IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
|
THE CERTIFIED CIVIL PROCESS
SERVERS ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS,
and TOD PENDERGRASS, individually
and as director of THE CERTIFIED
CIVIL PROCESS SERVERS
ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS,
Plaintiffs
v.
THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS,
WALLACE B. JEFFERSON,
NATHAN HECHT,
HARRIET O'NEILL,
DALE WAINWRIGHT,
SCOTT A. BRISTER,
DAVID MEDINA,
PAUL W. GREEN,
PHIL JOHNSON,
DON R. WILLETT,
In their official capacities as Supreme
Court Justices of the State of Texas, and
TEXAS PROCESS SERVICE REVIEW
BOARD, TEXAS PRIVATE PROCESS
SERVER REVIEW BOARD, PROCESS
SERVER REVIEW BOARD,
CARL WEEKS,
TONY LINDSAY,
CONNIE MAYFIELD,
LOIS ROGERS,
RON HICKMAN,
JUSTISS RASBERRY,
JOE F. BROWN, JR.,
LEE H. RUSSELL
MARK P. BLENDEN,
JAMES "JIM" ATWATER,
ERIC SAMUEL JARVIS, and
BRADLEY BACOM, SR.
all in their personal capacities, and in their
"official" capacities as members of the
TEXAS PROCESS SERVICE REVIEW
BOARD, TEXAS PRIVATE PROCESS
SERVER REVIEW BOARD, PROCESS
SERVER REVIEW BOARD,
Defendants
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. A 08 CA 665 LY
SEPTEMBER 5, 2008-
Process servers in Texas have been tricked. Those of you who sent letters to the Supreme Court
supporting the original certification program have been deceived. What was supposed to be a simple
system of accountability giving us statewide authority was systematically changed into unlawful
regulation that now threatens each and every one of us. The industry is vulnerable to a career ending
board that lacks oversight and is empanelled with pro-constable influences and other conflicts of
interest. On good faith, CCPSAT leaders filed a lawsuit to stop this board and prevent the careers of
any more process servers from being damaged or destroyed.
SEPTEMBER 17, 2009-
FEDERAL COURT DISMISSES LAWSUIT
The Court dismissed the federal lawsuit without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. However,
there are obvious misunderstandings in the Court's ruling. For example, the order reads,
"To facilitate [the certification program] the [Texas] Supreme Court first published Texas Rules
of Judicial Administration 14 and, after a period of public comment, adopted the final version
that became effective April 2, 2007. Rule 14 established the Board and appointed Board
members, clarified the [Texas] Supreme Court's newly created certification process..."
The Federal Court's interpretation shows a clear misunderstanding of the program's timeline.
Rule 14 was not enacted until nearly two years had passed during which time many people
suffered at the hands of a regulatory board without rules or guidelines. Rule 14 DID NOT
establish the PSRB nor did Rule 14 appoint members to that board. Many of the constitutional
violations suffered by private process servers occurred during that time before Rule 14
existed. This misunderstanding has caused evidently a complete disregard to the structure of
the program and the PSRB. It was this original arrangement that created violations which
gave rise to the lawsuit. Without taking these first 21 months into consideration, many of the
allegations in the suit are made irrelevant.
Another issue with the Federal Court's ruling relates to an established state law. It reads,
"The Association cites no independent source of Texas law to establish that its members have
a protected interest to receive certification to act as a statewide private civil-process server.
Lacking is any allegation by the Association of a statute, regulation or court rule that
guarantees an individual the right to act as a statewide civil-process server in Texas. The
Association directs this Court to no constitutional provision that so provides. The [Federal]
Court is unaware of any such Texas state law, rule or regulation that guarantees an individual
the right (to) act as a statewide private civil-process server in Texas."
This part of the Federal Court's ruling demonstrates precisely why there is a problem.
THERE IS NO CURRENT LAW, RULE OR REGULATION THAT
APPLIES TO THE RIGHTS OF CERTIFIED PROCESS SERVERS OR
EVEN TO THE CREATION OF THE PROGRAM OR THE PROCESS
SERVER REVIEW BOARD. THE PROGRAM AND THE PSRB EXIST
OUTSIDE OF STATE LAW.
As we have maintained since the program began in 2005, the program and the PSRB are a
unique arrangement that does not exist with any other regulatory board or agency in Texas.
The only rules that apply were written by the same body that created the program and the
PSRB. This finding by the Federal Court confirms what we have been saying since 2005; THE
PSRB IS ACCOUNTABLE TO NO ONE. The only authority over the PSRB is the Texas
Supreme Court which has a history of inaction towards the PSRB. The PSRB's existence
outside Texas law makes it, in a sense, untouchable. It is not subject to same laws of Texas
that are all other regulatory boards and agencies and it's actions are unaccountable to the
Texas Legislature. Because the PSRB was created by a misapplying of the Texas Supreme
Court's rule making authority, it appears only the Texas Legislature has the power and ability
to correct this breach of the separation of powers in Texas.
Despite the fact that the pro-regulators might consider the Court's dismissal a victory, it is by
no means tantamount to an approval by the United States government.
In dismissing the suit, questions of violations of the Texas
Constitution and Texas State Law remain unanswered.
There are several other issues raised by the Court's decision. This matter will be discussed
further and new information will be posted as it becomes available. Thank you to the many
who supported the cause with donations of time and money. The fight to protect our rights
and livelihoods will continue. We are confident the payoff will come by other means.