Tamara Zaitsev v. Shawn Keller, Dds, 74626-0

Background

Zaitsev (pro se) filed a complaint alleging negligence by Dr. Shawn Keller arising from a June 21, 2012 dental procedure; she sought $500,000 and claimed the statute of limitations expired June 21, 2015.
Sheriff attempted service on May 12, 2015 by delivering papers to Dr. Keller’s attorney; the attorney states he received only a case scheduling order and was not authorized to accept service of process.
Defense counsel filed a May 21, 2015 notice of appearance stating all further papers except "original process" should be served on counsel.
Dr. Keller moved to dismiss for insufficient service/process under CR 12(b)(5) and CR 12(b)(4); declarations from counsel and Dr. Keller stated no authorization to accept service and no personal service occurred.
Trial court treated the motion as summary judgment, found service on counsel was not authorized, concluded it lacked personal jurisdiction and that the statute of limitations had run, and dismissed with prejudice; Zaitsev appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was service of process sufficient when papers were delivered to defendant's attorney?	Zaitsev: she served counsel in good faith relying on counsel's prior instructions and delivered summons to the sheriff clerk.	Keller: service was not personal or substituted on the defendant; counsel was not authorized to accept service.	No — service on counsel was insufficient; no personal jurisdiction.
Can equitable estoppel prevent assertion of insufficient-service defense?	Zaitsev: counsel misled her about service requirements, so Keller should be estopped from asserting defective service.	Keller: counsel did not act inconsistently or create reasonable reliance; statutory service rules are clear.	No — estoppel not established; reliance not justified and evidence insufficient.
Should pro se status relax service/jurisdiction standards?	Zaitsev: court should lower standards and construe filings liberally due to pro se status.	Keller: pro se parties are held to same standards as attorneys for service requirements.	No — pro se status does not excuse failure to accomplish statutory service.
Was dismissal with prejudice and timing/procedural handling improper (interpreter, late filings, waiver)?	Zaitsev: court erred by dismissing with prejudice, denying interpreter, insufficient notice, and Keller waived the defense by delay.	Keller: statute of limitations expired; notice of appearance disclaimed authorization to accept service; procedural claims not preserved or unsupported.	No reversible error — court offered rescheduling with interpreter, plaintiff declined; waiver not preserved on appeal; dismissal affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

Russell v. Maas, 166 Wn. App. 885 (2012) (attorney needs client’s express authority to accept service of process)
Lybbert v. Grant County, 141 Wn.2d 29 (2000) (elements and limits of equitable estoppel against governmental defendant)
Streeter–Dybdahl v. Huynh, 157 Wn. App. 408 (2009) (no personal jurisdiction without proper service)
Lepeska v. Farley, 67 Wn. App. 548 (1992) (statutory methods for service: personal or substituted at usual abode)
Graves v. P.J. Taggares Co., 94 Wn.2d 298 (1980) (protecting clients requires express attorney authority for certain actions)