I was going to respond to bmc's "case is so weak" comment by saying all the attorney has to do is amend the complaint to include the agreement, but the attorney himself beat me to it.
Don't be fooled into thinking this is a slam dunk in your favor. The judge has already demonstrated he is willing to be fair to both sides. (Or if you like to wear tin hats, you probably see the judge allowing the plaintiff to amend its complaint as the judge has been paid off by the plaintiff.)
Citi has always had arbitration in their agreements. They use AAA and the agreements say you won't be liable for Citi's arbitration fees. The issue you will likely face is that the agreement says claims filed in "small claims" court are not subject to arbitration. Gurstel will probably argue Justice Court is the equivalent of some small claims court somewhere, and thus they sued you in a "small claims equivalent court". The good news for you is that Citi never defined "small claims" in their agreement, and in AZ, we actually have a division named "small claims", and you weren't sued there.
So short version, I would use arbitration to send Cavalry on to greener pastures.
I went to pretrial conference with a (Motion for More Definitive Statement) in regards to 2.113 (F) and the judge was going to allow me time to address the issue and the attorney agreed to amend his complaint with agreement within 7 days. So i am waiting until then before i file a ( Motion for Summary Disposition). So upon receipt of there amended complaint i have 7 days to amend my answer and affirmative defenses in response or file a motion.
So i should prepare an affidavit denying this debt to submit with my answer and affirmative defenses?