Judicial Branch Certification Commission permanently refuses process-server certification after finding false return of service

The Judicial Branch Certification Commission on record concluded that a certified process server filed a false return of service and voted to permanently refuse to reapprove his certification and assess a $1,250 fine.

Commission staff opened the contested hearing in Cause No. 0632 by saying the core allegation was that the respondent signed and filed a return of service stating that he had personally served Trevor Gonzales when, according to witnesses and documentary evidence, the server had handed documents to Gonzalez's father-in-law after being told Gonzalez was at work. Staff asked the commission to adopt the complaint-review committee's recommended findings, permanently refuse to renew the respondent's certification and assess a $1,250 fine payable within one year.

Justin LaBrass, vice president for business development at Strata, testified that on Sept. 26, 2023, he was not at home when a server visited his Fort Worth residence, that his daughter and granddaughter did not answer the door, and that on a later visit the person at the door identified himself as Trevor Gonzales's father-in-law. LaBrass identified photos the server uploaded of vehicles at the residence.

Trevor Gonzales testified that he was at work at 10:38 a.m. on Sept. 26, 2023; his employer provided an affidavit and time card that staff introduced as exhibits. Gonzales said the server left documents with his father-in-law and he later had his attorney file a special appearance to challenge service.

Investigators and compliance staff explained their review of the complaint, the respondent's answer, court records and witness statements. Compliance manager Melinda Salcedo told the commission the staff applied the commission's code of ethics, the JVCC rules (including Rule 5.7), and the commission's sanction matrix; she identified 17 prior, factually similar cases in which the commission imposed sanctions ranging from fines and suspension to permanent revocation. Salcedo said the complaint-review committee had accepted the investigator's recommended violations and sanctions.

The respondent, Afolabi Aginfua, gave a sworn statement denying intentional misconduct and disputing the sufficiency and content of the video evidence provided by the complainant. He said he followed standard service practices and that the return of service accurately reflected what he observed. He argued the video lacked audio, did not show him handing or receiving documents, and was not provided to him until the first hearing date.

Commission counsel summarized the record and asked the commission to apply the sanction matrix and prior precedent. After brief commissioner discussion and a motion, the commission voted in the affirmative. The final order permanently refuses to approve Afolabi Aginfua's process-server certification and imposes a $1,250 fine payable within one year; the motion carried by voice vote.

The commission explicitly relied on the investigation report, witness testimony (including the employer affidavit/time card), the JVCC code of ethics and the sanction matrix in reaching its determination.