New York Attorney General Shuts Down Another Process Serving Company

In July of this year New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo filed a complaint against SERVES YOU RIGHT, INC and DAVID WARSHALL. The complaint alleged that the defendants engaged in fraudulently business practices, making false representations on affidavits of service throughout Long Island and New York City.

Seven days later, a Consent Order and Judgment was entered in this case permanently enjoining the defendants from being involved in or being employed by any process serving companies or process serving activities. SERVES YOU RIGHT, INC was required to immediately cease operations within 60 days of the Order. DAVID WARSHALL was also ordered to pay a fine to the NY AG's office in the amount of $50,000.00 within ten (10) days of the order.

The complaint can be found at this link. The Consent Order and Judgment can be found at this link.

This action is part of an ongoing investigation by Attorney General Cuomo into unlawful debt collection practices. Since commencing the statewide initiative in May 2009, Cuomo has shut down more than a dozen debt collection and affiliated process serving companies and required others to reform their deceptive practices.

Singapore's Supreme Court Considers Service via Social Media

Process Servers have a sometimes difficult sometimes easy job to perform. This task "the service of civil process" has remained largely unchanged for more than 100 years. This Blog was dedicated to chronicling the many challenges the process serving profession currently faces.

On several occasions in the last year this Blog has cited examples of how modern technologies are impacting or posing threat to the traditional role of process servers.



For those the follow this Blog you know that I have cited several examples of social media already being used to effect the service of process most notably in Australia (twice), New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom.


The Singapore Supreme Court is exploring how to leverage social media platforms for the benefit of the civil litigation process. Specifically, the high court has published a document titled USE AND IMPACT OF SOCIAL MEDIA IN LITIGATION.


This twenty-six page document explores the opportunities and challenges associated of the use and impact of social media in civil litigation. The document proposes several best practices for both personal and substituted service discovery, exchange of documents between parties and other applications for social media platforms.


The Supreme Court is inviting public comment on these best practices and proposals. The due date for comments is September 15, 2010.   The document can be found here. 

On occasion I have accused of “promoting” electronic service of process. That is not the case; all I have been doing is calling attention to the issue in the hopes that NAPPS and all private process servers will one day have a meaningful and productive conversation about what these challenges mean to our profession.


Unless we want to be like the pony express (extinct) we had better find a way to insure that a disinterested third party (process server) retains a role in an electronic world.

What are process servers going to do when there is a proposal at the federal level that seeks to leverage today’s technologies in a way that marginalizes our role? It will happen; it is only a matter of time.


I am not saying the sky is falling. I am saying it is time to acknowledge these types of changes challenge our very existence and these types of challenges are presenting themselves with ever increasing frequency.

The fundamental question is; what if anything are process servers going to do to ensure that they remain relevant? The notaries figured it out… why can’t process servers? If we do not figure it out, social media and email may well fill the void. Then where are we?


I might be wrong, but I doubt it.

Eviction Notice Served via Email - Will That Work?

That depends... In a recent California Appellate Case the issue of giving notice by email came into question.

In Culver Center Partners East #1, L.P. v. Baja Fresh Westlake Village, 185 Cal. App. 4th 744 (2010), the court found that the landlord in a commercial lease had failed to give proper notice of failure to pay rent to the tenant even though the tenant admitted receiving notice of default from the landlord by email.

The signed lease provided for the notice by hand delivery, regular mail, and facsimile. In an apparent effort to to keep pace with technology, the lease also allowed for notice by Email.

The court found that notice was not properly given and the default must start over. The court cited that even thought the lease had an electronic transmission provision; the provision was not specific enough to satisfy the court that actual notice was given. Had the lease provision actually listed the tenants email notification address and the landlord could show that it the email was delivered to the physical address designated in the lease the electronic notice provision would have been sufficient.

Moral of the story if you are going to have an electronic notice provision in your lease be sure to consult counsel who should be able to draft language that makes clear that electronic notice via email is effective whether or not addressee actually opens or reads the email notice and any attachments.

India Supreme Court Allows Process to be Served via Email

Last month, The Supreme Court of India acknowledged that over half of the cases before it are delayed by the act of process serving. As a result the Supreme Court ruled as follows:

[i] In addition to normal mode of service, service of Notice(s) may be effected by E-Mail for which the advocate(s) on-record will, at the time of filing of petition/appeal, furnish to the filing counter a soft copy of the entire petition/appeal in PDF format;

[ii] The advocate(s) on-record shall also simultaneously submit E-Mail addresses of the respondent(s) Companies/Corporation(s) to the filing counter of the Registry. This will be in addition to the hard copy of the petition/appeal;

[iii] If the Court issues notice, then, in that event alone, the Registry will send such an additional notice at the E-Mail addresses of the respondent(s) Companies/Corporation(s) via E-Mail;

[iv] The Registry will also send Notice at the E-Mail address of the advocate(s) for respondent(s) Companies/Corporation(s), who have filed caveat. Advocate(s) on-record filing caveat shall provide his/her E-Mail address for effecting service; and

[v] Within two weeks from today, Cabinet Secretariat shall also provide centralized E-Mail addresses of various Ministries/Departments/ Regulatory Authorities along with the names of the Nodal Officers, if already appointed, for the purposes of service.

It is worth noting that the mode of service typically used that is causing the delays is service via the Postal Service, return receipt required.  Without the proper safeguards and requirements service via email is arguably less reliable than service via postal service.  Maybe if these notices were served by private process servers these delays would not exist...
Regardless this ruling is yet another example of technology having an impact on the practice and procedures associated with the act of giving notice to the parties/litigants to a case.

For a copy of the order click here.