here was my situation:  My parents had a neighbor that was about 1/3 mile from their home (could be seen clearly from my parents home).  She was one of those crazy "cat" ladies--which by the way is a recognized psychological disorder called "collecting".  In this case, it was dogs.  At the time of the suit, she had over 250.  She ideally was doing a good thing.  She rescued dogs about to be gassed but she couldn't let them leave (to be adopted), so they continued to increase.  She was 78 years old, so you can imagine the care or lack thereof the dogs were getting.  If she spent 5 minutes per day caring for each dog, she couldn't care for all of them.  Much less clean up after them, feed them correctly. 

The crux of the story is that she operated a thift store to finance her "habit".  The thrift store burned down (which I absolutely had no part in--just in case you wondered)  and an article appeared in the local paper requesting that people send money to her to help in caring for these dogs.  The problem?  The reporter called her an "angel of mercy" and never visited her "shelter" so the reporter had zero idea about the condition of the dogs--which by the way were starting to cause my parents no end of heartache.  They roamed in packs over my parents land, the stench was unbearable and the noise from the barking was enough to drive you insane. 

So I wrote a very professional, non-snippy letter to the editor explaining the conditions at the "shelter" and asking that people NOT send money since that would only allow her to take in more dogs, but that they volunteer their time to help her care for the dogs so that they would be in better health and hopefully be adopted.  The old battleax sued me and the paper for libel.  It cost me $5000 in retainer fees, but I won. 

My parents, in an effort to get the animal control or someone to DO something about the conditions over there had been documenting the conditions and the dogs for over 7 years (pics, notes, videos, etc).  Once we got into discovery and she realized the extent to which I could ruin her life and angelic status in the community, she dropped the suit like a hot potato. 

The end?  She died a few years later.  Her home was condemned due to urine and feces soaked through to the OUTSIDE walls--it had to be torn down.  The humane society came in and had to euthanize 300 dogs because they were so sick and emaciated that they couldn't be saved.  Only 77 of her total were taken out to be potentially adopted.  The health department came in and tested and ruled that her entire acre of land would have to be bulldozed a level of 3 feet due to the waste that had seeped into the ground (we were within spitting distance of the river).  The dirt had to be taken by dump truck to the local landfill.  The euthanized dogs had to be burned on a pyre because they were so diseased they couldn't be buried.  Her son who lived in Alaska and obviously had not visited his mother in about 10 years, personally came to my parents home and apologized for not checking the situation long before, even though other acquaintances had told him how bad it was.  Really, he only came back for his inheritance, which was zip since everything was condemned. 

So you can see, I was right!!!  I won but it still cost me money.  I'm just sad that it took another 3 years and her death before the powers that be (who were responsible for dealing with such situations in the first place) did anything about the situation. 

You asked about why a plantiff would go to the trouble if they know you are right.  In this case, my parents are wealthy and she thought she could force them into a quick settlement by suing their daughter and it would be quit money.  She sued for over a million dollars, wouldn't my parents pay 30 grand to make it go away and keep their precious daughter from mussing her hair?  Except, no pun intended, she had the wrong dog by the tail.  She had no idea my parents had been documenting the situation for 7 years attempting to get SOMEONE to do something.  She just wanted--and I know her lawyer so I'm sure he told her--this would be fast money. 

As to Loretta's situation, they could sue her easily.  They could demand a vast sum of money, file the papers for less than $100 hoping to force her to pay out a few thousand dollars in fear.  They don't need the lawyer until later if she refuses to settle.  Should she settle for 2 grand or pay 5 grand to fight it.  Me?  I think you guys already know that I'd find the 5 grand a bargain just as principle to prove I'm right, but that's an individual decision.