answered: Please fix any grammer or any other errors in this. Notified

  

Please fix any grammer or any other errors in this.
Notified of judicial summons.
On Friday, October 13, 2022 while performing a desk audit at client name st. 1 of our supervisors observed a folder addressed to José Ramirez. Upon looking inside the envelope he observed the contents appeared to be a subpoena.It is not uncommon for our staff at this location to receive subpoenas for crimes they have witnessed or arrests they have made However we have no employees or security officers by that name. Upon removing to try and locate its directed recipient supervisor observe the contents was actually three judicial summons for José Ramirez and supervisor name and company name. Company name does not have an employee by the name of José Ramirez going back at least five years of records. Supervisor then researched and found out that the summons was delivered to this nonrelated clients address . on September 20, 2022. The individual who was operating the front counter of client name at this time stated that he notified the process server which worked for the LA County Sheriff’s Department that he did not know a José Ramirez . And had no way to provide them or notify them of the summons however it was left anyway. He then stated that the process server then went back to their vehicle and brought back two more subpoenas and laid them all on the counter. He observed that the second subpoena was for a Thomas Paul White and stated he did not know this individual either and had no way of identifying this person however the process server stated that they did not care. Eli gathered all three subpoenas then placed in a secure drawer assuming the recipients would come down to receive them. they remained in the store until our supervisor perform the desk audit and promptly management staff on the morning of Friday, October 13, 2022
briefing of summons
Summons states that José Ramirez company name. and managers name are being sued. The complaint Cecil Elmore states that mid February 2021 a yes security officer by the name of José Ramirez was an acting security officer a client name located at client address . Mr. Elmore continues that on or just before February 18th 2021 security officer José Ramirez provided a incident report of unknown but untrue contents which resulted in a member of the management staff named Wendy contrary filing a restraining order against him. He then states that he can verify that this report was untrue due to the restraining order not being granted and incident report and video footage of incident not being provided to the court. He also states that said restraining order caused him undue stress pain and loss of wages. He believes that the filing of the restraining order was actually retaliatory action orchestrated by management due to lawsuits he had filed against the property and its property management.
investigation results.
Upon a detailed review of this complaint we have found it completely without merit. Company name does not have a security officer or employee by the name of José Ramirez nor have we ever had a security guard or employee by that name working at the incident client name. In addition we see no incident reports involving Mr. Elmore before April 2022. A non-incident activity report #500502 was generated by a security guard by the name of José Bermudez on February 17, 2021 at approximately 5:08pm. We have included a copy of this report. This report merely describes security officer Bermudez lobby activities during this time. Though Mr.Elmore appeared agitated there was no perceived threats to himself or the management staff. Mr. Elmore’s actions in no way describe the level of threat which would warrant the issuance of a restraining order.as we have no staff member by the name of the wine which he has issued the summons it is our presumption that he is referring to Mr. Bermudez report. Security officer Bermudez was completely unaware of the court case date Mr. Elmore describes and was never requested to act as a witness, provide sworn testimony . Company name and its security staff members in addition have no access other than live feed to the properties video surveillance system. reviewing recording and providing access to properties video footage solely of responsibility and within the capabilities of property management. Guard Name and security staff members would not have been requested to provide video footage nore would they have ever had the capabilities to do so.