A contested hearing on Cause No. 0632 concluded with the Judicial Branch Certification Commission issuing a final order refusing to approve the process‑server certification of the respondent and assessing a $1,250 fine, payable within one year.

The commission found that the respondent filed a return of service stating he had personally served Trevor Gonzales when the evidence presented showed Gonzales was at work and the papers were left with a relative. "This case is about 1 thing, honesty, honest, warm return service," counsel for the commission said in opening argument. The commission adopted the complaint review committee's recommendation after hearing witness testimony and investigator findings.

Why it matters: The commission said truthfulness on returns of service is a core duty for process servers because courts and litigants rely on those sworn statements. The compliance manager explained the commission applied its sanction matrix and precedent — noting 17 factually similar cases since January 2023, many of which resulted in permanent revocation or denial of renewal — in determining an appropriate sanction.

Evidence and testimony: Justin LaCrosse, vice president of business development at Strata, testified that on Sept. 26, 2023, the respondent came to LaCrosse's Fort Worth home to serve papers for Trevor Gonzales. LaCrosse said he told the respondent Gonzales was at work and gave the respondent Gonzales's work hours; he later received the papers from his daughter and left them for Gonzales. LaCrosse also noted a mismatch between the physical description in the filed return and the person he observed.

Complainant Gonzales testified that he was at work at the time the server said he had effected personal service, that the respondent left the papers with his father‑in‑law, that his attorney filed a special appearance to challenge service, and that he later filed a complaint with the commission. The commission's investigator described reviewing the complaint, the answer, court records, interviewing parties, and compiling an investigation report that was provided to the complaint review committee.

Respondent's statement: The respondent, who has worked as a process server for many years, denied intentional misconduct and disputed the sufficiency and completeness of the video evidence presented by the complainant. He argued he acted in good faith, followed the practice he believed appropriate at the time, and invoked Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 106 and 107 in support of his conduct. In his statement he said he "performed this duty lawfully, ethically, and compliance with Texas service requirement."

Legal standards and sanction: The commission took administrative notice of its code of ethics, applicable rules (including references during the hearing to Texas rules of civil procedure regarding proof of service), and the commission's sanction matrix. The compliance manager said the committee viewed truthfulness as a serious misconduct that undermined court process and that prior, similar cases informed the recommended sanction.

Action taken: The commission voted to issue a final order permanently refusing to approve the respondent's process‑server certification and to assess a $1,250 fine due within one year after the date of the final order; the motion carried by voice vote with no recorded dissent.

What the order does and next steps: The final order bars the respondent from being approved as a process server by the commission. The order does not list a period for reconsideration in the hearing record; the fine is due within one year.

Speakers quoted or referenced in this article are listed in the meeting record and include the commission counsel presenting the case (Miss Mohan), witnesses Justin LaCrosse and Trevor Gonzales, investigator Amy Smith, compliance manager Melinda Salcedo, and the respondent (identified in the record as Afolabi Ogunfua, various spellings).