Alternative Service via Facebook, Twitter or other Social Networks suggested by the Utah State Courts.

Recently I was poking around on the internet and happened upon the Utah State Court website that provides information on the service of process.   This site is easily the most user friendly and accessible resource for information about all the definitions of and all the acceptable forms of Service of Process in Utah.  I wish all state courts had their information so well organized.  

One the sections that caught my attention was the description of Alternative Service URCP 4(d)(4).  It read as follows:  

If you cannot find the person to be served after using reasonable diligence, or if you can show the court that the person is avoiding service, you can ask permission to serve the complaint and summons (or other document required to be served under URCP 4) by some other means.

You will need to file a motion asking permission to use this kind of service and a statement describing your attempts to find and serve the person.  

So far very standard stuff, one of the more interesting parts of the Alternative Service section is link to a resource page to find people also on the state courts website.  That resource page offers approximately 15 suggested links on how to find someone “Finding People for Service of Process”.   

But the section that I thought was most interesting was suggestions for the types of alternative service that you could pursue.  The suggestions ranged from Publication to Service via a social network, such as Facebook; service via a text, service via notification to a phone number; or service to a Twitter account.  

Those of you who have followed my postings on this blog know I have provided many examples of service via alternative means from all over the world.  Until now I had never seen a state court provide suggestions for alternative service that specifically called out Facebook, Twitter, Text and other social media outlets.  

It gets better; the Utah State Courts website even offers a blank Proof of Service that includes the following:

I communicating to the person named above by:

Social Network  (such as Facebook)	(at)	(name)
Twitter
Text message
Phone

posted by Jeff Karotkin

Are Sheriff Departments that Serve Civil Process Smarter than Private Process Servers?

One might argue that in Virginia the Sheriffs appear to be embracing change in a manner that private Process Servers are not. Does that make them smarter? You be the judge.


For a decade I have been writing and speaking about the challenges and opportunities that modern technologies present to process servers. I have maintained that it is not a matter of if electronic service of civil process will happen, but rather a matter of when.


It appears that “when” has arrived. No, I am not talking about the dozens of examples of electronic Service of Process globally that have allowed or enabled for the service of process under certain circumstances by email, Twitter, Facebook, text, social media outlets and even traditional websites.


No, this time I am referring to a bill that was introduced and passed without any opposition (none). The bill enables electronic service of Summons & Complaints in the State of Virginia. This bill from inception to completion took a few months. But its origin according to the sponsor dates back almost ten years. The following is what the sponsor said to me in an email after I reached out to him to find out more information:

Jeff,

Thank you for contacting our office regarding HB 1611. The electronic service of process features of HB 1611 were concepts developed as logical extensions of the eFiling of court records legislation over the last few years. The eFiling of court records legislation followed our eFiling of land records legislation, which had its roots more than 10 years ago.

So what exactly does this bill do? On its face it appears to enable the parties to a case to serve and accept Service of Process by electronic means. The attorney’s, the registered agents of parties and Sheriff are appears to have a role in the transaction. It appears to codify into law a practice that has existed for some time that up to now was more a kin to Notice and Acknowledgment Return Receipt Requested.


Please note that I did not include private process servers in the description above. That’s because it appears that the bill was written in such a way as provide the Sheriff with the sole authority to serve process electronic ally. The bill even sets a statutory fee that the Sheriff can collect to serve process electronically.


If you find yourself wondering, how could this happen when process serving associations like NAPPS are organized and whose very purpose are central to insuring adverse legislation does not impact our ability to remain relevant? Good question. I was wondering the same.


Perhaps more important at this point is the question I find myself asking… Was this bill an opportunity we missed? I believe that the answer is YES! If we had been aware of this bill perhaps we would have had influence that would have either limited its impact, or perhaps we would have come to realize that if eService is going to exist then we better find a way to have a role. I believe that if we hope to remain relevant given the ever changing landscape we operate in we must be willing to take bold steps to insure our ability to not just survive but rather thrive. If you think you can stop the march of technology and the forces driving it march into to our business you are being naïve.


In another example of Sheriff Departments seeking to gain efficiencies the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department introduced a bill last year in California that would have enabled them to intake and serve Writs/Levies electronically on banks and employers where creditors are seeking to garnish wages and levy on bank accounts. The bill was caught be the California Association of Legal Support Professionals (CALSPro) and they were successful in getting the bill amended in a manner that minimized the impact on private process servers in California.


There are other examples of local and state government embracing change that addresses the many challenges their organizations face. As a matter of fact there are at least three other instances of Sheriff Departments working with county agencies to allow for the service of Subpoenas on law enforcement officers electronically. Though these examples are less likely to impact private process servers they are indicative of the types of technology applications that could erode our role in due process.


If process servers are not proactive in their approach to addressing the future of the industry and the challenges and opportunities that lay ahead they will likely look up one day and wonder “How did I get here?” and “Is it too late for me to change?”


I continue to maintain that if process server’s hope to remain relevant in the years to come, they must be willing to embrace change and confront these types of challenges and opportunities.


I will leave you with that for now. I could carry on continuing to write about this topic but in the interest of trying to keep a this short, I will refer you to my blog for more information. There you can access sixty-five blog entries consisting of articles, commentary and opinion that are designed to get the industry to have what I believe is a long overdue discussion and exchange of ideas about the challenging times we live in. For more about the Virginia bill HB 1611 click this link.


posted by Jeff Karotkin

Philippine Supreme Court Allows eService of Summons on Foreign Firms

In an ever increasing litigation trend globally, the benefits of today's technologies is set to be implemented in yet another court system.

The Philippine Supreme Court announced the adoption of the use of electronic means to serve summons on foreign corporations who have been sued in the Philippines but have no resident agent or not registered to do business in the country.


The rule states in part:

“When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which has transacted business in the Philippines, service may be made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the government official designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines.”

From a practical standpoint this new rule is similar to the United States Federal Rule of Civil Procedure FRCP 4 (f) (3). U.S. courts have read this provision flexibly, consistent with the constitutional requirements of due process.


For example, in Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio International the United States Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by authorizing plaintiff to serve an Internet business outside the U.S. by email.


What does this mean for process servers? To say I knew for sure would be a stretch. I do believe that as the legal community in the Unites States and globally becomes more familiar with and accustomed to doing business online it is only a matter of time before traditional service of summons and complaints will be allowed by rule electronically.



Posted by Jeff H. Karotkin

New York Process Servers Granted Partial Restraining Order Against New Regulations

For those of you interested in or are following the developments in the city and state of New York as it relates to the Sewer Service fallout, the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) for the city of New York has published the new regulations that impose additional requirements on individual process servers and process serving agencies. 

Needless to say the New York State Professional Process Servers Association (NYSPPSA)  has mobilizing its members in an effort to minimized the impact of the proposed and adopted rules over the course of the last year.  To that end, NAPPS too has offered its support and financial assistance.  Due in part to the generous contributions NAPPS made financially (approximately $50,000.00) NYSPPSA was able to retain a law firm to file a restraining order in an effort to block or at least temporarily stop the implementation of the new regulations. 

Today NAPPS announced the following:

The New York State Professional Process Servers Association (NYSPPSA) was granted a partial restraining order on March 21 to allow the Association and the City of New York to continue negotiations over new regulations for professional process servers within the city limits.

For the full press release please click here.

If you are interested in reading the current version of the regulations I encourage you to visit the DCA website for a complete description of all the requirements.  The following are links to all the new reg's and the forms the DCA has posted on their website. 

New York City Licensing Law and New Rules
License Application for Agencies
License Application for Individuals
Process Serving Agency Background Information Form
Process Server Individual Background Information Form
Roster of Process Servers
Roster of Process Serving Agencies
Surety Bond Model Template
List of Bonding Companies
Excel Spreadsheet for Maintaining Electronic Records
Compliance Plan Affirmation
Process Server Individual Trust Fund Enrollment Form
Child Support Certification Form
Granting Authority to Act Affirmation

I went through them the other day and found myself wondering will the small and mid-sized agencies survive. Depending upon whether you are getting a license as an agency or an individual, there are as many as fourteen (14) forms to complete, hundreds if not thousands of dollars to be paid, bonds in the amount of 10K or 100K to obtain and countless new reporting requirements to comply with.  As if that were not enough, this version of the regulations do not even deal with the proposed GPS or electronic tracking requirement that the DCA will likely implement later this year.

In my humble opinion these regulations impose a significant challenge and/or barrier for everyone impacted but will most severely impact the solo  agencies and mid-sized agencies as well as independent process servers.  So much so, that unless NYSPPSA successfully stops or changes many of these requirements many of those folks will find themselves unable to comply and as a result will likely be forced out of business.  

As is typical in situations like this, those that created the current problem that resulted in these new regulations are not going to be the ones who suffer the consequences. 

posted by Jeff Karotkin