texasrocker

What law firm filed this lawsuit? For your answer use the same format as the Plaintiff's Original Petition that you were served with the court and case information on top of the page. DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER Comes now, <your name>, the Defendant in the above styled and numbered cause and files this Original Answer in this action and would respectfully show the following: I. GENERAL DENIAL Defendant generally denies each and every, all and singular, of the allegations set forth in the Plaintiff's Original Petition and demands that the Plaintiff proves same by the preponderance of credible evidence. II. PRAYER Wherefore Defendant requests judgment of the Court that Plaintiff takes nothing from the Defendant and the Defendant be granted any further relief that he <or she> is justly entitled to. (Your name, address and phone number) File it with the court immediately and send a copy to the attorney's office that filed the lawsuit.

There is no such thing as a motion for discovery. Do you mean a motion asking the JP court's approval to begin discovery? You need to choose between discovery or arbitration, you cannot do both.

Yes, definitely ignore any calls or letters offering to settle. Send them a letter via certified mail stating that if you do not receive answers to your discovery within seven days then you intend to file a motion to compel the answers and the complete forward flow agreement showing chain of title of the alleged account.

What state are you in? Each state differs in many ways as far as civil collection lawsuits are concerned. It is not so much the presentation of documents as it is the requests for admissions and interrogatories that they don't want to answer. In Texas there are a couple of precedents regarding the authentication and reliability of the OC's business records that JDB's will inevitably try to spring thinking they have a slam-dunk. If you counter them early in discovery then their affidavit signed by their own employee is null and void. Without the affidavit the OC's records are inadmissible as evidence. I will never recommend anyone in Texas to settle with a JDB unless maybe if it is in a JP court with the judge refusing to allow discovery and then only if the defendant is unable or unwilling to hire an attorney for an appeal.

I fully disagree. I can provide discovery that this law firm has never been willing to answer. They are by far the wimpiest bunch in Texas. Since it was filed in a county court we can begin discovery right out of the gate.

For your answer use the same format as the Plaintiff's Original Petition that you were served with the court and case information on top of the page. DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER Comes now, <your name>, the Defendant in the above styled and numbered cause and files this Original Answer in this action and would respectfully show the following: I. GENERAL DENIAL Defendant generally denies each and every, all and singular, of the allegations set forth in the Plaintiff's Original Petition and demands that the Plaintiff proves same by the preponderance of credible evidence. II. PRAYER Wherefore Defendant requests judgment of the Court that Plaintiff takes nothing from the Defendant and the Defendant be granted any further relief that he (or she) is justly entitled to. (Your name, address and phone number) File it with the court immediately and send a copy to the attorney's office that filed the lawsuit. Post their discovery requests and I will provide you with answers.

Don't ever send anything to a JDB attorney by any means other than USPS certified mail.

I am done with this. It has already gone too far. I trust that the purpose of informing the OP to discern what is insane information has been served.

<Forgot to quote. Disregard.>

Sewer service not common in Texas because of what I explained to you regarding process serving protocol. I would like to see even a single documented case that someone was "sewer-served" a petition for a law suit within the last ten years, not mistakenly at the wrong address or something that could be deemed a mistake. I mean deliberately and deceptively sewer-served as the definition suggests. That is actually a solicitation from a law firm. Their one-paragraph statement that reflects what you have been saying also reflects that it is no more than their opinion with no elaboration, statistics, footnotes etc. to back up the statement. This is an interesting and comprehensive article but as you said it only contemplates and explains the procedure taken if someone has been improperly served. It does not touch on your claim that it happens frequently, occasionally, or even at all. This has been my point in this entire discussion. Your guesses and opinions are your personal business but to purport them as facts to an impressionable newcomer who is looking for answers is just going to cause them more grief and turmoil than they already are experiencing just from being sued. Let it not be forgotten that you also gave this OP completely inaccurate information as to electing to use arbitration after participating in discovery.

If my statement is inaccurate then show me something more solid than just your opinion and your gross misinterpretation of the rules I posted such as another rule that could override them or a precedent or at the very least a link to an article that you read somewhere. I have stayed on the verge of biting my tongue and have tried to be reasonable with you but your ramblings are getting more and more ridiculous. You can harbor any opinion you wish to but purporting such advice as credible to someone who has just come here for the first time with absolutely no knowledge of how to handle their case is not acceptable. Yes, there is a remote possibility that a process server could lie about something but in seven years on this board there is no doubt that I would have seen it if it were even a tiny fraction as commonplace as you want anyone to believe. It is so highly unlikely in Texas because it is handled by the court not someone under the direction of the JDB that filed the lawsuit. Service is performed by a constable or a certified process server who has paid for and completed a civil process service educational course, passed a criminal background check from the DPS and FBI, and finally had their fingerprints submitted to the Judicial Branch Certification Commission. They are subject to strict regulation and must be re-certified every two years.

Again, how does any of this constitute me not understanding the TRCP? I never mentioned service being or not being retroactive or anything else besides precisely what the rule says. Where are you getting your information of “most process servers lie about personal service...”? The vast majority of process servers indeed do serve in person. Edit: To correct myself I did say one thing besides posting the rule itself - "but it is very uncommon" and I base that on all of the Texas cases I have been involved with during the past seven years that I have been on this board.

How does this constitute me not understanding the TRCP? I posted word-for-word exactly what the rules say and you merely posted your interpretation of it as if to argue that I had posted an erroneous interpretation.

Please read, learn, and understand the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure before you try to instruct anyone. http://www.txcourts.gov/media/1055394/trcp-20150901.pdf I just corrected you in another thread regarding this subject and will paste it here for this OP also- It actually could be acceptable according to the TRCP 106 (b2) but is very uncommon. " ...the court may authorize service in any other manner that the affidavit or other evidence before the court shows will be reasonably effective to give the defendant notice of the suit." and in the "new" JP court rules 501.4(5) "A copy may be delivered in any other manner directed by the court." This too is incorrect. If you have already begun discovery it could render arbitration null and void. @fisthardcheese

It actually could be acceptable according to the TRCP 106 (b2) but is very uncommon. " ...the court may authorize service in any other manner that the affidavit or other evidence before the court shows will be reasonably effective to give the defendant notice of the suit." and in the "new" JP court rules 501.4(5) "A copy may be delivered in any other manner directed by the court."