The Judicial Branch Certification Commission on Nov. 6 issued a series of final orders and procedural dispositions affecting certified process servers. Actions taken included default orders, adopted settlement agreements and agreed final orders, dismissals recommended by the complaint review committee, and sanctions ranging from reprimands to permanent refusal to approve or revocation of certification.

Key votes at a glance

- Cause No. 0632: Contested hearing resulted in a final order permanently refusing to approve the respondent's process‑server certification and assessing a $1,250 fine (see full article).

- Agenda items 6(a)–6(d): Commission moved to issue defaults for those matters; motion carried by voice vote. Staff indicated at the hearing that at least one respondent (Mona Dixon) had been contacted and that there was no bar to public attendance.

- Agenda item 7: Commission moved to adopt two agreed final orders recommended by the complaint review committee; motion carried.

- Agenda item 8(a)–8(d): The commission moved to adopt settlement agreements and issue final orders for the listed items; motions carried.

- Cause No. 0707: Respondent failed to appear; the commission entered a default order. Petition had sought revocation, but staff noted the respondent's certification had expired; the commission therefore entered a permanent refusal to renew and assessed a $1,250 fine, payable within one year.

- Causes No. 0635 and 0638 (Gabriel Hasbun): The respondent appeared and the record reflects agreement to the facts in both matters. The commission voted to permanently revoke certification and assess a $2,700 fine payable within one year (two cases treated together in the hearing record).

- Cause No. 0695 (Bravo): The respondent did not appear; commission entered a default final order: reprimand and a $250 fine due within six months.

- Committee recommendations and dismissals: On the complaint review committee's recommendation, the commission dismissed certain matters — including one where staff noted Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 107(b) does not require a physical description in proof of service — and motions to dismiss carried.

- Requests for reconsideration (0737 and 0604): The commission denied requests to reconsider administrative dismissals; motions carried by voice vote.

Procedure and evidence notes

Staff repeatedly took administrative notice of the commission's code of ethics, the sanction matrix, and certain rules and logs (the sanction matrix and the disciplinary log were discussed as precedent). Several default orders were entered after staff offered business‑records affidavits showing respondents had been notified and had not appeared. In at least one contested proceeding, the commission proceeded after receiving witness testimony, employer affidavits and timecards, and a recorded investigation report.

What the votes mean

The actions collectively show the commission continuing to enforce its code of ethics for certified process servers — using defaults when respondents do not appear, adopting settlements or agreed final orders when parties consent, and applying the sanction matrix and precedent when false returns or other serious misconduct are found.

Speakers and participants referenced in these votes include commission counsel (Miss Mohan), compliance investigators and managers (Amy Smith; Melinda Salcedo), witnesses and complainants (Justin LaCrosse; Trevor Gonzales) and respondents identified in the record (including Afolabi Ogunfua and Gabriel Hasbun).