Ederr, Suzanne

From: Kellum, Susan G

Sent: Monday, February 01,20102:18 PM
To: Ederr, Suzanne
Subject: FW: Certified Process Server Issue - Camille Cavallo

Okay I have been calling you since 9:30 and no response. So I will go on with work .....

Are you going to b sending another letter over to Camille

From: Cary, G. Keith

Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 12:52 PM
To: Ederr, Suzanne
Cc: Kellum, Susan G; Bauer, Terri
Subject: RE: Certified Process Server Issue - Camille Cavallo

I like this new work out, I am in agreement.

G. Keith Cary
239-533-9140

From: Ederr, Suzanne

Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 5:20 PM
To: Cary, G. Keith
Cc: Kellum, Susan G; Bauer, Terri
Subject: RE: Certified Process Server Issue - Camille Cavallo

« File: LetterGKC - Cavallo1.docx» « File: Cavallo-Camille.doc»

Judge:

One more minor twist .. .. Corporate Counsel for ProVest sent a 6 page letter seeking guidance as to how they can save
their 300 plus served summonses. One thing that they do point out is that the list posted on our website did include Ms.
nd
Cavallo which means that she was technically on the Chief Judge's list as of Jan.22 • I have since had the list pulled off
of the website and we will post the new one for 2010 next week. In looking at the old list that was posted, I note that it
does NOT indicate 2009 in the title, and so I guess ProVest sort of has a point in that she was still on the list as of Jan.
nd
22 • That doesn't cure the fact the Ms. Cavallo didn't sign a new oath and served process using her expired card, with
total disregard, and does not change my recommendation. But, it does give me an idea as to how we may be able to
help out ProVest.

I'm thinking that in addition to not including Ms. Cavallo on the 2010 list, we can also use language that REVOKES her
appointment effective January 22, 2010, 11:59 p.m. We do need to do a revocation order anyway and we can just
rd
specify the effective date in the order of Jan. 22 rather than Jan. 1st. I do not know for sure if this will cure the legal
issue of whether service was defective, but it will most certainly give the Plaintiffs/ ProVest a very strong argument
should someone challenge service of process . .. Ms. Cavallo was appointed to the Chief Judge's list of certified process
rd
servers and that appointment wasn't revoked until Jan. 22 • We don't have to ((extend" her 2009 appointment or
somehow deal with the issue of having her sign and backdate an oath to cover Jan. 1 thru Jan. 22.

1
 Susie was able to pull the letter that you signed on Thursday before it was sent out, and I amended the letter just slightly
to add in

I am denying your request to be added to the Twentieth Judicial Circuit's List of Certified Process Servers for
2010, and I am revoking your appointment effective January 22. 2010. 11:59 p.m.

I've also prepared an order revoking her appointment effective Jan.22, 11:59 p.m.

Please let me know if these meet with your approval. Also, when we post the new list next week, you can be sure that it
will include language to clarify that it is the list for 2010 and that it is valid through Dec. 31, 2010 only.

- Suzanne

From: Ederr, Suzanne

Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 1:19 PM
To: Cary, G. Keith
Cc: Kellum, Susan G
Subject: Certified Process Server Issue - Camille Cavallo

« File: LetterGKC - Cavallol.docx »

CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO RULE 2.420

Judge Cary:

Here's an update on the Certified Process Server issue. I spoke to Ms.Cavallo and asked her to sign an affidavit attesting
to the fact that she hasn't been serving since her card expired on Dec.31 ...she paused, then said she couldn't because
she has been serving. It gets worse ... I spoke to the contracts manager for Provest, Melody Bulso, and she reports
st
that Ms.Cavallo has served at least 300 summonses for them during the 1 3 weeks of January. The only reason that
st t
Ms.Cavallo began inquiring as to her new card on Jan.21 was because on Jan.20 h , Ms. Bulso told her they wanted to
see her "license." Provest does ask all their servers for copies of their updated cards and, when they did so this year,
Ms.Cavallo was the only one unable to produce a 2010 card. Provest is now in a bit of a tailspin because they now have
to re-serve those 300 summonses ...they have requested some sort of accommodation such as perhaps extending Ms.
st
Cavallo's prior license only through Jan.21 so as to cure all of those services, but I don't think you have the authority to
do so. I don't see how we can, in good faith, "extend" her prior license unless we could somehow backdate a new oath,
which I don't think would be appropriate. Ms. Bulso is now having problems in getting Ms.Cavallo to contact them (Ms.
Cavallo will not return Ms.Bulso's calls), and Provest will no longer use her, regardless of whether she gets her
certification back. Ms.Bulso also confirmed that even though she didn't personally have any negative experiences with
Ms.Cavallo, she has heard through the grapevine that she is trouble.

When I spoke to Ms.Cavallo, she kept trying to blame it on Ernie because she couldn't get in touch with him and she
t
didn't know where to pick up her card. Ernie says she never called him after he spoke to her on Dec.1z h , until she
st t
called him on Jan.21 . Ms.Cavallo admits that Ernie called her on Dec.12 h and told her to pick up her card, and, after
some prodding, she admitted that he did in fact give her the address of where to pick up her card. Then, her excuse for
not knowing where to pick up the card was that she was "in the field" and couldn't write down the address at that time.
Ms.Cavallo has been on the list since the beginning and she did renew last year, so she knew that she had to sign a new
oath each year and get a new card. Her excuse then was that she was allowed last year to pick up her card a few days
st
after Jan.1 , but to our knowledge she hadn't been serving process during those few days. Plus, a few days is a lot
different than a few weeks and 300 summonses! (P.S. There are still a few process servers who have not picked up

2
their card, but Ernie knows they haven't been actively serving and is insisting that they sign an affidavit attesting to that
fact prior to handing over their cards.)

At the conclusion of my conversation with Ms.Cavallo, I told her that I couldn't promise her anything and that serving
process l!sing an expired card and without signing a new oath was a real problem, but to go ahead and send you a letter.
I have reviewed her letter and find that she makes things worse, not better, with that letter. After all of her admissions
and after I had already more-or-Iess lectured her about this being her responsibility, she says "I was unaware that I was
to pick up my Process Server I dentification Card and what location before the end of the year./I Then, she says that "due
to conflict in schedule was not able to make a meeting with the gentleman./I She never even tried to schedule a meeting
with Ernie. Ernie says that he believes that she is on the 12th Circuit's list, so this is not a situation in which this is
necessarily her sole source of income.

Based on my information and conversation with Ms.Cavallo, I believe that it is probably not in our best interest to bend
over backwards to make some exception for her. I've drafted a proposed letter for your review. Once you've had an
opportunity to consider this matter, let me know if you agree or would like to take a different approach.

Thank you,

Suzanne