The Complaint Review Committee voted during a virtual meeting to recommend sanctions against multiple process servers after investigators found violations of the process-server code of ethics in several complaints.

The committee accepted staff recommendations to revoke the certification of at least two servers and to impose administrative penalties ranging from $500 to $1,000. For one respondent the committee moved beyond the staff recommendation and voted to permanently refuse to approve any future application for certification.

Why it matters: Process servers carry out critical court obligations that affect notice and due-process timelines. The committee’s sanctions, if adopted by the full commission, would remove or block individuals from carrying out those tasks under the state’s certification rules.

What the committee decided

Votes at a glance
- Case No. 754 (Luis Partida v. Folarin Aloba): Staff recommended permanent revocation of certification and a $500 penalty for violations of the code of ethics; the committee voted to accept the recommendation. (Motion and voice vote.)
- Case No. 776 (Maria Delos Angeles Acosta Moda v. Uchenna Ebuho): Investigators found insufficient evidence of a false return but cited violations for failing to update contact information and for a late or missing written answer (code of ethics 8 and 10). Staff recommended a reprimand and a $500 penalty; the committee accepted staff’s recommendation. (Motion and voice vote.)
- Case No. 802 (Carrie Carroll v. respondent identified in the filing): Video evidence and investigator findings led staff to recommend permanent revocation and a $500 penalty for multiple violations (code of ethics 2(b)–(d)). During the hearing a complainant called the affidavit false and urged a stronger sanction; committee members discussed stacking penalties for separate violations and ultimately approved an increased sanction consistent with the committee’s motion. (Motion and voice vote.)
- Case No. 804 (Caitlin Wilson v. Omalabaki Abdallah): Staff recommended a two-pronged sanction — permanent revocation if certified at the time of final order, or permanent refusal to approve certification, plus a $1,000 penalty; the committee endorsed the recommendation. (Motion and voice vote.)
- Case No. 820 (Renee Sheets v. Eri Wamere Danmola): Investigators found insufficient evidence to prove false service on the record but recommended a $500 penalty for a code-of-ethics 10 violation (failure to submit a written answer); the committee approved that penalty. (Motion and voice vote.)
- Case No. 830 (Karen Horner, city attorney for Friendswood v. Lucienne Cordero): Investigators presented evidence that affidavits were digitally signed without adequate review; complainants urged revocation. Staff advised a reprimand and $500 fine, but the committee voted to adopt prosecutor-recommended violations and to permanently refuse to approve any future certification application from the respondent. (Motion, second, voice vote.)

Key exchanges and evidence
Respondent in one case described his usual practice: “I knocked on the door, I rang the bell, I received the document, and I walked away,” a summary provided by the respondent in the hearing record. In the hearing on Case No. 802 a complainant said, “That is untrue. I wasn’t even here,” disputing the respondent’s affidavit and urging a harsher penalty; the committee discussed whether multiple violations (including perjury) could justify cumulative financial penalties.

Staff and the prosecutor repeatedly referenced the commission’s code-of-ethics provisions that formed the basis for recommended sanctions (code-of-ethics violations 2(b)–(d), 8 and 10 and related rules cited by staff).

Next steps
The committee’s votes are recommendations to the full commission, which will consider the matters at a commission meeting and vote to approve or deny the committee’s dismissal or sanction recommendations. The chair also volunteered to attend the upcoming JVCC meeting on Feb. 6; future committee meetings will be scheduled as investigators continue work.