In the Matter of a Mail Dispute		) February 14, 1996
Between					)
					)
MICHAEL G. MENDOZA			)
					)
  and					)
					)
JOSEPH A. TRAVERS			) P.S. Docket No. MD 96-12

APPEARANCE FOR 
MICHAEL G. MENDOZA:			Michael G. Mendoza
					2058 North Hills Avenue
					Claremont, CA 91711-2812

APPEARANCE FOR
JOSEPH A. TRAVERS:			Barbara B. Milliken, Esq.
					Blumenthal & Milliken
					3890 Tenth Street
					Riverside, CA 92501-3520

INITIAL DECISION

The United States Postal Service Law Department has referred this mail dispute to this office for resolution. The mail in dispute is that addressed to Private Investigative Research Company, 9227 Haven Avenue, Suite 300, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-5450. Each party has submitted a sworn statement, or a declaration under penalty of perjury, which is the equivalent of a sworn statement, as required by 39 C.F.R. §965.5. In addition, Mr. Travers has submitted comments as permitted by 39 C.F.R. §965.6. The following findings of fact and decision are based on the parties' submittals and on the documents forwarded by the Law Department.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. In 1992, Disputants Mendoza and Travers became associates in the formation of a business known as Private Investigative Research Company (P.I.R.C.). (Travers Initial Submission, Exhibit (Travers Sub, Exh.) A). The nature of the association is in dispute, with Mr. Mendoza maintaining that Mr. Travers was an employee and Mr. Travers contending that the two were equal partners. Whatever may have been the oral agreement between them, the record indicates that they held themselves out to others as equal partners, (Travers Sub, Declarations of Dana D. Griffith, John C. Maddux, Shirley Vellutini, Arthur C. Horst, Naty Rosado).

2. In February 1994, the business moved to the disputed address. The lease for the premises was in Mr. Mendoza's name, and listed Private Investigative Research Company as the trade name for the business. (Attachment to Mendoza's December 18, 1995 letter).

3. In April 1995, Mr. Mendoza formed a corporation known as Private Investigative Research Company, Inc., operating from the disputed address.

4. In June 1995, the disputants had a falling out, and Mr. Mendoza took over sole operation of the business, without Mr. Travers' consent (Travers Sub, pages 2, 11).⁽¹⁾

5. On November 15, 1995, Mr. Travers filed a change of address notice with the Rancho Cucamonga Post Office, seeking to have mail addressed to P.I.R.C. forwarded to his address in Lake Elsinore, CA. (Attachment to Mendoza letter of December 18, 1995). Mr. Travers had received a license and indicated his intent to do business under the name Private Investigative Research Company from his Lake Elsinore address. (Travers Sub, Exh. B; Proof of Publication attached to Travers letter of December 15, 1995).

6. Mr. Mendoza continues to do business as Private Investigative Research Company, Inc. from the disputed address. (Mendoza Initial Submittal).

DECISION

Mr. Travers argues that he is a 50 percent partner in Private Investigative Research Company, that Mr. Mendoza improperly took over full operation of the business, and that he is entitled to his 50 percent share of the business property, including the mail. Mr. Mendoza argues that Private Investigative Research Company is a sole proprietorship and that, while he may have contemplated making Mr. Travers a partner, that did not come to pass.

I conclude that those sending mail addressed to Private Investigative Research Company at 9227 Haven Avenue, Suite 300, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-5450 would most likely intend to have that mail delivered to the business with that name still being operated at that location. Since Mr. Mendoza continues to operate the business from the disputed address,⁽²⁾ I conclude that the mail is to be delivered as addressed or as directed by Mr. Mendoza.

This decision addresses only the right to delivery of the mail. It does not purport to address the question of ownership of the mail. Further, if Mr. Mendoza receives mail addressed to Mr. Travers, personally (i.e., not as part of P.I.R.C.), he is to have that mail promptly forwarded to Mr. Travers.

The attached mail deliver order should be issued.

						David I. Brochstein
						Administrative Judge

2. And since, even accepting his argument that he is a full partner in the business, Mr. Travers has not shown that he has a greater right to the mail than does the other partner in the business, Mr. Mendoza.