PS Docket No. MD-111


March 18, 1991 


In the Matter of the Mail Dispute Between:

JOSE RALPH CARRERO
and
JOSE LUIS ANTMAN

PS Docket No. MD-111

03/18/91

Grant, Quentin E., Chief Administrative Law Judge

APPEARANCE FOR JOSE RALPH CARRERO: John Diaz Coker, Esq.,
525 Marina Boulevard, Pittsburg, CA 94565-2102

APPEARANCE FOR JOSE LUIS ANTMAN: Christopher R. Lucas, Esq.,
2300 Clayton Road, Suite 520, Concord, CA 94520-2100

INITIAL DECISION

The Office of Field Legal Services, Western Division, United States Postal Service, has forwarded this mail dispute for resolution pursuant to Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) § 153.72 and 39 C.F.R. Part 965.

Disputant Jose Ralph Carrero has filed a sworn statement with supporting exhibits pursuant to § 965.5 of the Rules of Practice. Submittal and comment on behalf of disputant Jose Luis Antman have been filed by Robert N. Castellon, the partner of Mr. Antman in La Nueva Prensa de California. Carrero's counsel has objected to Castellon's submittal as not conforming to the requirement of § 965.5 that it be sworn. It does conform, however, to 26 U.S.C. § 1746 as an unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury and is, therefore, receivable in this dispute.

The following findings of fact are based on the relevant portions of the submittals and comments of the parties as well as the documents furnished by them to the Concord postmaster.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On June 15, 1990, disputant Jose Ralph Carrero and one Walter H. Sanchez, as general partners, commenced a newspaper business under the name La Prensa de California (La Prensa) at 1290 "B" Monument Blvd., Concord, CA 94520.

2. In August 1990, Robert H. Castellon became a general partner in La Prensa, investing $5500 therein, and was named editor and manager of the newspaper.

3. Disputes with Carrero over his handling of partnership funds and other matters led Castellon and Sanchez to dissolve the partnership in September 1990 and to lock Carrero out of the business premises.

4. On October 1, 1990, Mr. Castellon and disputant Jose Luis Antman formed a limited partnership doing business as La Nueva Prensa de California (La Nueva Prensa) at 2190 Meridian Park Boulevard, #C, Concord, CA 94520. Walter H. Sanchez is associated with Mr. Castellon and Mr. Antman in La Nueva Prensa. Disputant Carrero has no connection with La Nueva Prensa as a partner or otherwise.

5. On October 1, 1990, disputant Carrero requested the Concord postmaster to deliver to his post office box, P. O. Box 272215, Concord, CA all mail addressed to La Prensa and La Nueva Prensa at 1290 Monument Blvd., Suite B, Concord, CA. Thereafter, disputant Antman and his partner, Mr. Castellon, the latter also acting on behalf of Walter H. Sanchez, directed the postmaster to deliver such mail as addressed.

6. The Concord postmaster is holding the disputed mail pending resolution of the dispute.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Disputant Carrero has no right to direct the delivery of mail addressed to La Nueva Prensa.

2. Likewise, Mr. Carrero has no right to direct the delivery of mail addressed to La Prensa. Under the California Corporation Code, Uniform Partnership Act, § 15029 and 15030 (West 1977), dissolution does not terminate a partnership. See Urzi v. Urzi, 295 P.2d 539, 140 C.A. 2d 589 (1956). On dissolution, the partnership continues until all pre-existing matters are terminated. See Cotton v. Perishable Air Conditioners, 116 P.2d 603, 18 C.2d 575 (1941). Under § 15018 of the Code, differences arising as to ordinary matters connected with the partnership business may be decided by a majority of the partners. Directing the delivery of mail is an ordinary business matter to be decided by a majority of the partners. Therefore, Mr. Castellon and Mr. Sanchez, as a majority of the partners of La Prensa, in the absence of a contrary provision in the Domestic Mail Manual, have the right to direct the delivery of mail addressed thereto.

3. This decision does not determine the ownership of the disputed mail. It determines only which party has the right to direct the delivery thereof.

4. The attached proposed order should be issued.