Disgraced TV writer Ambrose caught fabricating service record.
NOTE: This piece first appeared on FrankReport.com.
By Frank Parlato
Christopher Ambrose, a Connecticut man once of Hollywood, used to write TV scripts about people ruining each other’s lives.
He says I defamed him, but he became infamous in 2018 for plagiarizing a Bones script for the CBS show Instinct.
When he was caught, Ambrose said he thought the Bones script was his own work, that it had never aired, and that he used it by mistake. He left out that he wasn’t credited, that the episode had already aired, and that Instinct was supposed to be new, not recycled.
He meant it to pass. Ambrose was fired from Instinct, dropped by his agents, and blacklisted. Hollywood hates plagiarists. He blamed the showrunner.
A NYU-trained lawyer, he could have returned to law, but New York suspended his license in 2006.
His first defamation suit against me, filed in 2022, was dismissed when he failed to prosecute it. Ambrose had filed his latest complaint with the court in July 2025. The case was assigned to Judge Sarala V. Nagala.
The Service Game
On September 2, Ambrose emailed me: I could accept service by email. If I agreed, I’d have sixty days to respond. If I declined, he’d send someone to my door; then I’d have twenty-one.
I told him I’d consider it if he sent the proper Rule 4(d) packet. He wrote back, saying he’d sent me the packet thirty days before.
I emailed him back: if he had sent it thirty days ago, he must have a receipt or a tracking number. Please send it.
He did not reply. I told him that if he’d simply made a mistake, he could send the packet correctly.
Before replying, Ambrose sent a Florida deputy to my house on September 12. I was away, and a visitor told the deputy I’d be gone for weeks. He neither left the papers nor took her name.
On September 18, I emailed Ambrose. He could serve me when I got home in a month or two, or I could sign the waiver under 4(d) with sixty days to respond.
He emailed the complaint and waiver. I accepted the service and sent it back to him. He filed it with the court. The agreed deadline to respond was Nov. 17.
The Lie
Three weeks later, Ambrose accused me of deception. He filed a Request for Clarification. He told the judge a Monroe County deputy had served me on Sept. 12 and that I’d concealed it to gain the extra sixty days., telling the judge that a Monroe County Deputy Sheriff had served me on Sept. 12 and that I had concealed it from him to gain the extra 60 days.
It was a strange lie. Ambrose had hired the deputy and received the return. The papers never came to me; they went to him. If the deputy had served me, Ambrose would have known first. Still, he told the judge I had. He meant it to work, but it was safe if it didn’t. If caught, he could call it a mistake.
He asked the judge to reset my deadline to September 26 and to make me reimburse his $40 sheriff’s fee. His claim rested on the idea that the deputy had served me in person, through a resident, and that I lied about it.
I was out of town on Sept. 12. No dispute there. But Ambrose told the judge the deputy had “left the papers with an adult resident.”
The Ruling
The law calls it substituted service. In Florida, the process server must leave papers with someone who actually lives at the home and is at least fifteen years old –not with a visitor or guest.
If service is made to someone who does not live at the home, the court may set it aside.
To prove his point, he sent the “Return of Service/Deputy Worksheet” filled out by Deputy Ramsey.
At the bottom, Deputy Ramsey wrote that he spoke with a ‘female on property’ who said I’d be out of town for three weeks—he neither named her nor stated he left the papers.
It took the judge one day. On Oct. 8, Judge Nagala denied Ambrose’s motion.
She wrote:
“ORDER. The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s motion for clarification… which requests that the Court: (i) reset Defendant’s answer deadline because personal service was effectuated on September 12, 2025, rendering inapplicable the waiver … and the current answer deadline based on the date of the waiver; and (ii) issue an order directing Defendant to reimburse Plaintiff for costs associated with personal service. Based on the Court’s review of documents annexed to Plaintiff’s filing, however, it appears that Defendant was not personally served, see ECF No. 22 at 7 (noting that a woman at Defendant’s address told the process server that Defendant was away for three weeks). Thus, Defendant’s answer deadline of November 17, 2025 remains in effect, and Plaintiff’s request for reimbursement of service fees is DENIED.”
It wasn’t a mistake. As a former lawyer, Ambrose knew service could be made to a ‘resident,’ not just anyone present.
