ARIZONA
HB 2222 (Chase) – Process Service. Amends Section
13-1502, Arizona Revised Statutes, pertaining to criminal trespass,
by adding this language: “It is a defense to a prosecution (for criminal
trespass) if the person is authorized by law to serve or attempt to serve legal
process and the property was not fenced with a locked gate or entryway.”
Amends Section
13-1503 by adding this language: “It is a defense to a
prosecution (for criminal trespass) if the person is authorized by law to serve
legal process and enters in or on the structure or yard to serve or attempt to
serve legal process and the area of the structure or yard is open to members of
the public, including a reception area.” Amends Section 13-2810 to add that a
person who “obstructs or hinders the service of legal process by a person
who is authorized by law to serve legal process” commits the crime of
interfering with judicial proceedings.
Status: Introduced 1/15/03; Died in
Committee on Property Rights when Session adjourned 4/22/03. No carryover to
2004.
CALIFORNIA
AB 418 (Pacheco) – Process Servers. This is
a CAPPS-sponsored Bill which has undergone various amendments. The bill is
designed to facilitate the service of a summons on a person or business with no
known address other than a private mailbox, and on a business entity whose form
is unknown. The bill provides that, if no physical address is known, service
may be accomplished by leaving a copy of the S&C at the person’s usual
mailing address—other than a USPS post office box—i.e. private mail box facility,
with the person in charge who is at least 18 years of age, who shall be
informed of their contents, and thereafter, by mailing another copy by first
class mail to the person to be served at the place where the first copy was
left. Service is deemed complete on the 10th day after mailing. This
same procedure would apply to service on a business organization where its form
is unknown. Service under this provision would not be valid for a corporation
with a registered agent for service of process listed with the California
Secretary of State. Comment: This bill at one point contained a
provision for serving tenants not named in the S&C by posting and mailing,
upon a showing to the court that they cannot be served with reasonable
diligence in any permissible manner other than publication. Strong opposition
from the Western Center on Law and Poverty caused that provision to be deleted
from the bill. Also, a provision providing for the revocation of a Registered
Process Server’s certificate of registration upon a finding that the process
server had committed perjury was inserted in the bill when it was in the
Assembly, then subsequently struck from the bill after it reached the Senate.
Status: Introduced 2/14/03. Amended in
Assembly 3/20, 4/22, and 5/29/03. To Senate Committee on Judiciary 6/12/03,
amended 6/25/03 and 7/08/03. Passed Senate 7/10/03. To Assembly for
concurrence.
AB 690 (Pacheco) – Process
Service. The author states this bill is designed to
simplify the legal process by which a defendant’s assets may be attached. It
would permit the service of a single attachment order or writ of execution upon
a financial institution’s central location within the county,
if one is designated, to apply to all the debtor’s accounts at that
institution’s multiple locations. This would preclude the need for serving
separate orders on each branch in which the debtor has an account.
Comment: Bill is sponsored by the Los
Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. The sheriff reports he has 21 civil
offices that serves writs on scores of Wells Fargo branches, which happens to
have one centralized location in downtown Los Angeles. Sheriff maintains that
his office could save time and money—and have its job made easier—if he were
able to serve writs at that one centralized location rather than serve each
branch individually. No opposition stated.
Status: Introduced 2/19/03; Passed both
Assembly and Senate; Enrolled and sent to Governor 6/25/03. Withdrawn from
Governor and ordered returned to Assembly 6/27/03 and then to Senate 6/30/03.
Passed Senate 7/7/03.
CONNECTICUT
HB 6140 (Caruso) – Process
Servers. Would amend Section 52-50 of general statutes to
permit corporations and other entities authorized to conduct business in
Connecticut to serve any form of process in this state.
Status: Introduced 1/24/03; to Joint
Committee on Judiciary 1/27/03. Failed joint favorable deadline 4/16/03. Bill
died when Session adjourned 6/4/03 with no action. No carryover to 2004.
FLORIDA
HB 1673 (Simmons) – Private
Mailbox Service. Would authorize substituted
service on persons in charge of private mailboxes; by adding a new paragraph to
FS 48.031 subsection (2), as follows: (c) When the only address available
through public records of the person to be served is a private mailbox,
substitute service may be made by leaving a copy of the process with the person
apparently in charge of the private mailbox, only after determing that the
person or business to be served does maintain a mailbox at that location.
Bill would also permit a witness
subpoena in a criminal case to be posted after three attempts at different
times of the day or night at the witness’ residence, provided such service is
at least 5 days prior the witness’ required appearance; and would permit
service on a corporation by serving the registered agent, officer or director in
accordance with FS 48.031, if the address provided for the registered agent,
officers or principal place of business is a residence or private mailbox.
Comment: This legislation was introduced
at the request of NAPPS member Jack Lippman and supported by the Florida
Association of Professional Process Servers (FAPPS).
Status: Introduced 3/11/03, Passed House
4/22/03, but died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when time ran out and
session ended 5/2/03. Will be reintroduced in 2004 session.
HAWAII
HB 979 (Hamakawa) – Process
Servers. Establishes the Civil Process Commission which
would administer the service of all civil process in Hawaii. Would require
registration of all private process servers and civil court officers. Basic
requirements to be designated a private process server include: Being a US
citizen, having a high school diploma, being at least 21 years old, having a
valid driver’s license, having no felony convictions, and passing a 25-question
examination demonstrating knowledge of the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure. All
registrants must pay annual registration fee of $100, be bonded for $25,000 and
be issued a certificate of registration and photo ID card.
Status: Introduced 1/22/03. Referred to
Committee on Judiciary 2/6/03. Session adjourned 5/1/03 with no action. Carried
over to 2004 session.
ILLINOIS
HB 1381 (Fritchey) – Process
Servers. This bill is another run at breaking the sheriff’s
stranglehold on serving civil process in Cook County. By removing the
population requirement (a deletion of just 9 words), it permits licensed
private detectives to serve in all Illinois counties without special
appointment.
Comment: There have been numerous efforts
over the past decade to open Cook County’s flood gates so that private
detectives could serve process without the inconvenience and added burden of
going before the court to get a superfluous special appointment. A partial
victory was won in 1999, when the law was changed to allow appointment of a private
detective agency—rather than a specific individual—to serve process
in Cook County. PIs are hopeful that this will be the time the dam is breached
and special appointments in Cook County will no longer be required. This bill,
unfortunately, does nothing to benefit those process servers in Illinois who do
not hold a PI license or who do not serve process as an employee of a PI with a
valid Permanent Employee Registration Card (PERC).
Status: Introduced 2/6/03. Referred to
Committee on Rules 2/6/03 and then to Executive 2/11/03. Re-referred to
Committee on Rules 3/13/03.
SB 487 (Jones) – PI Licensing. Creates
the Private Detective, Private Alarm, Private Security and Locksmith Act of
2004—to replace the existing Act of 1993. This legislation began as a one-page
bill and ended up being 46 pages. Makes changes in provisions concerning
definitions, licensure requirements, unlawful acts, examination of applicants,
qualifications for licensure, training, etc. Adds language providing a statute
of limitations for actions against a person or entity licensed under the Act.
Status: To Governor for Signature 6/27/03.
NEW YORK
AB 357 [same SB 2034] (Greene)
Unsolicited Fax.
Would amend Section 396-aa of the general
business law to increase the restrictions on the sending of unsolicited
telefacsimile promotional messages and expanding the scope of remedies for
violations. The court may enjoin such conduct without requiring proof that any
person has, in fact, been injured or damaged, and may impose a civil penalty of
not more than $500 for each violation.
Status: Introduced 1/8/03. Referred to
Committee on Consumer Affairs and Protection. Still in committee.
AB 3660 (Kaufman) – Process
Service. This bill is similar to an earlier bill introduced
in the 2001 legislature but didn’t make it through. The bill would permit service
of process on the doorperson or concierge of a multiple dwelling to satisfy the
substituted service requirement of delivering to a person of suitable age and
discretion at the usual place of abode of the person to be served and followed
by a mailing by first class mail. The proposed law imposes two additional
requirements: (1) That it can be demonstrated that the doorperson performs
the normal and customary duties associated with such employment; and
(2) That access to the usual place of abode of the person to be served was
impeded or denied by the doorperson or concierge. The delivery and
mailing must be effected within 20 days of each other; and proof of service
shall be filed with the clerk of the court within 20 days of either the
delivery or the mailing, whichever is effected later. Proof of service shall
identify the person of suitable age and discretion and shall state the date,
time and place of service.
Comment: This is the 6th time
that similar bills proposing service on doorpersons at gated communities have
been introduced in New York. None of the former bills—in 1994, 1996, 1998,
1999, and 2001—ever made it to the Governor’s desk.. It seems the legislature
is now striving in vain to codify what the courts have already made a fait
accompli. See F.I. duPont, Glore Forgan & Co. v. Chen, 41 N.Y.2d 794;
364 NE 2d 1115 (NY Ct. App. 1977), where the court held that substitute
service on an apartment building doorperson was sufficient after process server
was refused admittance into the apartment building’s front entrance. Resident
had given instructions to doorperson to not admit callers without consent.
Status: Introduced 2/10/03. Referred to
Committee on Codes. Still in committee.
OHIO
HB 200 (Williamowski) – Process
Servers. Would permit a child support enforcement agency to
have its process served in one or both of the following ways: 1) by contract
with the sheriff to compensate the sheriff’s office for service of process,
which may include additional incentives for successful service, or 2) by contract
with a private person or entity.
Comment: Rule 4.1(2) of the Ohio Rules of
Civil Procedure requires private persons to be designated by order of the court
to serve process. This bill does not address the matter of process server
authorization. It seems logical, therefore, that any private process server or
entity which obtained a contract to serve CSE agency documents under this
legislation would be exempt from having to be court appointed to serve them.
Status: Introduced 5/21/03. Reported from
House Human Services and Aging Committee with Recommendation 6/25/03.
OKLAHOMA
SB 838 (Shurden) – Sheriffs Fees.
Increases the fee for serving process to a single defendant—or to more than one
person at the same address—from $35.00 to $50.00. Introduced 2/3/03
Status: **Signed by Governor 5/29/03**Eff 7/1/03
OREGON
HB 2821 (Brown) – Sheriffs Fees.
Increases fees a sheriff shall charge for a variety of services including an
increase to $28.00 for service of summons and an increase to $15.00 (statewide)
for service of a writ of garnishment.
Comment: These fee increases pertain to
sheriffs only. Oregon law permits private process servers to charge any fee
agreed to between the server and the person requesting service. Introduced
3/3/03.
Status: ***Signed by Governor 6/11/03***
TENNESSEE
HB 164 (Buck) – Process Service. Amends
Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 16, Part 6, by adding following new
Section
39-16-610.
(a)
It is an offense for any employer
... who is in charge of a business establishment, to knowingly refuse to assist
any officer or other person authorized by law to serve process by
failing or refusing to make such employee available for such service of
process.
(b)
For this section to apply, the
process server must call the business establishment during the normal working
hours of the employee sought to be served.
(c)
A violation of this section is a
Class C misdemeanor.
Status: Introduced 2/3/03. Referred to
Committee on Judiciary 2/5/03. Session adjourned 5/30/03 but Tennessee has
carryover to 2004.
HB 1898 (Buck) – Licensing Process
Servers. Would establish the “Private Process Servers
Regulatory Act.” Would make it an offense for anyone to serve process within
the state who is not licensed or employed as a certified law enforcement
officer. Process servers would pay an initial fee of $200 and annual renewal
fee of $100; would be issued licenses and badges which would be valid
throughout the state. Also would add new section in the law making it an
offense for any public utility or agent thereof to refuse to assist any
officer or licensed process server in obtaining forwarding addresses of
customers. The process server must make the request on official letterhead and
provide the utility, during business hours, proof of identification and copies
of documents to be served. The bill contains no provision for testing or
continuing education.
Comment: This bill is sponsored by the Tennessee
Association of Professional Process Servers(TAPPS). Under current
Tennessee law any person over the age of 18 and not a party may serve original
process in both Circuit Court and General Sessions Court (which includes small
claims). Sounds good so far, but I am told by our members in Tennessee that
this “anybody-can-serve-process” law is depriving them of a sizeable portion of
business because lawyers are serving their own process. In most states lawyers
(and their employees) are not permitted to serve process in a case where the
lawyer represents one of the parties. Tennessee, however, apparently does not
object to this practice. One of the principal purposes of this bill is to get
the lawyers and their employees out of the business of process serving, which
is why the Tennessee Bar Association is raising such strong opposition to the
bill.. The bill was still in committee when the session ended but will be
carried over to 2004.
Status: Introduced 2/26/03. Referred to
House Committee on Judiciary 2/27/03.
WASHINGTON
HB 1226 (Moeller) – Process
Service. This is a reincarnation of last year’s SB 6513,
which made it through the Senate but didn’t make it through the House. Bill
would permit service on a resident defendant involved in a motor vehicle
accident by substituted service upon the Secretary of State at any time within
3 years following accident. Requires that plaintiff show evidence that the
defendant cannot, after a due and diligent search, be found in this state.
Comment: This bill was sponsored and
promoted by Member Robin Mullins of Bellingham, WA, and
supported by the Washington State Professional Process Servers Association (WSPSA).
Status: ***Signed by Governor 5/12/03***
SB 5711 (Prentice) – Private
Investigators. Would amend RCW 18.165.160 by
adding to the long list of a private investigator’s prohibited acts the
following conduct: “Obtaining, or attempting to obtain, information by false
pretenses, including misrepresenting the identity or purpose of the private
investigator, his or her employee, or the identity or purpose of the client.”
Status: Introduced 2/7/03. Referred to
Committee on Financial Services. Died when session ended 4/20/03.
