Short answer. The case is dismissed with prejudice. Rule 14, Section 3 states that if a plaintiff misrepresents that you were served summons, and it is later proved that no summons was actually served, the case is dismissed with prejudice, all proceedings taken are nullified, and the plaintiff is meted appropriate sanctions by the court.
What the law says
If the plaintiff misrepresents that the defendant was served summons, and it is later proved that no summons was served, the case shall be dismissed with prejudice, the proceedings shall be nullified, and the plaintiff shall be meted appropriate sanctions
Rule 14, Section 3 — By whom served. Read the full provision →
What the law says
If summons is returned without being served on any or all the defendants, the court shall order the plaintiff to cause the service of summons by other means available under the Rules
Rule 14, Section 3 — By whom served. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Failure to comply with the order shall cause the dismissal of the initiatory pleading without prejudice
Rule 14, Section 3 — By whom served. Read the full provision →
What the law says
the sheriff, his or her deputy, or other proper court officer
Rule 14, Section 3 — By whom served. Read the full provision →
What Section 3 says about a false claim of service
Rule 14, Section 3 addresses this exact scenario in plain terms: "If the plaintiff misrepresents that the defendant was served summons, and it is later proved that no summons was served, the case shall be dismissed with prejudice, the proceedings shall be nullified, and the plaintiff shall be meted appropriate sanctions." Three consequences follow together once the misrepresentation is proved — the case ends with prejudice, everything done in it is treated as though it never happened, and the plaintiff personally faces sanctions from the court.
Why this outcome is unusually strict
Compare this to what happens when service simply fails without any dishonesty involved: the rule treats that as a problem to be fixed, giving the plaintiff another chance to serve summons by other available means. Misrepresentation is treated differently — permanently, and against the plaintiff, rather than as a fixable defect. The reason is what the misrepresentation does to the proceeding itself: a court that acted on a false claim of service was never properly exercising jurisdiction over the defendant, so everything built on that false claim has to come down, not just the improperly obtained result.
The different rule for an honest failure to serve
Section 3 draws a real contrast with an honest failure of service. Where summons genuinely could not be delivered, it provides that "if summons is returned without being served on any or all the defendants, the court shall order the plaintiff to cause the service of summons by other means available under the Rules," and that "failure to comply with the order shall cause the dismissal of the initiatory pleading without prejudice." Without prejudice means the plaintiff can refile — the opposite of what a proven misrepresentation produces, which is dismissal the plaintiff cannot walk back from.
Who is actually allowed to serve summons
The same section explains why the risk of a false claim exists at all. Summons is ordinarily served by "the sheriff, his or her deputy, or other proper court officer," but the rule allows the court to authorize the plaintiff to serve summons together with the sheriff when regular service fails, and the plaintiff is authorized to cause service when summons must be served outside the court's judicial region. Because a plaintiff can end up directly involved in getting summons served, the rule needs a real safeguard against a plaintiff falsely reporting that service happened when it did not.