Fake Summons?

Often the wording is set by statute or court rule. The idea is that you'll read it and make the right decision, whatever that might be.

You did say that it was signed by the attorney. Some states, e.g. reportedly Minnesota, allow "pocket service", that is you can get the service before it's filed at the court. There are various rules and laws against sending fake court documents so it may make sense to always treat any alleged court documents as real until you know different. Simply calling the court and asking them if they have a case on file may not be enough to know whether or not the documents are real. You may wish to consult an attorney.

Any lawsuit is serious business and your total monetary exposure can ultimately be greater than the complaint explicitly states since "reasonable attorney's fees" are usually asked for. What is reasonable changes depending on how far the case goes.

They may be required to effect personal service. That's what the creepy guy at the door does for a living, maybe.

Being sued is scary. Certainly, initial disbelief is common. In courts today, most civil cases are settled. This means that communication between the parties is vital. Even if you are going to fight this, you'll probably need to get used to talking with the other side about things.

 

If it is real the fact that it is only for 1K tells me that it is most likely a small claims court case. Most small claims courts don't allow the use of discovery. If I were you I would also check with the clerk of the court to see if it is a small claims case or not and then check your state and local rules of civil procedure to see if discovery is allowed in small claims cases. If it isn't then don't respond to those questions. I've seen a few small claims cases where discovery was demanded even though not allowed by the rules because the lawyer figured the defendant wouldn't know that discovery wasn't allowed and so they responded giving the lawyer an easy win.

You guessed it. Pay it or get your bank account seized or your wages garnished or both unless you can fight it and win.

Yes, you should have given all your money to charity so you wouldn't have any to pay the debt with. After all, they can't get blood out of a stone now can they? Well, if you kid yourself into believing that you can expect to be provided with a different point of view rather quickly because you aren't a stone.

Don't bother about trying to hire a lawyer. Why throw good money after bad? Just tell us what state you live in and we can tell you whether they can take any pre filing action against you such as serving a summons without actually having filed the case or not. I'd also get any money out of your bank accounts because in some states they can also do a pre judgment grab of your bank accounts and then go see what the judge says about it. Most states won't allow that but a couple of them will.

 

You mentioned another thing that is even scarier and that is the Colorado simplified court system. Yes, it has been greatly simplified........for the plaintiff's but for the defendants it is a nightmare. It is set up so that the defendant simply checks off a few boxes all of which are set up to give the plaintiff an easier win without having to go through so much trouble. Makes life much easier for the attorneys if the defendant has less chance to get his foot in the door, right? Better to be certain of a clean kill with the first shot, right?

Also much less chance that the attorney will get hit with a lawsuit for making dumb mistakes. Let's not let defendants in on the fact that they have certain rights and that there are laws that the plaintiff and the attorney have to follow even if the defendant does owe the money. Let's face it. The plaintiff, the lawyer, the judge and the defendant all know that the defendant owes the money and didn't pay so why mess around with a bunch of laws and rules everybody has to follow? Let's just simplify the system so the defendant hasn't nearly the chance to wake up and die right. Great idea, right? All we have to do to make it easy is simply the forms so much that it just becomes a cut and dried wham bam process. And that is what they did. California and New York have also done the same thing by introducing their own simplified court systems.

But that's not good enough for them. Now Colorado is trying to lead the way by greatly simplifying the rules of procedure. They have set up a think tank of judges and lawyers whose goal is to greatly simplify the rules so there are less options available in discovery and other procedures. They want to reduce the number of possible interrogatories by limiting the questions that can be asked. Not only the number but the type as well. That way only about 5 or 10 possible questions can be asked. They want to limit responses to admissions too. Limit it to admit, deny or object and if someone denies or objects they have to write out lengthy explanations that are controlled by their limitations. Guess who gets hurt with that one?

What the simplified forms don't tell you is that while you must reply using their forms and check boxes you don't have to play their games either. Well, yes, they do tell you but in subtle ways defendants probably won't figure out. Then if you do figure it out you will probably meet up with some box of rocks for a judge who will do all s/he can to make sure you lose.

There is a case going on in federal court right now where the judge dumped the case off on a magistrate judge without informing the parties that they had the right to refuse a magistrate judge. Then the magistrate started handing out orders without informing the parties they had the right to refuse to do business with a magistrate judge either. Both federal statute law and federal rules of procedure mandate that if a case is sent to a magistrate judge the court has to inform the parties of their right to turn down the magistrate judge but the local rules say it is up to the judge whether that happens or not and of course it don't.

The pro se plaintiff found out about that and motioned to stay the proceedings which sent it back to the original judge who then immediately sent it back to the magistrate to rule on. So the problem now becomes what to do about that. Yes, it could be appealed but who wants to go to all that extra time and expense? So what to do? The pro se has several friends he can rely on to help figure things out. The consensus of those friends is that he should start out with a judicial notice and follow a longer route before taking it up on appeals. Judicial notice first then maybe sue the judge for a declaratory judgment, maybe go for recusal of the judges, maybe finally an appeal on the issues if that becomes the last resort. Maybe who knows what at this point in time. The real problem is that the pro se plaintiff had a slam dunk case until the magistrate stepped in. That's when everything went south for the plaintiff.

I suppose that by this time you are wondering what all of that has to do with you. The answer is that although the amount may be many times smaller than the case I just talked about the question isn't just about money but about your civil rights. Have your civil rights been violated? Some here may chime in and ask what civil rights have to do with it but all cases where Title 15 laws have been broken are listed in Pacer in the civil rights category. It isn't just about the money. It is also about whether or not your rights have been violated and although you may not realize it they most likely either have been violated multiple times or if not they most likely are about to be violated.

So in reality the choices are up to you and here they are.
(1.)Pay up the $1,000 plus court costs and attorney fees before it goes any further. If you don't have the cash you can expect to take your whipping and pay much more in the end.
(2.) Decide you want to fight and if at all possible keep them from getting your money.
Obviously choice #1 is the easiest way out. You pay and take your lumps and be done with it. If you do then the fact they filed a judgment may well end up on your credit reports and you suffer with that for the next 7 years or so. On the other hand, if you decide to fight even though the amount is small you stand an excellent chance of making them forget about ever collecting any money and paying you to go away and leave them alone, take at least some of the derogatory stuff off your credit reports, pay your court costs and attorney fees even though you didn't hire an attorney. I'm sure you might also ask what if your case ends up like the case I mentioned above, but the answer to that is your case would only be for a few thousand and the other case involves a hundred times that amount.

There is also another aspect to it and that is that if you can get the FTC involved they can levy a fine of up to $16,000 a day for every day the violation(s) have been ongoing. If that happened that would really cook their goose for them. (LOL)