Guaranteed Subpoena Service Inc.

In response to a complaint received by your office on or about August 5, from *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** the facts are as follows: The work order was received on
July 24, at 2:15pm which was a request for service of a restraining order. The complaint suggested that instructions for service was attached and part of the package forwarded to our attention. A review of the assignment (attached) indicates that the only instructions were as follows: “the DV-Proof of Personal Service needs to be sent back to me via e-mail (and mail). Thank You”. There is no mention of service to be completed by July 28, as alleged. The work order was entered at 4:00pm by our data-entry unit and forwarded to our process server immediately. Our process server made his first attempt on July 24, at 8:00pm, four hours from the time of receipt in spite of the limited or lack of instructions from the complainant. Our process server failed to serve the process at this time as no one was at home. On July 27, at 1:00pm our process server returned to the given address and was met by the subject’s mother who advised that her son *** the subject of the service was not at home and further that she did not know when he would be at home. On July 27, at 9:00am our process server again was met by the subject’s mother and again she stated that *** was not at home and she was unaware as to when he would be. On July 30, at 10:00pm our process server returned to the home of the subject and on this occasion was met by a young woman, approximately age who repeated what the mother had stated on two other occasions. This was the fourth attempt at service. On July 31, our process server was relayed instructions to leave the process with the mother. At 7:30pm our fifth attempt, service was not completed as no one was home. On August 1, at 2:59pm our process server returned to the service address and served the mother in the driveway. Guaranteed Subpoena was unaware based on the context of the instructions that service was to be made on a specific date. Our attempts prove that even if we had been properly instructed that service could not have been completed. The document in question to be served, a “restraining order” is not one that anyone wants to receive. We have no doubt that *** was evading. We also question the instructions of the attorney of serving the mother with a restraining order as she was not the subject of the order. However when given instructions we do follow them and do complete service as instructed. All reasonable care was used and all instructions were followed. Standard practices were used to effectuate service utilizing multiple attempts with no charges for the attempts. A restraining order is always personally served. Our services was completed on a Saturday. The proof of service notarized was forwarded by e-mail from our customer service unit on August 3, 2015. We made no error in the handling of this matter and followed all of the instructions given to us. We do not read the contents of the documents we receive for service with the exception of the cover sheet and instruction of the customer. For your review we have attached our status page results of the aforementioned. This information was available to the complainant at all times from their computer. Using their web I.Dthey could have viewed our attempts and other confidential information. We understand the frustration of the complainant but disagree with all the facts portrayed. We did nothing wrong

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because it does not tell the entire story. I agree that the business did nothing wrong in the timeliness with which it attempted to effectuate service, nor on serving the mother (as that was my specific direction). However, when I logged the restraining order with the business, they provided a deadline of the 28th. When they could not meet that deadline, they should have contacted me. They did not. When I contacted them on the 31st, I told them that the paperwork had to be served that day. They did not. Further, I provided them with the form to fill out regarding service - they did not fill it out. It is ridiculous to not read the materials you are provided by the client (at least the instructions). This is a California restraining order, not a New Jersey one - reading the instructions would have been prudent. The court rejected the filing NOT because of the lack of personal service, but because it was (a) not the California form, and (b) it had numerous errors in how it was completed. I'm not sure why I should pay for a service that was (1) never personally effectuated (likely because your process server didn't sit and wait for *** ***, though that is part of your fee schedule) and (2) documented so poorly that it was a rejected filing by the court. I now have to get another process server (who will actually sit and wait for *** *** or call him and ask him to meet for service) to complete the paperwork. At a bare minimum, the service should be discounted
Regards,
*** ***

In response to a complaint received by your office on or about August 5, from [redacted] the facts are as follows:
" margin: 0px"> The work order was received on July 24, at 2:15pm which was a request for service of a restraining order. The complaint suggested that instructions for service was attached and part of the package forwarded to our attention. A review of the assignment (attached) indicates that the only instructions were as follows: "the DV-Proof of Personal Service needs to be sent back to me via e-mail (and mail). Thank You". There is no mention of service to be completed by July 28, as alleged. The work order was entered at 4:00pm by our data-entry unit and forwarded to our process server immediately. Our process server made his first attempt on July 24, at 8:00pm, four hours from the time of receipt in spite of the limited or lack of instructions from the complainant. Our process server failed to serve the process at this time as no one was at home. On July 27, at 1:00pm our process server returned to the given address and was met by the subject's mother who advised that her son [redacted] the subject of the service was not at home and further that she did not know when he would be at home On July 27, at 9:00am our process server again was met by the subject's mother and again she stated that [redacted] was not at home and she was unaware as to when he would be. On July 30, at 10:00pm our process server returned to the home of the subject and on this occasion was met by a young woman, approximately age who repeated what the mother had stated on two other occasions. This was the fourth attempt at service On July 31, our process server was relayed instructions to leave the process with the mother. At 7:30pm our fifth attempt, service was not completed as no one was home. On August 1, at 2:59pm our process server returned to the service address and served the mother in the driveway Guaranteed Subpoena was unaware based on the context of the instructions that service was to be made on a specific date. Our attempts prove that even if we had been properly instructed that service could not have been completed. The document in question to be served, a "restraining order" is not one that anyone wants to receive. We have no doubt that [redacted] was evading. We also question the instructions of the attorney of serving the mother with a restraining order as she was not the subject of the order. However when given instructions we do follow them and do complete service as instructed All reasonable care was used and all instructions were followed. Standard practices were used to effectuate service utilizing multiple attempts with no charges for the attempts. A restraining order is always personally served Our services was completed on a Saturday. The proof of service notarized was forwarded by e-mail from our customer service unit on August 3, We made no error in the handling of this matter and followed all of the instructions given to us. We do not read the contents of the documents we receive for service with the exception of the cover sheet and instruction of the customer For your review we have attached our status page results of the aforementioned. This information was available to the complainant at all times from their computer. Using their web I.Dthey could have viewed our attempts and other confidential information. We understand the frustration of the complainant but disagree with all the facts portrayed We did nothing wrong

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
[redacted]

vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: transparent;">The service was completed on the first attempt. Our successful service was rejected by compiainant’s attorney.
The mailings were performed on three occasions.
The process was posted on three occasions.
We followed instructions and performed the duties requested.
We never contracted with the complainant. We contracted with [redacted] The compIainant is a client of the aforementioned law firm.
We never charged for the services we performed. Complainant is demanding we pay close $2400 of her attorney fees. The attorney in this particular case overruled us on the projects we completed successfully.
We paid our contractor over $300 for the services they performed which we did not request or demand from the law firm or complainant.
On the basis stated above, we see the allegations of the claimant as unwarranted.
Please advise.
Very truly yours,
[redacted] President

As an addendum to that already submitted and in response to the supplemental complaint of the complainant: 1)    Complainant stated our firm provided her with a deadline of the 28th. We did not. As shown in her request there was no indication the job needed to be completed by the 28th.2)    Complainant again states “When I(complainant) contacted them(Guaranteed Subpoena) on the 31st, I told them that the paperwork had to be served that day. They did not.” In response to this claim, we sent our process server to the requested address and the process server received no answer at the door.  We did as we were instructed.3)    Complainant states service was not effectuated because the process server did not “sit and wait for [redacted], though that is part of your fee schedule”. “Sitting and waiting” is not part of our standard practice and is commonly referred to “waiting time” charged at $100 per hour. This information is available on our website. This was never requested by the complainant.4)    Complainant states the affidavit returned “had many errors in how it was completed”. The original affidavit we provided did not include the attempts. Our customer service supervisor had our process server recreate the affidavit which included the attempts and the complainant had a copy the next day. This is allowed by the rules of court.Although we thought we did our best to attempt, serve and return an affidavit to the complainant in a timely fashion, we will be refunding the complainant the full amount of 59.95.

As an addendum to that already submitted and in response to the supplemental complaint of the complainant:
 
1)    Complainant stated our firm provided her with a deadline of the 28th. We did not. As shown in her request there was no indication the job needed to be completed by the 28th.
2)    Complainant again states “When I(complainant) contacted them(Guaranteed Subpoena) on the 31st, I told them that the paperwork had to be served that day. They did not.” In response to this claim, we sent our process server to the requested address and the process server received no answer at the door.  We did as we were instructed.
3)    Complainant states service was not effectuated because the process server did not “sit and wait for [redacted], though that is part of your fee schedule”. “Sitting and waiting” is not part of our standard practice and is commonly referred to “waiting time” charged at $100 per hour. This information is available on our website. This was never requested by the complainant.
4)    Complainant states the affidavit returned “had many errors in how it was completed”. The original affidavit we provided did not include the attempts. Our customer service supervisor had our process server recreate the affidavit which included the attempts and the complainant had a copy the next day. This is allowed by the rules of court.
Although we thought we did our best to attempt, serve and return an affidavit to the complainant in a timely fashion, we will be refunding the complainant the full amount of 59.95.

Review: I gave a legal packet to Guaranteed Subpoena Service on 7/24/2015 with instructions that it was to be served no later than 7/28/2015. They did not serve by that date and did not update me. I had to call them to find out that the person was ducking service. So, I authorized them on 7/31/2015 to do substituted service, but I told them that it absolutely had to be done THAT day. It was not. It was done the next day and then I did not receive the proof of service timely. I had to call FOUR times to get proof of LATE service. It's unacceptable that it took TWO WEEKS to serve a restraining order when a deadline was given, that no one bothered to call me when the deadline had passed, and that it took multiple calls to get the kind of affidavit that I needed back. I should not have to pay for late, sloppy service, and my client should be reimbursed for the time I had to spend on the phone getting Guaranteed Subpoena Service to do its job. Oh, and when I received the affidavit of service, it was incorrect filled out, so the court would not accept it.Desired Settlement: I want the entire amount refunded since the job wasn't done on time and it wasn't done right. I also want to be paid $515 (my hourly billing rate) for the REPEATED time I had to spend on the phone getting this company to actually serve a subpoena. I spent at least an hour on the phone trying to get this company to actually do their job.

Business

Response:

In response to a complaint received by your office on or about August 5, 2015 from [redacted] the facts are as follows: The work order was received on July 24, 2015 at 2:15pm which was a request for service of a restraining order. The complaint suggested that instructions for service was attached and part of the package forwarded to our attention. A review of the assignment (attached) indicates that the only instructions were as follows: “the DV-200 Proof of Personal Service needs to be sent back to me via e-mail (and mail). Thank You”. There is no mention of service to be completed by July 28, 2015 as alleged. The work order was entered at 4:00pm by our data-entry unit and forwarded to our process server immediately. Our process server made his first attempt on July 24, 2015 at 8:00pm, four hours from the time of receipt in spite of the limited or lack of instructions from the complainant. Our process server failed to serve the process at this time as no one was at home. On July 27, 2015 at 1:00pm our process server returned to the given address and was met by the subject’s mother who advised that her son [redacted] the subject of the service was not at home and further that she did not know when he would be at home. On July 27, 2015 at 9:00am our process server again was met by the subject’s mother and again she stated that [redacted] was not at home and she was unaware as to when he would be. On July 30, 2015 at 10:00pm our process server returned to the home of the subject and on this occasion was met by a young woman, approximately age 20 who repeated what the mother had stated on two other occasions. This was the fourth attempt at service. On July 31, 2015 our process server was relayed instructions to leave the process with the mother. At 7:30pm our fifth attempt, service was not completed as no one was home. On August 1, 2015 at 2:59pm our process server returned to the service address and served the mother in the driveway. Guaranteed Subpoena was unaware based on the context of the instructions that service was to be made on a specific date. Our attempts prove that even if we had been properly instructed that service could not have been completed. The document in question to be served, a “restraining order” is not one that anyone wants to receive. We have no doubt that [redacted] was evading. We also question the instructions of the attorney of serving the mother with a restraining order as she was not the subject of the order. However when given instructions we do follow them and do complete service as instructed. All reasonable care was used and all instructions were followed. Standard practices were used to effectuate service utilizing multiple attempts with no charges for the attempts. A restraining order is always personally served. Our services was completed on a Saturday. The proof of service notarized was forwarded by e-mail from our customer service unit on August 3, 2015. We made no error in the handling of this matter and followed all of the instructions given to us. We do not read the contents of the documents we receive for service with the exception of the cover sheet and instruction of the customer. For your review we have attached our status page results of the aforementioned. This information was available to the complainant at all times from their computer. Using their web I.D. they could have viewed our attempts and other confidential information. We understand the frustration of the complainant but disagree with all the facts portrayed. We did nothing wrong.

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because it does not tell the entire story. I agree that the business did nothing wrong in the timeliness with which it attempted to effectuate service, nor on serving the mother (as that was my specific direction). However, when I logged the restraining order with the business, they provided a deadline of the 28th. When they could not meet that deadline, they should have contacted me. They did not. When I contacted them on the 31st, I told them that the paperwork had to be served that day. They did not. Further, I provided them with the form to fill out regarding service - they did not fill it out. It is ridiculous to not read the materials you are provided by the client (at least the instructions). This is a California restraining order, not a New Jersey one - reading the instructions would have been prudent. The court rejected the filing NOT because of the lack of personal service, but because it was (a) not the California form, and (b) it had numerous errors in how it was completed. I'm not sure why I should pay for a service that was (1) never personally effectuated (likely because your process server didn't sit and wait for [redacted], though that is part of your fee schedule) and (2) documented so poorly that it was a rejected filing by the court. I now have to get another process server (who will actually sit and wait for [redacted] or call him and ask him to meet for service) to complete the paperwork. At a bare minimum, the service should be discounted.

Regards,

Business

Response:

As an addendum to that already submitted and in response to the supplemental complaint of the complainant: 1) Complainant stated our firm provided her with a deadline of the 28th. We did not. As shown in her request there was no indication the job needed to be completed by the 28th.2) Complainant again states “When I(complainant) contacted them(Guaranteed Subpoena) on the 31st, I told them that the paperwork had to be served that day. They did not.” In response to this claim, we sent our process server to the requested address and the process server received no answer at the door. We did as we were instructed.3) Complainant states service was not effectuated because the process server did not “sit and wait for [redacted], though that is part of your fee schedule”. “Sitting and waiting” is not part of our standard practice and is commonly referred to “waiting time” charged at $100 per hour. This information is available on our website. This was never requested by the complainant.4) Complainant states the affidavit returned “had many errors in how it was completed”. The original affidavit we provided did not include the attempts. Our customer service supervisor had our process server recreate the affidavit which included the attempts and the complainant had a copy the next day. This is allowed by the rules of court.Although we thought we did our best to attempt, serve and return an affidavit to the complainant in a timely fashion, we will be refunding the complainant the full amount of 59.95.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Regards,

Review: On February 25, 2013, my attorney [redacted] forwarded complaint papers to your process service company Guaranteed Subpoena Service, Inc. to serve a defendant located in [redacted] Unfortunately, your subpoena service was not performed appropriately. And the execution of the service was woefully inadequate because it took 5 months to serve the defendant and provide the court a usable record of the service. I am disappointed because over the course of the 5 months, my attorney [redacted] had to have numerous conversations with you and members of your staff to track down the service and produce accurate documentation of the activities. It took 6.5 hours of his time and $2339.10 of my budget to investigate, explain and follow up on your company’s inactions. The process server did not carefully review their work before it was returned to catch the inconsistencies. The process server was unable to really say the process was served and prove it. This totally goes against the “Take the Quiz” section of your website. This page notes what items your company complies with and how this positively distinguishes Guaranteed Subpoena Service, Inc. from any other process service companyDesired Settlement: To resolve the problem, I would appreciate your restitution of the monies unnecessarily spent on the most innocuous part of a lawsuit: the service. I am demanding an amount of $2339.10. I also want a refund in the amount of $ 125 for the March 11, 2013 Skip Search for $75 and Affidavit of Due Diligence in Another State for $50

Business

Response:

The service was completed on the first attempt. Our successful service was rejected by compiainant’s attorney.

The mailings were performed on three occasions.

The process was posted on three occasions.

We followed instructions and performed the duties requested.

We never contracted with the complainant. We contracted with [redacted] The compIainant is a client of the aforementioned law firm.

We never charged for the services we performed. Complainant is demanding we pay close $2400 of her attorney fees. The attorney in this particular case overruled us on the projects we completed successfully.

We paid our contractor over $300 for the services they performed which we did not request or demand from the law firm or complainant.

On the basis stated above, we see the allegations of the claimant as unwarranted.

Please advise.

Very truly yours,

[redacted] President