I should have cited 15 USC 1692 and in particular 1692d (harassment and abuse), but that doesn't change the conclusion.
I should have cited 15 USC 1692 and in particular 1692d (harassment and abuse), but that doesn't change the conclusion.
Right.
That section applies to a debt collector's behavior prior to filing a lawsuit.
During a lawsuit the doctrine of "abuse of process" could apply.
However, according to the Colorado Court of Appeals:
The court goes on to explain all those elements starting on Page 7:to prevail on an abuse of process claim, a plaintiff
must prove the defendant (1) had an ulterior purpose in using a
judicial proceeding; (2) used the proceeding in an improper manner
by taking a willful action that was improper in the proceeding’s
regular course; and (3) caused damage.
https://www.courts.state.co.us/Court...0/08CA1867.pdf
In the OP's case neither (1) or (2) appear to apply and with regard to (3) the court said:
Looks like OP is just stuck with getting served twice.mere vexation or frustration without demonstrable
damage is insufficient to sustain liability.
Thanks for the replies...I wasn't really considering taking action based on this, but wondered how common this practice was. I get that the other party wants to make sure I have received their filings/motions and don't pretend to be a civil procedure expert, but seems like RESPONDING to a motion provides proof that I received it. Of course, in the case of the amended motions with different dates, my response to the one I received in the mail would not necessarily mean I received a copy of the one that was filed with the court with a different date.
@LexisLutor might be right that there was some delay from the time the creditor requested that the Sheriff serve me and the time it actually took place. However, at least with the original motion, the Sheriff contacted them AFTER they had received my reply (and I believe after the Judge had set a hearing date) to see if they still wanted him to serve me and they said yes.
Just to clarify, the other party is not required to serve copy of what the court has stamped. As long as the filing party sends you a copy (be it before or after filing it with the court) and does so with the required anticipation, that's fair game. But remember my suggestion that both copies be identical ~ verbatim for the reason I explained above. I definitely won't generalize, but I've litigated against lawyers who attempted to commit fraud on the court through very obvious "tactics".
I wouldn't discard that the other party is trying to intimidate and harass you to the extent permitted by the court rules. Hence my mention of "Unless it's more than a few times on each document ...".