Richard Mcvay, V. Lee Crossridge Llc
81757-4
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jul 26, 2021Background
- McVay sued Crossridge after slipping in its parking lot; he sent a pre-suit letter to Crossridge’s registered agent, Shih‑Jong “James” Lee, at the principal office in October 2017; Lee did not respond.
- McVay filed suit December 17, 2017. He retained ABC Legal, which made 15 personal‑service attempts at two addresses between December 2017 and February 2018, all unsuccessful.
- McVay did not serve the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail but later signed the Secretary of State cover sheet certifying he had attempted registered/certified mail.
- The Secretary of State accepted service for Crossridge on July 5, 2018; McVay obtained default judgment December 13, 2018.
- Lee first learned of the lawsuit in March 2020, moved to vacate the default judgment for improper service, and the trial court granted the motion.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding McVay failed to comply with former RCW 23.95.450 and thus the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Crossridge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service on the Secretary of State was proper under former RCW 23.95.450 | McVay: SOS could be served after personal‑service attempts failed; requirements of subsections optional | Crossridge: statute sets progressive steps; SOS is available only after subsections (2)–(3) are attempted | Held: SOS service improper because McVay did not satisfy mail requirement in subsection (2) before using SOS |
| Whether certified/registered mail to principal office was required before SOS service | McVay: subsection (2) uses “may” and is permissive, not mandatory | Crossridge: statute’s structure makes steps mandatory and progressive | Held: statute construed as progressive; mail step required before SOS agent can be used |
| Whether McVay exercised reasonable diligence in attempting service | McVay: multiple personal attempts (15) and a pre‑suit letter show diligence | Crossridge: personal attempts do not substitute for statutorily required mail step | Held: personal attempts were diligent but did not replace the certified/registered mail requirement |
| Whether default judgment was void for lack of personal jurisdiction | McVay: service was sufficient, so judgment valid | Crossridge: service insufficient; no personal jurisdiction | Held: judgment void for lack of personal jurisdiction; trial court properly vacated default |
Key Cases Cited
- Ahten v. Barnes, 158 Wn. App. 343, 242 P.3d 35 (2010) (court must vacate void default judgment)
- Crystal, China & Gold, Ltd. v. Factoria Ctr. Invs., Inc., 93 Wn. App. 606, 969 P.2d 1093 (1999) (discusses SOS forwarding and service on entities)
- Delex Inc. v. Sukhoi Civil Aircraft Co., 193 Wn. App. 464, 372 P.3d 797 (2016) (plaintiff bears initial burden to show proper service; affidavit of service)
- Scanlan v. Townsend, 181 Wn.2d 838, 336 P.3d 1155 (2014) (burden shifting on service of process)
- Ha v. Signal Elec., Inc., 182 Wn. App. 436, 332 P.3d 991 (2014) (personal jurisdiction requires proper service)
- Weiss v. Glemp, 127 Wn.2d 726, 903 P.2d 455 (1995) (statutory service requirements may supplement constitutional due process)
- Goettemoeller v. Twist, 161 Wn. App. 103, 253 P.3d 405 (2011) (review of whether service was proper is de novo)
- Dobbins v. Mendoza, 88 Wn. App. 862, 947 P.2d 1229 (1997) (CR 60(b) motions to vacate default reviewed de novo)
- Ellensburg Cement Prods., Inc. v. Kittitas County, 179 Wn.2d 737, 317 P.3d 1037 (2014) (statutory interpretation begins with plain language)
- C.J.C. v. Corp. of the Catholic Bishop of Yakima, 138 Wn.2d 699, 985 P.2d 262 (1999) (construe statute as a whole; give effect to all language)