Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,741 chars
for “process server fees” under RCW 4.84.010(2) because that statute “does not

encompass service of subpoenas for depositions” but rather only “the procedure

by which a party to a lawsuit serves a complaint and summons.” We agree. Our

court has previously recognized that “[s]ervice of process refers to a formal delivery

of documents that is legally sufficient to charge the defendant with notice of a

pending action.” Larson v. Yoon, 187 Wn. App. 508, 515, 351 P.3d 167 (2015)

(quoting Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 700, 108

S. Ct. 2104, 100 L. Ed. 2d 722 (1988)). Thus, the trial court erred in awarding

Symetra process server fees incurred in serving subpoenas on witnesses in

foreign jurisdictions under RCW 4.84.010(2).

Fifth, Bittner argues the trial court erroneously awarded costs to Symetra

under RCW 4.84.010(1) for “filing fees in King County, Washington, as well as in

Illinois, Oregon, and California courts in order to issue subpoenas for out of state

witnesses.” We agree. In the instant case, Bittner is the only party who incurred

filing fees to initiate this proceeding. Filing fees to initiate other proceedings in

other jurisdictions are recoverable, if at all, in those other proceedings. The trial

court erred in awarding such costs herein.

V

Lastly, Bittner requests attorney fees pursuant to RAP 18.1 and asks that

we “note in [our] opinion that he may apply to recover his appellate fees from the

trial court on remand should he prevail.” While Bittner’s attorney fee request is

premature because he has not yet prevailed in this action, he is entitled to recover

- 30 -
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85708-8-I