Proper service is a basic foundation to a lawsuit.

I could not pass up covering this in more depth because of its egregious nature...

Earlier, I posted Lee County Court Service Issues | Let’s “Give the Plaintiffs/Provest a Very Strong Argument Should Someone Challenge Service of Process” that linked over to Matt Weidner's site regarding an email exchange that discussed insufficient service of process which resulted in a letter from chief judge G. Keith Cary.

I felt the need to cover this deeper after reading the emails and letter again.

From the email exchange...

Be sure to read it in its entirety...

From: Ederr, Suzanne

Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 1:19 PM

To: Cary, G. Keith

Cc: Kellum, Susan G Subject: Certified Process Server Issue - Camille Cavallo « File: LetterGKC - Cavallol.docx » Judge Cary: Here's an update on the Certified Process Server issue. I spoke to Ms. Cavallo and asked her to sign an affidavit attesting to the fact that she hasn't been serving since her card expired on Dec. 31 ... she paused, then said she couldn't because she has been serving. It gets worse ... I spoke to the contracts manager for Provest, Melody Bulso, and she reports that Ms. Cavallo has served at least 300 summonses for them during the 1st 3 weeks of January. The only reason that Ms. Cavallo began inquiring as to her new card on Jan. 21st was because on Jan. 20th, Ms. Bulso told her they wanted to see her "license." Provest does ask all their servers for copies of their updated cards and, when they did so this year, Ms. Cavallo was the only one unable to produce a 2010 card. Provest is now in a bit of a tailspin because they now have to re-serve those 300 summonses ... they have requested some sort of accommodation such as perhaps extending Ms. Cavallo's prior license only through Jan. 21st so as to cure all of those services, but I don't think you have the authority to do so. I don't see how we can, in good faith, "extend" her prior license unless we could somehow backdate a new oath, which I don't think would be appropriate. Ms. Bulso is now having problems in getting Ms. Cavallo to contact them (Ms. Cavallo will not return Ms. Bulso's calls), and Provest will no longer use her, regardless of whether she gets her certification back. Ms. Bulso also confirmed that even though she didn't personally have any negative experiences with Ms. Cavallo, she has heard through the grapevine that she is trouble.

As Matt stated in his post on the subject;

Now I just wonder, particularly in light of all the allegations contained in the ACLU Lawsuit, (which everyone must read) how often the court down there is asking itself: “How do you think we can help out those poor defendants today? We many not be able to cure their legal issues, but we’d sure like to help give them some strong legal arguments in their case!”

Yea, not gonna happen...

Then there was some follow up...

From: Ederr, Suzanne

Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 5:20 PM

To: Cary, G. Keith

Cc: Kellum, Susan G; Bauer, Terri Subject: RE: Certified Process Server Issue – Camille Cavallo « File: LetterGKC – Cavallo1.docx» « File: Cavallo-Camille.doc » Judge: One more minor twist .. .. Corporate Counsel for ProVest sent a 6 page letter seeking guidance as to how they can save their 300 plus served summonses. One thing that they do point out is that the list posted on our website did include Ms. Cavallo which means that she was technically on the Chief Judge’s list as of Jan. 22nd• I have since had the list pulled off of the website and we will post the new one for 2010 next week. In looking at the old list that was posted, I note that it does NOT indicate 2009 in the title, and so I guess ProVest sort of has a point in that she was still on the list as of Jan. 22nd• That doesn’t cure the fact the Ms. Cavallo didn’t sign a new oath and served process using her expired card, with total disregard, and does not change my recommendation. But, it does give me an idea as to how we may be able to help out ProVest.

I’m thinking that in addition to not including Ms. Cavallo on the 2010 list, we can also use language that REVOKES her appointment effective January 22, 2010, 11:59 p.m. We do need to do a revocation order anyway and we can just specify the effective date in the order of Jan. 22rd rather than Jan. 1st. I do not know for sure if this will cure the legal issue of whether service was defective, but it will most certainly give the Plaintiffs/ProVest a very strong argument should someone challenge service of process . .. Ms. Cavallo was appointed to the Chief Judge’s list of certified process servers and that appointment wasn’t revoked until Jan. 22rd• We don’t have to ((extend” her 2009 appointment or somehow deal with the issue of having her sign and backdate an oath to cover Jan. 1 thru Jan. 22.

Susie was able to pull the letter that you signed on Thursday before it was sent out, and I amended the letter just slightly to add in I am denying your request to be added to the Twentieth Judicial Circuit's List of Certified Process Servers for 2010, and I am revoking your appointment effective January 22. 2010. 11:59 p.m.

I've also prepared an order revoking her appointment effective Jan. 22, 11:59 p.m. Please let me know if these meet with your approval. Also, when we post the new list next week, you can be sure that it will include language to clarify that it is the list for 2010 and that it is valid through Dec. 31, 2010 only.

You see what she is suggesting right?

Basically, we will make it look like her appointment was revoked on Jan 22nd but it really was expired since Dec 31st but will will try and trick everyone and give the banks "a very strong argument should someone challenge service of process" to allow the banksters to steal the homes faster so we can clear our docket.

Did the judge buy into it?

Yep, he did...

From: Cary, G. Keith

Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 12:52 PM

To: Ederr, Suzanne

Cc: Kellum, Susan G; Bauer, Terri

Subject: RE: Certified Process Server Issue - Camille Cavallo I like this new work out, I am in agreement. G. Keith Cary

239-533-9140

And this letter followed...

February 1, 2010 Re: Chief Judge's List of Certified Process Servers Dear Ms. Cavallo: I am in receipt of your letter dated January 22, 2010. It is my understanding that your certification expired on December 31, 2009. Even though you did initiate the renewal of your certification, you did not sign a new oath and did not pick up your card prior to expiration of your 2009 certification. lt appears that your first proactive attempt to pick up your card and sign your oath was either on Thursday, January 21, 2010 or Friday, January 22,2010, by which time your file and application had already been returned to my office by the Chair of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Certified Process Server Review Board to be treated as an abandoned application. If you had not been actively serving process subsequent to December 31, 2009, I would not have any objection to reinstating your renewal application and adding you to my list of Certified Process Servers for 2010. However, you have admitted that you continued to serve process subsequent to December 31, 2009, using your expired card, and it is my understanding that you have, in fact, served process on as many as 300 occasions using your expired card and having not signed your new oath. Even though you state in your letter that you were "unaware that I was to pick up my Process Server Identification Card and what location before the end of the year," I find this statement to be disingenuous. You were contacted by the Chair of the Board via telephone on December 12, 2009, and you were advised that your card was ready to be picked up and given the address to where you should go to pick up your card and sign your oath. I cannot fathom the nature of any "conflict in schedule" between December It' and January 21" that would have prevented you from exercising all due diligence necessary so as to ensure that you had signed your oath and picked up your new card prior to serving process beyond December 31 ". Based on your letter, I do not know whether you appreciate the full impact of your neglect or how you have compromised each case in which you served process after December 31". Ultimately, it is your clients who will suffer any repercussions of your faulty service, both from a financial and legal standpoint. Needless to say, I demand that all Certified Process Servers included on my list demonstrate an ability to act professionally and responsibly in the perfonnance of their duties. You have been on the list of Certi fied Process Servers in previous years and you are familiar with the procedures of obtaining a new card and signing a new oath each year. By not picking up your new card and signing your new oath prior to the expiration of your old card and oath, coupled with the fact that you continued to serve process utilizing your expired card for three weeks into the new year, you have demonstrated to me a lack of both professionalism and responsibility. Accordingly, at this time, I am denying your request to be added to the Twentieth Judicial Circuit's List of Certified Process Servers for 2010, and I am revoking your appointment effective January 22, 2010, 11 :59 p.m. This denial and revocation is without prejudice for you to raise this matter before the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Civil Process Server Review Board and to seek a recommendation from the Board in your favor. Please note that being excluded from the list of Certified Process Servers does not prohibit a person from being appointed by individual motion and order to serve process in any civil action in accordance with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.070(b). Respectfully, G. Keith Cary

Chief Judge

Let's see if they still have "a very strong argument should someone challenge service of process" now that this is out in the open...

Full email exchange and letter below...

CPS Issues Camille Cavallo

G, Keith Cary Letter on Process