The Twenty Dollar Valleywide Process Server

I hired them to serve a complaint for meAfter weeks with no word from them I called in and asked for an updateI was told that the complaint was "out for service" and they had no additional informationA week later I called again and was given the same answerI asked if they had any way of verifying that service was actually being attempted and they said noI asked if they had any way of knowing if the job had fallen through the cracksThey said noI asked them to look into it and give me a call backThe best they said they could do is tell me to call back in a few days They gave me the excuse that they had been changing systems and had a lot of employee turnover recentlyThey said it was a headacheI agreeWorking with them is a headache

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Hello ***, thank you for reaching out to me [redacted] called me and expressed to me that the Due Diligence document is merely his biased opinion of myself and my family (although never meeting us)Assumptions that he has made based on the information given to him by someone that is trying to hurt me and my familyThe documentation he provided was in fact forwarded to a judge that will be using that document along with other documents that have statements regarding my characterYes, this document does affect me and my caseAll that I am asking of [redacted] is to reissue the Due Diligence Documentation stating facts and facts onlyNo opinion, no assumption, just factsI am currently battling an unemployment case, wrongful termination case, and an EEOC caseI refuse to allow his Due Diligence Documentation to describe my family and I in such a negative way Regards, [redacted]

Ms [redacted] can take my previous Revdex.com response to the judgeMs [redacted] can subpoena me after consulting with the judge in her administrative matter I suspect the judge could care less about whether I think Ms [redacted] committed the assault as alleged in the restraining order It would appear it's sole evidentiary value now is that it exists which means the issuing court found reasonable cause to issue it based on exparte showing by plaintiff An astute judge may pick up on the fact that Ms [redacted] is aware of the order and has an absolute statutory right to appear and contest said orderThat Ms [redacted] has instead chosen to go with this proposition that a server statement taken out of context has legal significance which it does notA judge might observe her choice of tilting at a windmill instead of presenting herself to the issuing court and telling her side The order of which she complains is issued exparte upon a showing of reasonable cause, a very low evidentiary threshhold However to be maintained if challenged, plaintiff has to carry a burden of proof by preponderance of evidence which is a much higher standardI don't want to say she is barking up the wrong tree but she is barking up the wrong tree.If she believes the mere conditional statement by a server is a big ticket item, think how compelling if she went head to head with the plaintiff by utilizing the procedure created in law to insure Ms [redacted] s right to procedural due process by challenging the order She can have a full blown hearing where she can present witnessesIf she prevails the court quashes the order That means makes it go bye bye I did not mean to take a position on the guilt or innocence of Ms [redacted] I used qualifying language meant to convey to my client that it may not be prudent for her to pay me more money for additional attempts of service The document of v which Ms [redacted] complains is going to be in front of an administrative law judge on an issue as to whether Ms [redacted] is entitled to unemployment based on wrongful termination I thinkSo ask the judge if he intends to attach any legal relevance to the statement by the server she is so concerned aboutIf the judge believes it is relevant then the parties can call me as witness and grill me in front of the judge My suspicion is the judge will not see any legal relevance to the matter at hand and will not want to waste time hearing from me

The complainant provided a non existent address to us to effect service at Service cannot be had at a location that does not exist The company verified the non existence by a second server per policy Both servers drove the area to insure the non existence of the locationThe company ran a property search through the Maricopa County Assessor Per the assessor, no such address existedThe company ran a "skip trace" and located what appeared to be the correct address for the person the complainant sought to have served The company offered to go to the correct address and attempt service The complainant insisted that the non existent address existed, The complainant has insisted that the assessor is wrong The complainant has insisted that the servers who drove the area are wrongSince this incident a review of the court file in this matter was conducted and the person the complainant sought to have served actually filed the correct address with the court in this matter months before complainant sought to have this service done There it isRight in the court file The right addressThe one we located on the skip traceThe one we offered to go toThe one that does show up on the assessor search The one the complainant insists does not exist We also gave the documents back to the complainant contrary to her misrepresentation It is our hope you will not be dissuaded by the complaint from using our services should you need service attempted in your matter But know that it has been our experience that your chances of having successful service occur are better at locations that exist as opposed to those that do not existThank You,Valley-Wide Process Service [redacted] ***

Great service

The document of which Ms*** complains is a Due Diligence document It is used when service of the document has not occurred Accordingly, I had attempted to serve her with a restraining order a court had issuedI was unsuccessful The document she references was only sent
to my client, not any court and it is not of record with the issuing court Nor is the restraining order of public record in the issuing court since it has not been served As for my statement regarding evassiveness, ** told me he was ms ***s cousin and was going to get her Ms *** told me ** is her son and actually went to get her husband Husband therefor avoided contact and used ** rather than talking with me and attempting to get a hold of ms*** with an eye toward accepting servicePlease note, since ms*** is now aware of the restraining order she could voluntarily appear and challenge it in front of the judge that issued it I used conditional language when communicating to my client, ie "may"I take no position as to whether ms *** committed the acts as alleged in the restraining orderI did not mean for it to appear I was taking a position on that issue in my statement of non service

The complainant provided a non existent address to us to effect service at.  Service cannot be had at a location that does not exist.  The company verified the non existence by a second server per policy.  Both servers drove the area to insure the non existence of the location. The...

company ran a property search through the Maricopa County Assessor.  Per the assessor, no such address existed. The company ran a "skip trace" and located what appeared to be the correct address for the person the complainant sought to have served.  The company offered to go to the correct address and attempt service.  The complainant insisted that the non existent address existed,  The complainant has insisted that the assessor is wrong.  The complainant has insisted that the servers who drove the area are wrong. Since this incident a review of the court file in this matter was conducted and the person the complainant sought to have served actually filed the correct address with the court in this matter months before complainant sought to have this service done.  There it is. Right in the court file.  The right address. The one we located on the skip trace. The one we offered to go to. The one that does show up on the assessor search.  The one the complainant insists does not exist.  We also gave the documents back to the complainant contrary to her misrepresentation.  It is our hope you will not be dissuaded by the complaint from using our services should you need service attempted in your matter.  But know that it has been our experience that your chances of having successful service occur are better at locations that exist as opposed to those that do not exist. Thank You,Valley-Wide Process Service[redacted]

A review of the complaint makes three very important factors come to mind.  they are as follows. 1) We successfully served the defendant in this matter.  2) We successfully served the defendant in this matter. and finally, 3) We successfully served the defendant in this matter.  The...

complainant inexplicably forgot to mention same in her complaint.  Furthermore in Justice Court serve costs are recoverable so the complainant can have such costs added into her judgment should she prevail on her merits.As for unsuccessful attempts, we are servers not sorcerers.  As for service attempts at a residence as opposed to a workplace, the client instructs us where to serve.  So if this client wanted the residence attempted that's where we go.  When the client engaged our services to attempt service at the workplace we were successful and completed service.  Consider also the incongruity in the complaint. To wit, why if we had done a poor job at a residence address would the client come back to us and pay us again to attempt service at the defendant's workplace where we successfully served the defendant?Additionally it would appear the complainant does not fully understand the concept of "alternative service". Complainant insinuates that by advising her of the ability to apply for "alternative service" that something dirty, sleazy or underhanded on our part was afoot.  To the contrary, we were trying to save complainant some money and assist her in completing her service.  Simply put alternative service refers to the court's ability to make exceptions to its own serve rules on a case by case basis on a showing of good cause via party motion.  So even unsuccessful attempts at service are not necessarily for naught in Arizona. They are considered by the court as to whether good cause exists to make an exception to its standard serve rules.  The courts typically allow service to be had by posting the property and first class mailing.  A review of this file indicates that we posted to provide actual notice to the defendant and that of the attempts made we in fact did hit the "sweet spot"  identified in the complaint by the complainant.  Consider also that when we posted the papers the defendant did not voluntarily file an answer with the court. Perhaps addressing this matter in court may not be at the top of the defendant's to do list?  So basically this complainant opted to pay us to go to the defendant's workplace rather than filing a motion with the court and garnering an alternative service order permitting this defendant to be served by posting the door and first class mailing. Put another way, we laid the groundwork for the complainant to garner service at the residence by simply filing a motion with the court which complainant chose not to do. She obviously preferred to pay us to go to the workplace where we successfully served the defendant.  The complainant can recover from the defendant the cost of both fees.  The unsuccessful attempted service at the residence and the successful service at the workplace.As for our fees.  We have a twenty dollar serve but not all serves are twenty dollars.  We do not hide the ball or play games regarding the services we provide and the price you will pay for those services.  Complainant mentions a conversation whereby she wanted us at the location between 7-8a.m.    We did that as part of the $40.00 serve attempts at the residence.  If a client wants to mandate our presence at a specific place and time, that can cost more because the servers entire route has to be worked around that particular paper.  Complainant did not want to pay for or need a specific time place serve and it is unfair of her to misstate the circumstances surrounding that issue by making it appear we somehow shirked our responsibilities on the residence serve then tried to garner additional fees to do an attempt during what she claimed as her sweet spot.  She got a sweet spot attempt as part of her standard service.We do not wish to insinuate we are not appreciative of complainants business.  We are.  It is how we feed our families.  Your serve is important to us.  Complainants serve is and was important to us.  That is why we worked so hard for her and did such a good job for her by guiding her through a process she appears to not understand well and successfully garnering service upon her defendant.  And again, should she prevail all such service fees are payable by her defendant. Valley-Wide Process Service

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Hello [redacted], thank you for reaching out to me. [redacted] called me and expressed to me that the Due Diligence document is merely his biased opinion of myself and my family (although never meeting us). Assumptions that he has made based on the information given to him by someone that is trying to hurt me and my family. The documentation he provided was in fact forwarded to a judge that will be using that document along with other documents that have false statements regarding my character. Yes, this document does affect me and my case. All that I am asking of [redacted] is to reissue the Due Diligence Documentation stating facts and facts only. No opinion, no assumption, just facts. I am currently battling an unemployment case, wrongful termination case, and an EEOC case... I refuse to allow his Due Diligence Documentation to describe my family and I in such a negative way.
Regards,
[redacted]

I'm a landlord and I was told to be aware of companies like this from other legit process servers, one that I did actually get to serve eviction papers for, there is no reason why someone from this company would not have business contact info at the bottom of their emails, they do this...

completely to scam and hide from people, This so called company without any business person or title in their response is exactly that a scammer When I called them by finding them on the net she said to email her the documents and I did, In the email I asked for her to contact me back by email not phone , when I asked her to supply a contract of exactly what I would be paying for, when searching for cheaper legit process servers I got the same company by calling different numbers? No legit company needs multiple phone numbers, I'm not an it, I could see right through their shadiness, when reaching her again by email   her direct quote was if you don't feel comfortable doing business with us you can do it elsewhere and all I asked her for was for her to email me the contact!!!! What legit company can't  provide a contract of the services they are providing!!!!

Our position in our response is unchanged and our initial response is incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth hereafter.  We would remind the Revdex.com and the Complainant that the complainant considered us to be  "legit process servers" until WE REFUSED HER BUSINESS AND HER MONEY BECAUSE SHE HAD AN ATTITUDE THAT SMELLED OF TROUBLE. So if we are running a hustle for money it is not well conceived.  We have a right to not take someone's business or money.  As evidence that our instincts were correct we cite to her factually unsupported misrepresentations and bold scorched earth allegations which just roll off of her keyboard with no factual support.  Seriously, a complaint because we didn't take her money and her business? A reply to our response wherein we point that out? As to her "new" matters in her reply: We are legit. Our email address is on the correspondence . She had no problem finding us and offering us her business and money which we chose not to accept now did she? She states she requested response by email. False. She used a library email with only documents attached, no message.  Being diligent as we are we had to embark upon a mission to locate her since she had time sensitive documents .  We  got a phone number from her documents. Tried it. It was not taking calls.  We noticed she had emailed not only us but had copied someone else on it as well. Talk about not being easily available where time sensitive document are concerned?  That would be this client. We reached out in the blind twice to that unidentified email and finally got a response from complainant.  She had potentially compromised the service of her papers by her delay. When we pointed this out we encountered belligerence and advised complainant that she should go elsewhere to get her papers served.  That's it.  That's what happened.  We anticipate complainant's reply to our reply to complainants reply to our response to the complaint.  Valley-Wide Process Service[redacted] - Main[redacted] - Fax

Ms. [redacted] can take my previous Revdex.com response to the judge. Ms. [redacted] can subpoena me after consulting with the judge in her administrative matter.  I suspect the judge could care less about whether I think Ms. [redacted] committed the assault as alleged in the restraining order.  It would appear it's sole evidentiary value now is that it exists which means the issuing court found reasonable cause to issue it based on exparte showing by plaintiff.    An astute judge may pick up on the fact that  Ms. [redacted] is aware of the order and has an absolute statutory right to appear and contest said order. That Ms. [redacted] has instead chosen to go with this proposition that a server statement taken out of context has legal significance which it does not. A judge might observe her choice of tilting at a windmill instead of presenting herself to the issuing court and telling her side.  The order of which she complains is issued exparte upon a showing of reasonable cause, a very low evidentiary  threshhold.  However to be maintained if challenged, plaintiff has to carry a burden of proof by preponderance of evidence which is a much higher standard. I don't want to say she is barking up the wrong tree but she is barking up the wrong tree.If she believes the mere conditional statement by a server is a big ticket item, think how compelling if she went head to head with the plaintiff by utilizing the procedure created in law to insure Ms. [redacted]s right to procedural due process by challenging the order.  She can have a full blown hearing where she can present witnesses. If she prevails the court quashes  the order.  That means makes it go bye bye.  I did not mean to take a position on the guilt or innocence of Ms. [redacted].  I used qualifying language meant to convey to my client that it may not be prudent for her to pay me more money for additional attempts of service.  The document of v which Ms. [redacted] complains is going to be in front of an administrative law judge on an issue as to whether Ms. [redacted] is entitled to unemployment based on wrongful termination I think. So ask the judge if he intends to attach any legal relevance to the statement by the server she is so concerned about. If the judge believes it is relevant then the parties can call me as witness and grill me in front of the judge.  My suspicion is the judge will not see any legal relevance to the matter at hand and will not want to waste time hearing from me.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Hello [redacted],
thank you for reaching out to me. [redacted] called me and expressed to me that the Due Diligence document is merely his biased opinion of myself and my family (although never meeting us). Assumptions that he has made based on the information given to him by someone that is trying to hurt me and my family. The documentation he provided was in fact forwarded to a judge that will be using that document along with other documents that have false statements regarding my character. Yes, this document does affect me and my case. All that I am asking of [redacted] is to reissue the Due Diligence Documentation stating facts and facts only. No opinion, no assumption, just facts. I am currently battling an unemployment case, wrongful termination case, and an EEOC case... I refuse to allow his Due Diligence Documentation to describe my family and I in such a negative way.
Regards,
[redacted]

I hired them to serve a complaint for me. After 2 weeks with no word from them I called in and asked for an update. I was told that the complaint was "out for service" and they had no additional information. A week later I called again and was given the same answer. I asked if they had any way of verifying that service was actually being attempted and they said no. I asked if they had any way of knowing if the job had fallen through the cracks. They said no. I asked them to look into it and give me a call back. The best they said they could do is tell me to call back in a few days.

They gave me the excuse that they had been changing systems and had a lot of employee turnover recently. They said it was a headache. I agree. Working with them is a headache.

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Hello [redacted],
thank you for reaching out to me. [redacted] called me and expressed to me that the Due Diligence document is merely his biased opinion of myself and my family (although never meeting us). Assumptions that he has made based on the information given to him by someone that is trying to hurt me and my family. The documentation he provided was in fact forwarded to a judge that will be using that document along with other documents that have false statements regarding my character. Yes, this document does affect me and my case. All that I am asking of [redacted] is to reissue the Due Diligence Documentation stating facts and facts only. No opinion, no assumption, just facts. I am currently battling an unemployment case, wrongful termination case, and an EEOC case... I refuse to allow his Due Diligence Documentation to describe my family and I in such a negative way.

Regards,

The document of which Ms. [redacted] complains is a Due Diligence document.  It is used when service of the document has not occurred.  Accordingly, I had attempted to serve her with a restraining order a court had issued. I was unsuccessful.  The document she references was only sent...

to my client, not any court and it is not of record with the issuing court.  Nor is the restraining order of public record in the issuing court since it has not been served.  As for my statement regarding evassiveness, ** told me he was ms [redacted]s cousin and was going to get her.  Ms [redacted] told me ** is her son and actually went to get her husband.  Husband therefor avoided contact and used ** rather than talking with me and attempting to get a hold of ms. [redacted] with an eye toward accepting service. Please note, since ms. [redacted] is now aware of the restraining order she could voluntarily appear and challenge it in front of the judge that issued it.  I used conditional language when communicating to my client, ie "may". I take no position as to whether ms [redacted] committed the acts as alleged in the restraining order. I did not mean for it to appear I was taking a position on that issue in my statement of non service.

Ms. [redacted] can take my previous Revdex.com response to the judge. Ms. [redacted] can subpoena me after consulting with the judge in her administrative matter.  I suspect the judge could care less about whether I think Ms. [redacted] committed the assault as alleged in the restraining order.  It would appear it's sole evidentiary value now is that it exists which means the issuing court found reasonable cause to issue it based on exparte showing by plaintiff.    An astute judge may pick up on the fact that  Ms. [redacted] is aware of the order and has an absolute statutory right to appear and contest said order. That Ms. [redacted] has instead chosen to go with this proposition that a server statement taken out of context has legal significance which it does not. A judge might observe her choice of tilting at a windmill instead of presenting herself to the issuing court and telling her side.  The order of which she complains is issued exparte upon a showing of reasonable cause, a very low evidentiary  threshhold.  However to be maintained if challenged, plaintiff has to carry a burden of proof by preponderance of evidence which is a much higher standard. I don't want to say she is barking up the wrong tree but she is barking up the wrong tree.If she believes the mere conditional statement by a server is a big ticket item, think how compelling if she went head to head with the plaintiff by utilizing the procedure created in law to insure Ms. [redacted]s right to procedural due process by challenging the order.  She can have a full blown hearing where she can present witnesses. If she prevails the court quashes  the order.  That means makes it go bye bye.  I did not mean to take a position on the guilt or innocence of Ms. [redacted].  I used qualifying language meant to convey to my client that it may not be prudent for her to pay me more money for additional attempts of service.  The document of v which Ms. [redacted] complains is going to be in front of an administrative law judge on an issue as to whether Ms. [redacted] is entitled to unemployment based on wrongful termination I think. So ask the judge if he intends to attach any legal relevance to the statement by the server she is so concerned about. If the judge believes it is relevant then the parties can call me as witness and grill me in front of the judge.  My suspicion is the judge will not see any legal relevance to the matter at hand and will not want to waste time hearing from me.

Review: [redacted] provided my previous employers with a Declaration of Due Diligence (written documentation) claiming to have been at my home 7 times within 3/7/15 and 3/15/15 to serve me with an Injunction. I was never served with the Injunction and it wasn't until today 6/25/15 that I received this paperwork in the mail from my previous employers to prove that they actually filed the Injunction. I was definitely home with my 2 younger children during the dates and times he claims to have tried to serve me. The very last date and time he mentions he tried to serve me, I was actually not home. When I had arrived home for the evening, my 17 year old son and my husband told me someone named [redacted] came to my home looking for me. [redacted] made false accusations regarding my family's intent and my character on his Declaration. I'm pretty sure that what he notated on his Declaration (which will be used by the Plaintiff during my hearing on Monday) is definitely Defamation of Character. I have never met this gentleman and he has never met me. He does not even know if the information provided by the Plaintiff was viable information. Yet, he claims on the actual Declaration: "On last visit encountered "**" supposedly defendants cousin, extremely evasive; Spoke through security screen door and initially acted like defendant was there inside, then "**" said defendant was not there: Believe they may be on guard because of defendants misconduct;".... Again, [redacted] does not know me and does not know my character to make these assumptions on this paperwork that is going to be utilized against me on the Plaintiff's behalf in court. I find his actions very unprofessional, without cause, and defamation of character on legal documents. Very dirty... very, very dirtyDesired Settlement: I want him to put the actual dates and times he attempted to serve me with this paperwork and I want him to remove all ignorant statements placed on this paperwork. The judge has already received the copy he has presented for my unemployment appeal happening on Monday, but I still want it corrected. And I want the corrected paperwork delivered to my previous employer and to myself for my wrongful termination/EEOC lawsuit against my previous employer.

Business

Response:

The document of which Ms. [redacted] complains is a Due Diligence document. It is used when service of the document has not occurred. Accordingly, I had attempted to serve her with a restraining order a court had issued. I was unsuccessful. The document she references was only sent to my client, not any court and it is not of record with the issuing court. Nor is the restraining order of public record in the issuing court since it has not been served. As for my statement regarding evassiveness, ** told me he was ms [redacted]s cousin and was going to get her. Ms [redacted] told me ** is her son and actually went to get her husband. Husband therefor avoided contact and used ** rather than talking with me and attempting to get a hold of ms. [redacted] with an eye toward accepting service. Please note, since ms. [redacted] is now aware of the restraining order she could voluntarily appear and challenge it in front of the judge that issued it. I used conditional language when communicating to my client, ie "may". I take no position as to whether ms [redacted] committed the acts as alleged in the restraining order. I did not mean for it to appear I was taking a position on that issue in my statement of non service.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Hello [redacted], thank you for reaching out to me. [redacted] called me and expressed to me that the Due Diligence document is merely his biased opinion of myself and my family (although never meeting us). Assumptions that he has made based on the information given to him by someone that is trying to hurt me and my family. The documentation he provided was in fact forwarded to a judge that will be using that document along with other documents that have false statements regarding my character. Yes, this document does affect me and my case. All that I am asking of [redacted] is to reissue the Due Diligence Documentation stating facts and facts only. No opinion, no assumption, just facts. I am currently battling an unemployment case, wrongful termination case, and an EEOC case... I refuse to allow his Due Diligence Documentation to describe my family and I in such a negative way.

Regards,

Business

Response:

Ms. [redacted] can take my previous Revdex.com response to the judge. Ms. [redacted] can subpoena me after consulting with the judge in her administrative matter. I suspect the judge could care less about whether I think Ms. [redacted] committed the assault as alleged in the restraining order. It would appear it's sole evidentiary value now is that it exists which means the issuing court found reasonable cause to issue it based on exparte showing by plaintiff. An astute judge may pick up on the fact that Ms. [redacted] is aware of the order and has an absolute statutory right to appear and contest said order. That Ms. [redacted] has instead chosen to go with this proposition that a server statement taken out of context has legal significance which it does not. A judge might observe her choice of tilting at a windmill instead of presenting herself to the issuing court and telling her side. The order of which she complains is issued exparte upon a showing of reasonable cause, a very low evidentiary threshhold. However to be maintained if challenged, plaintiff has to carry a burden of proof by preponderance of evidence which is a much higher standard. I don't want to say she is barking up the wrong tree but she is barking up the wrong tree.If she believes the mere conditional statement by a server is a big ticket item, think how compelling if she went head to head with the plaintiff by utilizing the procedure created in law to insure Ms. [redacted]s right to procedural due process by challenging the order. She can have a full blown hearing where she can present witnesses. If she prevails the court quashes the order. That means makes it go bye bye. I did not mean to take a position on the guilt or innocence of Ms. [redacted]. I used qualifying language meant to convey to my client that it may not be prudent for her to pay me more money for additional attempts of service. The document of v which Ms. [redacted] complains is going to be in front of an administrative law judge on an issue as to whether Ms. [redacted] is entitled to unemployment based on wrongful termination I think. So ask the judge if he intends to attach any legal relevance to the statement by the server she is so concerned about. If the judge believes it is relevant then the parties can call me as witness and grill me in front of the judge. My suspicion is the judge will not see any legal relevance to the matter at hand and will not want to waste time hearing from me.

DO NOT USE THIS COMPANY.
I sent an affidavit to be served on January 22. They company did not even attempt service until January 26. Valley Wide also claimed they would attempt service 5 times over a 10 day period. That would make their deadline for all five attempts February 1. They did not even make a second attempt until February 4 and the fifth and final attempt was not until February 25, over a month later.
After stating they were unable to serve my affidavit (I had to call to find this out, they did not notify me), Valley-Wide also claimed they would send me a Declaration stating that they had attempted service. I called 4-5 times throughout February and they indicated the Declaration was already in the mail. Note, the last service attempt they have listed is February 25, which is weeks after they told me I should expect the Declaration. That means that 2-3 times I called, I was deliberately lied to about the status of service.
Finally, three days before the hearing to which the affidavit relates, I called again and they agreed to email me the Declaration because mailing had been so "unsuccessful". When I received said Declaration, is was messy, not scanned straight, and included several typos. I will not use Valley-Wide again.

Review: Needed to have ex husband served with court papers. Contacted them two weeks ago. I informed them of the deadline of 10/29/2013 as the last date he must be served by (a date specified by the Court). I also informed them when it would be best to reach him (ie his schedule). When I checked in with Valleywide (East Valley phone number), I was not only informed they still havent served him but that they also picked the time of days when I told them he would NOT be home. They never tried to serve him on the days/times when I said for certain he would be home. The lady answering the phone, would not put a supervisor or manager on the phone. If they were not goint to be able to attempt to serve him on the schedule I provided then this should have been mentioned up front so that I could find a diffferent process server. Now he hasnt been served by the deadline, and Im out $$$ for nothing. I will now have to go back to the court for a new date (and perhaps pay an additional fee) and then find another process server who can get the job done.Desired Settlement: Serve him today (10/29/2013) or provide a refund.

Business

Response:

January 15, 2014