BY ELAINE GOODMAN
Daily Post Correspondent
Former San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus has allegedly dodged process servers in a lawsuit claiming she damaged a sheriff’s captain’s reputation by spreading rumors that he was having an affair.
Capt. Eamonn Allen filed the defamation lawsuit against Corpus and the county in December, saying allegations that he had an affair with Corpus’ former assistant “are entirely false.” When the lawsuit was revised in April, Allen’s attorneys tried serving Corpus with the revisions and a summons.
But multiple attempts to serve Corpus with the legal papers at her home were unsuccessful, as were attempts by mail, according to Allen’s lawyers, Young Park and Tara Hattendorf of Justice for Workers. Allen’s lawyers even emailed attorneys representing Corpus on another case, asking if they could be served with the legal papers in Allen’s case on her behalf. But the attorneys allegedly didn’t respond to the initial email and six follow-up messages.
Now Allen’s attorneys are asking Judge Nancy Fineman if process can be served another way, such as by sending a notice to Corpus’ email addresses or publishing the summons in a newspaper.
“The unsuccessful attempts to serve defendant Corpus appears to be a result of defendant Corpus’ attempt to avoid service and delay the process,” Allen’s attorneys told the judge in a filing.
Fineman will hold a hearing on the request Nov. 17 in San Mateo County Superior Court.
Valerie Barnes case
This isn’t the first time Corpus has allegedly avoided process servers. In a case where Corpus is being sued by her former assistant, Valerie Barnes, a process server tried to contact Corpus at her San Bruno home six times over two weeks. But no one answered the door, even when lights were on at the house and a car was in the driveway, according to court records in the case.
Corpus’ attorney, Wilson Leung of Murphy, Pearson, Bradley and Feeney, agreed to accept service on her behalf in the Barnes case.
In her lawsuit, Barnes accused Corpus of retaliating against her after Barnes questioned the sheriff’s plans to hire Victor Aenlle, Corpus’ alleged romantic partner who had worked on her election campaign. A case management conference is scheduled for Sept. 30.
Leung was one of five attorneys at MPBF who were emailed as a group to see if they’d accept service on behalf of Corpus in Allen’s case, according to Allen’s lawyers.
In addition to the emails, a process server hired by Allen’s attorneys visited Corpus’ San Bruno home 11 times from April 25 to May 14 to try to serve the legal papers.
Dogs bark but nobody answers
Dogs were barking inside the house during most of those visits and a car matching Allen’s description of Corpus’ vehicle was often in the driveway. But no one answered the door.
Allen’s attorneys tried sending the documents by certified mail. But the U.S. Postal Service said it couldn’t deliver the package because an authorized signer wasn’t there, the attorneys said.
The package was also sent by First Class mail with instructions to sign the included forms and send them back in a prepaid envelope. The forms were never returned, Allen’s lawyers said.
The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors removed Corpus from office in October 2025 amid allegations of retaliation, misconduct and abuse of power, stemming from an alleged relationship with her chief of staff, Victor Aenlle.
Allen’s lawsuit said he faced retaliation after he “took a stand against Sheriff Corpus,” including participating in a vote of no confidence against Corpus in November 2024. Allen also cooperated with retired Judge LaDoris Cordell in an investigation into Corpus’ activities.
The lawsuit said that in April 2025, Corpus, “in her official capacity as sheriff,” falsely informed a sergeant of an alleged affair between Allen and Barnes.
That and other “baseless accusations jeopardized Capt. Allen’s reputation and standing within his community” and also distressed his wife.
Corpus has not filed a response to the lawsuit.
In a response filed in May, San Mateo County raised a number of “affirmative defenses” — issues that, if true, would show why Allen shouldn’t win the case or should get less than he’s asking.
In its affirmative defenses, the county questioned whether Allen had exhausted collective bargaining grievance procedures and whether any harm he suffered should be covered by workers’ compensation rather than in a lawsuit.
Be the first to comment