The Complaint Review Committee met by video and voted to recommend sanctions in multiple complaints alleging false returns of service by certified process servers.

Bina Mohan, prosecutor for the commission, told the committee the staff had found violations in several matters and recommended sanctions ranging from reprimands and $500 penalties to permanent revocation of process‑server certification. "We did find violations of Certified Process Server Code of Ethics 2(b) through (d) and rule 3.11(c)," Mohan said during the meeting.

Why it matters: The committee’s recommendations will be forwarded to the full commission, which can accept or alter them. For respondents, recommended revocations or a permanent refusal to approve certification would bar them from serving process under the commission’s authority.

Key outcomes and actions at a glance

- Case No. 754 (Complainant: Luis Partita; Respondent: Folarin Aloba): Staff recommended permanent revocation for violations of Code of Ethics 2(b)–(d) and 3.11(c), plus a $500 administrative penalty due within six months. The committee voted to accept staff’s recommendation.

- Case No. 776 (Complainant: Maria Delos Angeles Acosta Moda; Respondent: Uchenna Ebuho): Staff found violations of Code of Ethics 8 and 10 and recommended a reprimand and $500 penalty. The respondent participated by video and described routine service practice; committee members discussed whether a monetary penalty was appropriate but ultimately moved to accept the staff recommendation.

- Case No. 802 (Complainant: Carrie Carroll; Respondent: identified in the record as Nasemin/Nasimin): Staff found violations of Code of Ethics 2(b)–(d) and recommended permanent revocation and a $500 penalty. Both parties appeared and disputed the facts; a complainant urged a stiffer penalty, saying the respondent’s affidavit conflicted with video. The committee accepted staff’s recommended violations and, after debate about stacking penalties for multiple violations, voted to add an additional $500 administrative penalty for a combined recommended penalty of $1,000.

- Case No. 804 (Complainant: Caitlin Wilson; Respondent: Omalabaki Abdallah): Staff reported two false returns of service and proposed a two‑pronged sanction: permanent revocation of certification (effective on the final order) and a $1,000 penalty due within 12 months, or alternatively a permanent refusal to approve certification if the respondent is not certified when the commission acts. No parties appeared; committee members moved to accept the staff recommendation.

- Case No. 830 (Complainant: Karen Horner, city attorney for Friendswood; Respondent: Lucienne Cordero): The respondent initially denied assignment of serves, later acknowledged digitally signing affidavits without review and said she did not plan to renew certification. Staff found a violation of Code of Ethics 2(a); the committee voted to adopt the prosecutor’s proposed violations and to permanently refuse to approve an application for certification for this respondent.

What was contested: In several matters complainants pointed to video or other evidence that they said contradicted respondents’ returns of service. One complainant at Case 802 said, "He's lying... In fact, he needs jail time," describing the affidavit as false; the committee and staff treated that as an argument for stiffer sanctions while applying the sanctions matrix and available evidence.

Process notes and next steps: Committee members repeatedly referenced the commission’s sanctions matrix as guidance for recommended penalties and noted the committee’s role is to recommend, not to impose final discipline. The committee forwarded its recommendations to the full commission for final action and instructed staff to notify participants by mail or email of outcomes. The committee also selected a member to attend a February 6 JVCC meeting and discussed scheduling a process‑server review meeting in early January.

The meeting adjourned after routine administrative items and holiday remarks. The full commission will consider the committee’s recommendations at a later public meeting.