How to serve telemarketing lawsuits in Washington State

If you are going to sue a telemarketer under the telephone consumer protection act, it is very likely you will have to serve the telemarketer the summons and complaint.

That can be easier said that done, just from finding the right defendant to serving the right defendant. Take the case of pro-se TCPA Adean Hill Jr. in lawsuit Hill v. Amity One Tax, 2025 WL 1592957 (N.D. Tex. June 5, 2025). However he has had trouble serving them. He sent this motion to the court:

Plaintiff hereby request to leave to serve Defendant Amity One Tax via alternative means. Plaintiff hired process server to serve Defendant Amity One Tax at principal address. However, Defendant is not servable via traditional means. On March 17, 2025, Plaintiff hired process server ABC Legal to serve Defendant Amity One Tax at their principal business address, 2525 Main Street, Suite 360, Irvine, CA 92614. This address is the only address on file. On March 18, 2025, Plaintiff received proof of non-service from server explaining he spoke to an individual who identified themselves as the manager of the office and the subject was unknown. Defendant Amity One Tax does not have a severable address on file and there is no register agent. On the California Secretary of State, it shows the register agent was “resigned” Plaintiff asks the court to allow Plaintiff to serve the California Secretary of State with a physical copy of the Complaint and Summons. Plaintiff further asks the court to allow Plaintiff to additionally serve the summons and Complaint upon Defendant by email address info@amityonetax.com and payments@amityonetax.com. These two email addresses are advertised on Defendants website amityonetax.com. Exhibit C. Through information and belief, these email addresses are still active and in use by Defendant. Finally, Plaintiff requests that the Court allow Plaintiff to deliver the summons and Complaint by sending copies via certified mail to their principal address 2525 Main Street, Suite 360, Irvine, CA 92614

Different states have different rules for service of process, and in Washington State, most plaintiffs should follow one of four RCW 4.28.080 subsections:

(9) If against a company or corporation other than those designated in subsections (1) through (8) of this section [You are unlikely to be suing a company listed in sections 1-8 for telemarketing violations so this section governs service of process to most Washington-State registered companies], to the president or other head of the company or corporation, the registered agent, secretary, cashier or managing agent thereof or to the secretary, stenographer or office assistant of the president or other head of the company or corporation, registered agent, secretary, cashier or managing agent. (10) If against a foreign corporation [registered outside of Washington State companies] or nonresident joint stock company, partnership or association doing business within this state, to any agent, cashier or secretary thereof. (16) In all other cases [service of individual defendants], to the defendant personally, or by leaving a copy of the summons at the house of his or her usual abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then resident therein. (17) In lieu of service under subsection (16) of this section, where the person cannot with reasonable diligence be served as described [usually this going to mean having a process server attempt serving the address 6 times, and having the process server return a declaration of non-service for the six attempts], the summons may be served as provided in this subsection, and shall be deemed complete on the tenth day after the required mailing: By leaving a copy at his or her usual mailing address with a person of suitable age and discretion who is a resident, proprietor, or agent thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the person to be served at his or her usual mailing address. For the purposes of this subsection, "usual mailing address" does not include a United States postal service post office box or the person's place of employment [you leave a copy of the summons and complaint at the physical address, and you mail a copy at his or her usual mailing address].

If a telemarketing company does not have registered agent and is hiding their true corporate address, typically the best way to go is serving one of the corporate officers at their residential address. But what if the telemarketer himself isn't home and the process server serves another resident of the house?

Such was the question the Washington State Supreme Court settled in Reiner v. Pittsburg Des Moines Corp., 101 Wn.2d 475, 480, 680 P.2d 55 (1984).:

On August 23, 1978, Harry Reiner was injured while working as a pipefitter at the Hanford Project. He commenced this personal injury action against several defendants, including petitioner Burns & Roe, Inc., a New Jersey corporation. On August 19, 1981, a process server took a copy of the summons and complaint to the home of Charles Robinson, an employee of petitioner. Lucienne Robinson, who was not an employee of petitioner, answered the door and was asked by the process server whether the home was the residence of Charles Robinson. When she replied that it was, the server handed her the summons and complaint and left. Lucienne Robinson then took the papers to Charles Robinson, her husband, who was at home watching television. There are two methods by which an employee of a foreign corporation qualifies to receive process as an agent on behalf of the corporation. He must either be designated the official agent for service of process by the corporation pursuant to RCW 23 A. 32.080, or he must be in such a managerial position that he is a representative of the corporation. Either method is sufficient for service under RCW 4.28.080(10). "Service of process on an agent of a foreign corporation doing business within the state must be on an agent representing the corporation with respect to such business. It must be made on an authorized agent of the corporation who is truly and thoroughly a representative of it, rather than a mere servant or employee, or a person whose authority and duties are limited to a particular transaction. The agent must be an agent in fact, not merely by construction of law, and must be one having in fact representative capacity and derivative authority. However, it is not necessary that express authority to receive or accept service of process shall have been conferred by the corporation on the person served. It is sufficient if authority to receive service may be reasonably and justly implied. "The question turns on the character of the agent, and, in the absence of express authority given by the corporation, on a review of the surrounding facts and the inferences which may properly be drawn therefrom." In the instant case, respondent substantially complied with the terms of RCW 4.28.080(10) by handing the summons and complaint to Lucienne Robinson after insuring that the home was the abode of Charles Robinson. Such service was reasonably calculated to give Charles Robinson, as corporate agent, notice of the suit. Were Charles Robinson himself the defendant in this action, service would have been sufficient under RCW 4.28.080(14). Reason supports the conclusion that the Legislature intended this manner of service to be sufficient under RCW 4.28.080(10). The summons and complaint were given to the agent within minutes after they had been delivered by the process server [usually you won't get evidence that the defendant was given the papers within minutes of delivery by the process server but the holding doesn't require that.]. The purpose of the statute, that notice be given, was satisfied. Petitioner was in no way prejudiced by this manner of service. [It is best to have personal service on the defendant to make sure a default judgment sticks, but often that just doesn't happen]

But this didn't help Mr. Hill, who apparently didn't have a physical address to serve his telemarketing defendant. Washington State residents could then move to RCW 23.95.450:

Service of process, notice, or demand on entity. (1) A represented entity may be served with any process, notice, or demand required or permitted by(bylaw by serving its registered agent. (2) If a represented entity ceases to have a registered agent, or if its registered agent cannot with reasonable diligence be served [say the office space of the registered agent has been cleared out or taken over by someone else or the entity lists a virtual office but doesn't occupy it], the entity may be served by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or by similar commercial delivery service, addressed to the entity at the entity's principal office. The address of the principal office must be as shown in the entity's most recent annual report filed by the secretary of state [This is a powerful antidote for companies that list a registered agent at an address they don't occupy. Even if you know the address they list for the registered agent is fake, hire a process server to serve it anyway. Give it the ole college try - either six attempts or a declaration that the space is cleared out or occupied by someone else]. Service is effected under this subsection on the earliest of: (a) The date the entity receives the mail or delivery by the commercial delivery service; (b) The date shown on the return receipt, if executed by the entity; or (c) Five days after its deposit with the United States postal service or commercial delivery service, if correctly addressed and with sufficient postage or payment. [Then use certified mail, return receipt to mail the summons and complaint. It doesn't matter if the mail bounces back, they are served under (c)] (3) If process, notice, or demand cannot be served on an entity pursuant to subsection (1) or (2) of this section, service may be made by handing a copy to the individual in charge of any regular place of business or activity of the entity if the individual served is not a plaintiff in the action. [I've done this by handing the summons and complaint to the building owner but you only do this if you can do (1) or (2)] (4) The secretary of state shall be an agent of the entity for service of process if process, notice, or demand cannot be served on an entity pursuant to subsection (1), (2), or (3) of this section. (5) Service of process, notice, or demand on a registered agent must be in a tangible medium, but service may be made on a commercial registered agent in other forms, and subject to such requirements, as the agent has stated in its listing under RCW the 23.95.420 that it will accept. (6) Service of process, notice, or demand may be made by other means under law other than chapter.

Mr. Hill appears to live in Texas, and didn't know that similar to Washington State, service by mail was permitted so he got a little lecture from the court:

Texas law specifies that service by certified mail is one of two default (rather than substitute) methods for effectuating service of process.” And, so, Hill need not obtain authorization from the Court to serve Amity One Tax using that method. And, under Federal Rule 4(e)(1) and Texas Rule 106(a), Hill may serve Amity One Tax via certified mail, return receipt requested, as long as Hill honors Texas law as to who is authorized to serve (under this scenario, by mail) process.

Hill v. Amity One Tax LLC.pdf

Download PDF • 112KB

Did you know that Washington State is one of the few that allows "pocket service" in Superior Court where you serve a proper summons and complaint to the defendant before filing the lawsuit in court? See Superior Court rule CR 3:

Except as provided in rule 4.1 [domestic relations], a civil action is commenced by service of a copy of a summons together with a copy of a complaint, as provided in rule 4 or by filing a complaint. Upon written demand by any other party, the plaintiff instituting the action shall pay the filing fee and file the summons and complaint within 14 days after service of the demand or the service shall be void.

The lawsuit is essentially in your pocket, not in the courthouse, unless and until it is filed. This quirk in Washington State law catches many out of state attorneys off-guard, sometimes they don't take the summons seriously and they don't remove the lawsuit within 30 days of service, or respond with an Answer.

If the defendant ignores the summons and complaint, the plaintiff is then free to file the lawsuit in Superior Court [pocket service is not allowed in District Court and debt collectors can't use it in Superior Court], get a case number, and proceed with moving for a default / default judgment. Another advantage of pocket service is in situations that have a high likelihood of settling - a case can settle before paying for the filing fee, and both sides avoid a public record if that is beneficial.

At the federal court level, recent case Aussieker v. Aghazadeh, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104387 is very instructive. A telephone consumer protection act case, a Mr. Aussieker sued a Mr. Aghazadeh and has had a rough go of serving the lawsuit. Mr. Aussieker hired a process server who went to the address and a male subject opened the door but did not identify himself. The process server took a picture of the man, and later when she compared the picture with Mr. Aghazadeh's social media, she believed it was him.

She returned, and the same male opened the door but denied being Mr. Aghazadeh. He refused to take the documents so she left them on the front stoop of the house. Mr. Aghazadeh fought the validity of the service and a court battle over the issue ensued.

Aussieker v. Aghazadeh_2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104387.Pdf

Download PDF • 269KB

The court went over the standards used in contesting and proving service.

When service is challenged, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that service was valid under Rule 4 . . . "If the plaintiff is unable to satisfy this burden, the Court has the discretion to either dismiss the action or retain the action and quash the service of process." . . . "A signed return of service constitutes prima facie evidence of valid service 'which can be overcome only by strong and convincing evidence.'" . . . "Unless some defect in service is shown on the face of the return, a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5) requires defendant to produce affidavits, discovery materials, or other admissible evidence establishing the lack of proper service." . . . The burden then shifts back to plaintiff "to produce evidence showing that the service was proper, or creating an issue of fact requiring an evidentiary hearing to resolve."

You could tell the judge believed the process server's identification of Mr. Aghazadeh, but Mr. Aghazadeh doubled down on not being the male subject at the house. Mr. Aussieker asked the court for permission to serve the lawsuit by email, but the court found that is not permitted by California law and allowed service by mail, instructing Mr. Aghazadeh to accept it or face consequences.

Service of process can complicated, and telemarketing defendants often hide behind fake or out of date addresses. A savvy TCPA plaintiff can use their deception against them to get a default judgment against that that will stick.

Do you have a question or a telemarketing, debt collection, or bankruptcy case that would make a great blog article? We might even review your pro-se complaint or motion in a blog post. Email peter@nwdebtresolution.com and/or nathen@nwdebtresolution.com and we may answer it for everyone!

Are telemarketers harassing you in Washington, Oregon, or Montana? My Washington State TCPA plaintiff law practice can help, just give us a call at 206-800-6000 or email peter@nwdebtresolution.com.

The thoughts, opinions and musings of this blog are those of Peter Schneider, a consumer advocate and Washington State plaintiff's TCPA attorney at Northwest Debt Resolution, LLC. They are just that, his thoughts, opinions and musings and should be treated as such. They are not legal advice. If you are looking to file a lawsuit for TCPA violations and unwanted calls please contact me for a consultation.

Return to blog articles