The point is that rather than ATTACK this assignment, you may be far better off having them embrace this document, then use it to allow them to hang themselves. The simple, clear, language does not seem ambiguous.
Mr. Roper has taught us that when the assignment forgery is post commencement, it is better to both embrace the assignment and force the plaintiff to wrap their arms around the assignment, although a defendant should embrace the assignment to the extent possible at arms length, as by accepting the assignment in the alternative.
By contrast, when the assignment is pre-commencement, it may be better to attack the assignment, though one wants to do this as late in a proceeding as possible so that any corrective or replacement assignment is clearly tardy.
Usually, as soon as the defendant attacks the assignment, the plaintiff will begin to back away from it.
One reason to embrace an assignment only in the alternative, is that the embrace of the assignment can be a very potent means of obtaining a dismissal for lack of standing. But upon re-filing, the same assignment seems to now be pre-commencement (as to the second refiled action).
The defendant wants to be in a position to pivot and now argue that the assignment is actually a forgery, defective, conveys nothing, etc. This can be difficult to do if the defendant takes a firm position (not in the alternative) in relying upon the forgery to obtain a dismissal.