THOMAS RIORDAN V. POWERS FASTENERS INC., No. 11-35901 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 10 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS DIANE RIORDAN; THOMAS J. RIORDAN, No. 11-35901 D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01207-RSL Plaintiffs - Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. POWERS FASTENERS INC., a foreign corporation, Defendant - Appellee. DIANE RIORDAN; THOMAS J. RIORDAN, No. 11-36003 D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01207-RSL Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. POWERS FASTENERS INC., a foreign corporation, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 6, 2012** Seattle, Washington Before: TALLMAN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and GLEASON, District Judge.*** The district court s order to dismiss is affirmed. The plaintiffs failed to follow the statutory requirements for personal service under Wash. Rev. Code § 4.28.080(9). When the plaintiffs process server arrived at the defendant s facility after business hours, he served a maintenance supervisor who had stayed late to solve a power failure. Under no construction of the statute can an employee with such limited responsibility qualify as a managing agent. See Crose v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 88 Wash. 2d 50, 58 59, 558 P.2d 764 (1977). The plaintiffs failed to serve any of the persons enumerated in the statute. See Witt v. Port of Olympia, 126 Wash. App. 752, 757 58, 109 P.3d 489 (2005). We need not consider whether Washington would apply a theory of apparent authority to personal service because the defendant, the supposed principal, did ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Sharon L. Gleason, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation. 2 nothing to create a reasonable belief that the maintenance supervisor had any representative authority. See Estep v. Hamilton, 148 Wash. App. 246, 258 59, 201 P.3d 331 (2008). The district court s denial of statutory attorneys fees is also affirmed. There was no personal service under Wash. Rev. Code § 4.28.080. Therefore, the defendant could not have been personally served, a predicate for attorneys fees under § 4.28.185(5). See Ralph s Concrete Pumping, Inc. v. Concord Concrete Pumps, Inc., 154 Wash. App. 581, 591 92, 225 P.3d 1035 (2010). AFFIRMED. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.