 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Meadows v. Singh12/10/1999
lief that service had been accomplished. After the statute of limitations expired, he revealed the defect in service for the first time. Division Three held that he had waived the defect by engaging in discovery on the merits and by affirmatively choosing to remain silent.
Romjue is on all fours here. Singh had actual notice of the complaint. Larson appeared for her and sent discovery requests on the merits. When he learned of the defective service, he consciously refrained from asking for responses in the hope that the statute of limitations would run. He also refrained from filing an answer. When Meadows' attorney asked, twenty days before the statute of limitations ran, whether Larson would oppose a motion to transfer the case from King County to Grays Harbor County, Larson disingenuously responded that Singh had "no standing to oppose the motion." Based on Romjue and similar cases, we hold that Singh may not now rely on insufficient service of process.
Singh relies on French v. Gabriel, but that case is distinguishable on its facts. Defense counsel filed an answer and an amended answer asserting insufficient service, he did not commence discovery, and he did not avoid a candid response when asked about a motion related to the case. Singh's remaining arguments lack merit or need not be reached.
The order dismissing Meadows' complaint against Singh is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Grays Harbor superior court for further proceedings consistent herewith.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.
Morgan, J.
We concur:
Bridgewater, C.J.
Hunt, J.
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.
|
|