Charles Carreon Finally Gets Served
from the about-freaking-time dept
When last we checked in on "just keep digging" lawyer Charles Carreon, he had been hiding out in his Arizona home, purposely avoiding getting served for the lawsuit filed against him by a parodist blogger who Carreon had been threatening to sue. Carreon had promised to wait until people weren't paying attention any more and then to sue, so the blogger sued first for declaratory judgment. Carreon has been consistently refusing to be served, while emailing Paul Levy, one of the two lawyers representing the blogger, to say that there's no reason to serve him since he has no interest in proceeding. Of course, he says that now, despite the very specific claims in his threats... and despite the fact that Carreon specifically sought to get the blogger fired by contacting the blogger's employer.Thankfully, as Adam Steinbaugh alerts us, Charles Carreon finally got served by the other lawyer on the case, Cathy Gellis, who realized that Carreon was due to appear in court for a different case, and decided to stop by herself. You can read the full (brief) saga in Gellis' filing (pdf):
On November 15, 2012, I personally served defendant the Summons and Amended Complaint in this case on defendant Charles Carreon. After Mr. Carreon told my co-counsel, Mr. Levy, that he was unwilling to expose himself to service (a copy of his email is attached as Exhibit A), I verified that he was scheduled to present oral argument on November 15 in a case pending before Judge Chen. I went to Judge Chen's courtroom in the Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. At 10:15 Mr. Carreon's matter was called, and he identified himself to the court. At 10:50 his hearing concluded. I waited in the hall for Mr. Carreon to leave the courtroom, which he did by 10:55. When he did, I addressed him by name and said I had a summons and complaint for him. He extended his arm and took them. Service thus complete, I left the courthouse.Boom. And now, hopefully, that case can move forward and the court can make it clear to Carreon that he cannot sue the blogger. Nicely done, Cathy -- though, I'm partially (jokingly) steamed that I saw her the very next day at a conference and she didn't even mention her adventures from the previous day.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: charles carreon, served
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And this is a ninja lawyer, which is even worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You Scooped Popehat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I'm sorry your honor, but my computer exploded, my office flooded, my..."
Let the anticipatory popcorn popping commence!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "I'm sorry your honor, but my computer exploded, my office flooded, my..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "I'm sorry your honor, but my computer exploded, my office flooded, my..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> silly things like refusing to answer the
> door and immediately hanging up the phone.
So you're advocating that it should either be a crime not to answer your door/phone or the police should have the authority to break it down if you don't, just to hand you a summons in a civil case?
I never answer my door unless I know who's on the other side of it because I don't like having to deal with every other kid in the neighborhood selling candy or magazines or whatever. I likewise don't answer my phone unless I recognize the number, because I don't like being telemarketed to.
I guess that would make me a criminal if your suggestion ever became law, because that knock on my door might be a process server and I'd be legally obligated to open it and find out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you being served?
I've seen it on movies, where someone goes to extreme lengths to 'serve' papers to someone else but can anyone explain this concept to me. Presumably if you can somehow prevent someone handing you a portfolio of papers then you can evade justice?
Also, how does this differ to a letter offering settlement for copyright infringement etc...?
Genuine questions!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you being served?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you being served?
The notice includes trial date & what charges are being brought (among other things I'm not going to look up to list).
It's called Due Process, which has roots in the Constitution. Being Served likely evolved out of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth & Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_of_process
As has been said, if a Judge thinks sufficient attempts to serve the papers has been made, he can override the requirement. Since Chuckles, being a "lawyer", could be found the moment he had to appear in a court in person (& since most court proceedings are public record, could easily be discovered), such "sufficient attempts" had not been met until now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are you being served?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Are you being served?
I'd prefer guilty people go free if that means that innocent people don't go to jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you being served?
> being unfairly charged with failing to
> appear at a court date they knew nothing about.
> I'd prefer guilty people go free if that
> means that innocent people don't go to jail.
We're talking about civil cases here. No one's going to jail. Worst that could happen is that if you miss the court hearing, the other side gets a default judgment against you.
Criminal cases aren't 'served' by process servers. The cops either arrest you outright, or a grand jury hands down an indictment, which instructs the cops to go find you and arrest you. Either way, you're unlikely to not notice you've been 'served' as they lead you away in handcuffs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you being served?
> goes to extreme lengths to 'serve'
> papers to someone else but can anyone
> explain this concept to me
One of my favorite cases in law school involved a defendant like this who kept evading service. Service in this case had to take place within the court's jurisdiction to be valid. Eventually, the plaintiffs found out he'd be on a cross-country flight and the process server booked a seat on the same flight. When the plane was over the state in which the court was located, the process server got up and walked over to the defendant and served him at 35,000 feet.
He threw a legal fit over it, but the court ruled that he was properly served within the court's jurisdiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He was probably afraid of being laughed at again.
Carreon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://i.imgur.com/KfsOv.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another obligatory
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure it's a crime not to answer a Summons one you've been Served, & is likely an ethics violation for Lawyers, which may be grounds for disbarment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Serving Carreon
Perhaps it was just wishful thinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ms. Gellis was probably so awed having been in the presence of THE Charles Carreon...
that she felt an immediate need to bathe, and much like other traumatic event survivors blocked the horrifying memory out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]