 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Meadows v. Singh12/10/1999
Stephen A. Meadows appeals the dismissal of his personal injury complaint against Kiran Singh. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
On May 2, 1993, Stephen Meadows was riding his bicycle when he was hit by a car driven by Horace Reavis. On March 28, 1996, Meadows sued Reavis in Grays Harbor Superior Court. It is undisputed that Reavis was properly served.
Meanwhile, on June 11, 1994, Meadows was again riding his bicycle when he was hit by a car driven by Kiran Singh. On February 20, 1997, Meadows sued Singh in King County Superior Court. On February 19, 1997, Meadows' process server went to a Bellevue residence that was Singh's last known address. A man at the door said that he was Singh's brother; that "he lived there with {Singh} at the residence;" and that Singh "was not home." The process server gave the man the summons and complaint.
On March 7, 1997, attorney David Larson filed a notice of appearance for Singh. He stated that she was not waiving a number of defenses, including insufficient service of process. He also served a request for statement of damages, interrogatories, and requests for production.
On May 14, 1997, and again on June 26, 1997, a paralegal in the office of Meadows' attorney spoke with a paralegal in Larson's office. On both occasions, the former understood the latter to be stating or implying that delay in responding to the discovery requests would not be a problem.
On May 22, 1997, Meadows' attorney moved to consolidate the two actions in Grays Harbor County. He also telephoned Larson to ask whether Singh would oppose the motion. Larson responded with a carefully worded letter designed not to reveal the insufficiency of service. The letter stated:
We have played phone tag today. The question that was posed to me in your original phone message was whether we opposed the motion for Monday. We have no standing to oppose the motion. Therefore, we feel we have no say in what the court does with your motion. As a result, we will not and cannot appear at the motion. Thank you.{}
On June 2, 1997, the Grays Harbor court granted Meadows' motion. About a week later, on June 11, 1997, the statute of limitations expired in the action against Singh.
On July 24, 1997, Singh filed an answer in the King County Superior Court. She affirmatively asserted insufficient service of process and stated for the first time that she had moved to New York in October 1994. The next day, she moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process.
After some proceedings not pertinent here, the King County action was transferred to Grays Harbor County, and the two actions were consolidated. Meadows served Singh in New York and the Washington Secretary of State in Olympia. See RCW 46.64.040.
On September 11, 1997, Larson signed a declaration stating that he had delayed answering the complaint because "it was my belief that our client was not served." He also stated, "{W}ith service defects in mind we did not seek return of the interrogatories nor did we in anyway {sic} seek out discovery."
On December 1, 1997, Singh again moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process. On July 6, 1998, the Grays Harbor court granted the motion. Meadows then filed this appeal.
On appeal, Meadows concedes that service on Singh "was in fact insufficient." Relying on Romjue v. Fairchild, however, he argues that Singh may not now rely on the insufficiency.
In Romjue, as here, defense counsel realized that service was defective. He engaged in discovery on the merits of the case, and he remained silent when opposing counsel manifested a be
Page 1 2 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|