My question involves small claims court in the state of: TX
QUESTION: If the complaint in a case is verified (notarized), and the plaintiff signs stating they have personal knowledge of everything in the complaint, but it can be proven that they don't have any personal knowledge, can that alone get the case kicked out?
DETAILS: I am the defendant in a small claims suit. The plaintiff's complaint is verified (notarized) meaning it is signed under oath, under penalty of perjury. In the notarized portion, the plaintiff signs that "every statement and allegation contained therein is true and correct to [their] personal knowledge."
In fact, the plaintiff has no personal knowledge whatsoever of anything in the complaint. I can establish that without any problem. What is going to happen at the upcoming hearing is the plaintiff is going to use a witness to testify to all the facts of the case. The plaintiff will not testify at all.
If the plaintiff was going to testify, they must have personal knowledge or they can't be a witness. (Texas Rules of Evidence) Since they aren't going to testify, though, the only way I might be able to use plaintiff's perjury in my favor is by using the fact that it's the complaint that provides the basis of the whole suit (as opposed to some other kind of affidavit, which wouldn't end the case, it would just allow me to strike the affidavit or the witness's testimony).
However, I can't figure out if there is a concept, Rule, statute, etc. that I can use to render the case moot, void, etc. based on this.
Even if you have information relevant to another state--that would be very helpful. Thank you in advance for any help!