Process Server Complaint Panel Reviews Case 0632; investigators recommend permanent refusal of certification and $1,600 penalty

The Process Server Complaint Review Committee met June 19, 2025, to consider a complaint (case number 0632) filed by Trevor Gonzales alleging that process server Afolabi Ogunfua filed a false return of service. Investigators recommended permanently refusing to renew Ogunfua's process-server certification and imposing a $1,600 total penalty due within 12 months of any final ruling; the committee moved into a closed session to confer with legal counsel and the respondent and did not announce a public vote at the meeting.

The recommendation was read aloud by Amy Smith, a staff member assigned to the complaint investigation. Smith said, “On 12/07/2023, Trevor Gonzales filed a complaint against Afolabi Lagunfua alleging that the respondent filed a false return of service and instead served his father-in-law. The respondent denied the allegations but could not recall specific details due to the amount of time that has passed. And the respondent is here.”

The investigator's formal recommendation presented to the committee was for “the permanent refusal to renew the respondent's process server certification and a penalty of $1,600 total due within 12 months after the date of the final ruling” for alleged violations of the commission's code of ethics and related rules, as summarized in the meeting record.

Respondent Afolabi Ogunfua addressed the committee and disputed intent, saying he had signed a return prepared by his filing service without recognizing an inaccuracy. Ogunfua told the panel that he received his certification in May and that the contested incident took place in September. He said he “signed that return of service without recognizing the inaccuracy of the classification” and that it was not an attempt to mislead the court but the result of his inexperience and unfamiliarity with the difference between personal service and substitute service.

Ogunfua also raised an issue about a criminal record and a deferred adjudication placement. A committee member clarified that the criminal-record matter is not before the complaint review committee and indicated it would be referred to the full commission. The chair read the statutory basis for moving into a closed session, citing the commission's public meetings policy to “confer with legal counsel” and to discuss the respondent’s matter with counsel present. The committee then moved into executive session and the public stream was stopped.

No formal public vote or final disposition was recorded in the open session portion of the meeting. Committee staff outlined the post-meeting process: if the committee determines a violation, the respondent will be mailed a notice of violation and will have an opportunity to submit in writing a request to settle or contest the matter; if the committee dismisses a complaint, the dismissal is subject to approval by the commission at a later public meeting.

The committee was joined in the public portion of the meeting by staff members Tyese Holcomb, Kenisha Daniels, Amy Smith, Vina Moan and Melinda Saucedo and by Ronald Morgan, who identified himself as director of the digital branch certification committee. Tim Quinn was introduced as a new member of the advisory board. The matter will next proceed in closed session and is expected to be presented to the commission for any final action.