In this amicus letter, Stanford Law Professor David Freeman Engstrom, whose work focuses on access to justice, urges the court to review the above-titled case, which exemplifies the systemic codification of procedural rules that narrow access to justice—here, by “timing out” a defendant from moving to vacate a judgment that is concededly void for lack of proper service. In the decision, the court held that some void judgments are more void than others, based on whether a defendant seeks to show a judgment to be void on its face or instead does so by adducing extrinsic evidence of defects in service. The court’s holding unfairly tilts the scales of justice in favor of debt collectors and against those who are already less capable of enforcing their rights. This Court should grant review to address—and
correct—this fundamental legal error.