release for the Fairfax property. 11. Despite Plaintiff’s full performance, Defendants failed to timely pay the Fairfax Payment as required by Sections 2.3 and 2.4 of the Settlement Agreement. Defendants issued a check in the amount of $60,455.00, which was returned for insufficient funds. Defendants thereafter reissued the same payment, and the replacement check was likewise returned unpaid. The Fairfax Payment has therefore bounced twice and remains unpaid. 12. Defendants’ failure to make the Fairfax Payment constitutes a material breach of the Settlement Agreement. 13. The Settlement Agreement expressly provides that, upon Defendants’ failure to timely pay the Fairfax Payment, Plaintiff is entitled to file the Agreed Judgment previously executed and delivered by Defendants. 14. Defendants remain in default and have not cured their breach. IV. COUNT I – BREACH OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 15. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–14 as if fully set forth herein. 16. The Settlement Agreement is a valid and enforceable contract supported by adequate consideration. 17. Plaintiff performed or stood ready to perform all obligations required of it under the Settlement Agreement. 18. Defendants materially breached the Settlement Agreement by failing to timely pay the Fairfax Payment and by issuing two checks that were returned unpaid, demonstrating Defendants’ inability or refusal to perform their obligations under the Settlement Agreement. 19. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount not less than $60,455.00, plus interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and additional damages allowed by law. V. COUNT II – ENFORCEMENT OF AGREED JUDGMENT 20. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–19 as if fully set forth herein. 21. The Settlement Agreement provides that Defendants executed an Agreed Judgment to be filed in the event of non-payment of the Fairfax Payment. 22. Defendants’ breach triggered Plaintiff’s contractual right to file and enforce the Agreed Judgment. 23. Plaintiff is entitled to entry and enforcement of the Agreed Judgment in accordance with its terms. VI. COUNT III – ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 24. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–23 as if fully set forth herein. 25. The Settlement Agreement provides that the prevailing party in any action to enforce the agreement is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees, court costs, and collection costs. 26. Plaintiff is the prevailing party and is entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred herein. VII. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 27. All conditions precedent to Plaintiff’s claims have occurred, have been performed, or have been waived. VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against Defendants as follows: A. For damages in the amount of $60,455.00, or such other amount proven at trial; B. For enforcement and entry of the Agreed Judgment; C. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law; D. For reasonable attorneys’ fees, court costs, and collection costs pursuant to the Settlement Agreement; E. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. Respectfully submitted, Aharon Hernández Manley, OBA #22223 MALDONADO & HERNANDEZ MANLEY 3801 N. Classen Blvd., Suite 250 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73118 Office: 405.422.0000 Fax: 405.708.5327 Email: [email protected] JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VERIFICATION STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA ) SS. Ronal Mendez, of lawful age, being first duly sworn upon oath, deposes and states: 1. That he is the Petitioner in the above and foregoing cause. 2. That he has read the above document(s); and 3. That the statements therein set forth are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. Ronal Mendez Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public of said County and State on this 8th day of January, 2026. Signature of Notarial Officer SALUD M ESTRADA Notary Public, State of Oklahoma Commission #24003452 My Commission Expires 03-11-2028 MY COURIER LOG ENTRY 08-11-2058 Courier Info #: SDO03425 Nerayya Public, State of Karnataka C AU UD M EST RADA