Complaint Review Committee upholds multiple sanctions for process servers; one case reduced to reprimand and probated suspension

The Complaint Review Committee reconvened in open session at 1:17 p.m. and reviewed a slate of contested complaints against certified process servers, adopting sanctions that ranged from reprimands and retraining to permanent revocations and administrative penalties.

The panel spent substantive time on several contested matters. In one case the committee viewed surveillance video that was proffered as evidence and then narrowed staff’s recommended violations; the committee ultimately removed one alleged violation from the staff recommendation. In another contested matter, the committee reduced a staff recommendation for permanent revocation and instead issued a letter of reprimand, placed the respondent on a probated suspension through April 30, 2026, and required completion of a precertification civil process training course; the committee also removed one alleged ethics violation and did not assess a financial penalty in that case.

Why it matters: the committee enforces the certified process server rules and code of ethics used by courts and parties who rely on sworn affidavits and returns of service. Its findings affect whether a process server may continue to accept court work and can include fines, training mandates and permanent revocation of certification.

Key panel actions and context

- Video evidence and credibility: At the start of the meeting committee members played video recordings presented in one complaint and debated what the recordings did and did not show. The committee noted that some video lacked audio and that gaps in footage affected credibility findings. The respondent in that case maintained he had identified the individual he served at the time and said he had acted in good faith; staff and panel members discussed whether the evidence supported a finding on the charged rule (one alleged rule violation was removed from the staff recommendation).

- Preponderance standard and third-party records: Committee members reiterated that the governing standard in these administrative matters is a preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Panelists also flagged limits to third‑party records (for example, records from ABC Legal and GPS data), saying such records can be helpful but should be weighed with caution when not sworn or when metadata is incomplete.

- Education and remediation: For at least one long‑time server the committee focused on retraining rather than permanent decertification, ordering the respondent to complete a precertification civil process education course during a period of probated suspension and placing a letter of reprimand on the individual’s record.

Votes at a glance (cause number —fected respondent —inding / sanction)

- Cause 0635 — Gabriel Hasbon: Adopted staff recommendation for permanent revocation of certification and an administrative penalty of $1,250 (motion adopted).

- Cause 0638 — Gabriel Hasbon (second investigation): Adopted staff recommendation for permanent revocation and a penalty of $1,450 (motion adopted).

- Cause 0646 — Jesse Villarreal: Adopted staff recommendation for permanent revocation and a penalty of $1,700 (motion adopted).

- Cause 0664 — Melanie Guli: Adopted staff recommendation (reference) and administrative penalty of $500 due within six months (motion adopted).

- Cause 0676 — Alisa Wilson: Adopted staff recommendation (staff recommended permanent revocation or refusal to renew; staff text listed a penalty amount in their summary as $13.50) (motion adopted).

- Cause 0685 — Ezekiel “Zeke”: Panel declined staff recommendation for permanent revocation and instead found a violation of Code of Ethics 2(a), issued a letter of reprimand, placed the respondent’s certification on a probated suspension through 04/30/2026, required completion of the precertification civil‑process education course during the probation period, removed the staff’s allegation under Code of Ethics 14(e), and did not impose a financial penalty as part of the committee’s sanction (motion adopted). The respondent addressed the panel and apologized during the hearing, saying in part, “I would like to apologize to this review committee… It was never my intention… I think a revocation of my certification is extreme.”

- Cause 0695 — Eloy Bravo: The committee reduced the original staff recommendation and adopted a reprimand and an administrative penalty of $250 due within six months (motion adopted).

- Cause 0706 — Irene Acantola: Adopted staff recommendation for permanent revocation and an administrative penalty of $1,250 (motion adopted).

- Cause 0707 — Oluwaseon Omotoso: Adopted staff recommendation for permanent revocation and an administrative penalty of $1,250 (motion adopted).

- Cause 0719 — Michael Ward: The panel adopted a reprimand for an inaccurate order/affidavit of service and assessed an administrative penalty of $100 payable within six months (motion adopted).

Process and next steps

The committee chair and staff reminded respondents that committee action is a recommendation; final decisions are made by the full commission at a future meeting and respondents will receive a formal notice of the committee’s findings and the opportunity to contest those findings. The committee also noted how fines are collected (instructions included in the notice that follows the committee’s action).

The committee closed its session and adjourned after taking the listed actions.