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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 26th, 2012 @ 7:36am

    Like many people on the internet, Carreon got ninja'd.

    And this is a ninja lawyer, which is even worse.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 26th, 2012 @ 7:53am

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Lurker Keith, Nov 26th, 2012 @ 7:57am

    You Scooped Popehat

    Nice, you beat Ken on this one. Nicely done.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Nov 26th, 2012 @ 8:02am

    "I'm sorry your honor, but my computer exploded, my office flooded, my..."

    Now that he's been legally served, I cannot wait to see what shenanigans he pulls to avoid actually going to court. I foresee a whole parade of 'I'm sick', 'My car broke down', 'The dog ate my court papers' and so-on.

    Let the anticipatory popcorn popping commence!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Nov 26th, 2012 @ 8:11am

      Re: "I'm sorry your honor, but my computer exploded, my office flooded, my..."

      Yep I expect this to be the thing. I'm surprised he even got served must have thought they were something else. I'm sure there's going to be even more shenanigans.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Tunnen (profile), Nov 26th, 2012 @ 8:43am

        Re: Re: "I'm sorry your honor, but my computer exploded, my office flooded, my..."

        Your Honor, I wasn't served. That man was a doppelganger, I left the building via the sewer where I know my way around.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 26th, 2012 @ 8:09am

    Shouldn't it be illegal to knowingly and intentionally avoid being served? If I can't be served in a timely fashion because I'm vacationing in Asia is one thing, but what Carreons been doing should at the least justified an officer showing up to ensure he gets served. If I remember right, they've been doing silly things like refusing to answer the door and immediately hanging up the phone.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Gee, Nov 26th, 2012 @ 8:12am

      Re:

      Yes it should be, but the USA isn't made up of law that follow common sense.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Nov 26th, 2012 @ 8:14am

      Re:

      Certainly pretty crappy of him. Not sure its illegal to avoid being served. If word gets to the judge they should be pretty annoyed he was trying to evade the legal system he's supposed to be representing.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Sneeje (profile), Nov 26th, 2012 @ 9:02am

        Re: Re:

        It isn't illegal per se. However, if it can be shown that more than reasonable efforts have been made to serve and that service is being deliberately refused, the judge in the case can take further actions. Perhaps Mr. Carreon feels confident in his ability to thumb his nose at a judge, but in general it does not work in your favor.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      btr1701 (profile), Nov 26th, 2012 @ 3:53pm

      Re:

      > If I remember right, they've been doing
      > 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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    nospacesorspecialcharacters (profile), Nov 26th, 2012 @ 8:14am

    Are you being served?

    Watching the shenanigans from the other side of the pond (and behind the invisible fence) the concept of 'being served' is odd to me.

    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!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Nov 26th, 2012 @ 8:25am

      Re: Are you being served?

      You actually can do some pretty crappy things to avoid being served (gated community is often the hardest one because you are not allowed to trespass so all they have to do is not sign for the mail). Even those crappy settlement letters if you somehow know they are coming you could just refuse them and therefore haven't seen them. Its pretty silly but if someone is determined as this guy is it can get pretty hard to serve them. Corporations have a bit of favor so its harder to avoid being served by them. However if someone is trying to serve you just don't sign for mail and ignore all letters they send.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Lurker Keith, Nov 26th, 2012 @ 10:27am

      Re: Are you being served?

      The US has an infatuation w/ paperwork. The court system is overloaded w/ the stuff. Our country requires proper notice in order to be required to go to court on a specific day (court dates here aren't set in a predictable manner, so you have to be told somehow). Usually, that notice is in paper so there is a paper trail.

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        nospacesorspecialcharacters (profile), Nov 26th, 2012 @ 12:10pm

        Re: Re: Are you being served?

        Thanks foot the info guys. For a UK court all they require is proof of a first class postage to consider someone having been summoned, so there's less of a chance you can escape the bureaucracy... That even means being tried in absence.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          John Fenderson (profile), Nov 26th, 2012 @ 12:20pm

          Re: Re: Re: Are you being served?

          In spite of the room for shenanigans it allows, I like the US system better. It's entirely possible for a properly mailed & delivered letter to nonetheless not reach the recipient, in which case we'd end up with someone 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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            btr1701 (profile), Nov 26th, 2012 @ 4:02pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you being served?

            > in which case we'd end up with someone
            > 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.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      btr1701 (profile), Nov 26th, 2012 @ 3:58pm

      Re: 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

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 26th, 2012 @ 8:24am

    and dont forget Carreon's wife's role in this. she helped him no end!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Nov 26th, 2012 @ 8:38am

    "After Mr. Carreon told my co-counsel, Mr. Levy, that he was unwilling to expose himself to service..."

    He was probably afraid of being laughed at again.



    Carreon.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Gee, Nov 26th, 2012 @ 8:41am

    I imagine the serving went something like this


    http://i.imgur.com/KfsOv.jpg

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Trails (profile), Nov 26th, 2012 @ 9:09am

    Another obligatory

    "Dig up, stupid!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 26th, 2012 @ 9:13am

    I wouldn't be too surprised that this guy will say that he wasn't served and will continue as normal. If it comes down to his word against her word and without no other witnesses it may be difficult to prove that he was served.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Nov 26th, 2012 @ 9:18am

      Re:

      If she had given him the documents and served him in front of the Judge at the courthouse then I wonder excsues he would come up to get out of it with a Judge as a witness to the serving.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Lurker Keith, Nov 26th, 2012 @ 10:33am

      Re:

      If he plays dumb (does that phrase still work w/ this moron?), they can probably just get the Security Camera video from the court house. Also, I'm sure there were plenty of witnesses.

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Michael, Nov 26th, 2012 @ 9:56am

    Serving Carreon

    I may have turkey on my mind, but the headline just made me think this idiot was finally cooked up and given to a group of cannibals.

    Perhaps it was just wishful thinking.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Nov 26th, 2012 @ 4:56pm

    Mike, you have to stop and think about it.
    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This