[WSBARP] Litigator Help - Mtn to Quash Service

[Eric Nelsen]

It sounds extremely shady to me! But I think it is a rare circumstance where it is worth it to contest service of process, because the plaintiff just goes right back out and tries again. Unless there is a potential statute of limitations bar or other major reason that the defendant's position is greatly improved by a failure of service of process, I do not think it is worth contesting.

But if it is worth contesting, I think there is a good case to be made here that the "Acceptance of Service" was obtained by fraud/deception and is invalid for that reason. And providing the documents to defendant via a "secure" online portal, of course, is not service of process at all, unless it is affirmatively accepted as such.

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen
Sayre Law Offices, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA 98144-3909
206-625-0092
eric at sayrelawoffices.com<mailto:eric at sayrelawoffices.com>

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Paul Neumiller
Sent: Monday, November 4, 2024 3:35 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>; WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Cc: ll_atty at googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Litigator Help - Mtn to Quash Service

Any thoughts on this?  Does ABC Legal Services get away with this?


[cid:image001.jpg at 01DB2ED1.77D63090]


From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> On Behalf Of Paul Neumiller
Sent: Friday, November 1, 2024 3:52 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>; WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBARP] Litigator Help - Mtn to Quash Service

Whoa.  Just met with new client who was served the summons and complaint by ABC Legal Services by EMAIL with a signed "acceptance of service."  Here's what ABC did.  They emailed the unrepresented client and said ABC needed to email pleadings to the client but to open the documents (to see what's going on), the client needed to go to ABC's "secure" portal website.  Well, the client did that but the website DOES NOT allow access unless the client signed in (using client's finger on his cell phone), so he did.  Later, after getting access to the ABC portal and reviewing the pleadings, he sees that ABC transferred his signature to gain access to the portal to an Acceptance of Service.   Client insists he was not accepting service of process but rather just opening the email to see what was going on.  Client has copies of email to confirm this interpretation.

Is this standard practice?  Has anyone fought this and won a motion to quash service.  For a variety of strategies, the client would love to restart the response timeline and quash this initial improper service.


[cid:image001.jpg at 01DB2ED1.77D63090]



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20241104/b018e360/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14264 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20241104/b018e360/image001.jpg>