Lydia Lutaaya v. Suhrco Residential Properties ( 2018 )

',LEO
OF PPEALS DIV 1
OrVIASI-IING1014
STi\TE
8:31
2018 PR 23 AV1
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
LYDIA LUTAAYA, ) No. 75863-2-1
)
Appellant, )
) DIVISION ONE
v. )
)
)
SUHRCO RESIDENTIAL )
PROPERTIES; EMB MANAGEMENT; )
AND RENTON POLICE DEPARTMENT,) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
Respondents. ) FILED: April 23, 2018
)
MANN,A.C.J. — Lydia Lutaaya appeals the superior court's dismissal of her
complaint for violation of privacy and harassment against Suhrco Residential Properties,
LLC (Suhrco), EMB Management, Inc.(EMB), and the Renton Police Department. The
superior court dismissed Lutaaya's complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction due to
insufficient service of process. We affirm.
FACTS
In May 2014, Lutaaya filed a complaint seeking damages for "harassment"
against Boeing Employees Credit Union and the Renton Police Department. The City of
No. 75863-2-1/2
Renton (City) moved to dismiss the action because Lutaaya failed to file a pre-suit claim
for damages as required by RCW 4.96.020. The case was dismissed in July 2014.
In August 2015, Lutaaya filed a second complaint seeking damages for invasion
of privacy and harassment against Suhrco, EMB, and the Renton Police Department.
Lutaaya mailed a copy of the summons and complaint to the office of the attorney used
by the City in the 2014 litigation, an attorney for Suhrco and EMB, and Suhrco and
EMB's mailing address.
In October 2015, Suhrco and EMB moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under
CR 12(b)(2) and for insufficiency of service of process under CR 12(b)(5). At oral
argument, Lutaaya admitted that she only served Suhrco and EMB by mail. On
November 20, 2015, the superior court found that it did not have personal jurisdiction
and dismissed Lutaaya's case against Suhrco and EMB.
The same day that the court dismissed Lutaaya's case against Suhrco and EMB,
Lutaaya obtained and issued a subpoena duces tecum commanding the two entities to
appear and bring their "internal notes, official transaction history, all correspondence
whether to the media or to your office, recorded telephone conversations, and all
pertaining to [sic] Lydia Lutaaya's NC." On December 14, 2015, the superior court
granted Suhrco and EMB's motion to quash the subpoena.
In June 2016, the City, on behalf of the Renton Police Department, moved to
dismiss Lutaaya's complaint, based in part on the insufficiency of service. In response,
Lutaaya admitted that she did not serve the City, but that she served the attorney who
represented the City in her previous 2014 lawsuit against the City. She claimed that this
service was proper because the previous lawsuit, which had been dismissed in July
-2-
No. 75863-2-1/3
2014, was "still pending." In August 2016, the trial court dismissed Lutaaya's claim for
lack of personal jurisdiction. Lutaaya appeals.
ANALYSIS
Dismissal for Lack ofPersonal Jurisdiction
Lutaaya argues that the superior court erred in dismissing Suhrco, EMB, and the
Renton Police Department based on insufficiency of service. We review a superior
court's conclusion that service was insufficient de novo. Scanlan v. Townsend, 181
Wash. 2d 838, 847, 336 P.3d 1155 (2014).
Proper service of the summons and complaint is a prerequisite to the superior
court's jurisdiction over a party. Weber v. Assoc. Surgeons, P.S., 166 Wash. 2d 161, 163,
206 P.3d 671 (2009). "Failure to properly serve a defendant prevents the trial court
from obtaining personal jurisdiction over the defendant." Weber, 166 Wash. 2d at 163.
Under RCW 4.28.080(2), service of a summons on a city can only be
accomplished by delivering a copy to "the mayor, city manager, or, during normal office
hours, to the mayor's or city manager's designated agent or the city clerk thereof." It is
undisputed that Lutaaya mailed her summons and complaint to,the office of a former
city attorney. Because Lutaaya did not deliver a copy of her summons to any of the
entities set forth in RCW 4.28.080(2), dismissal of the complaint against the City was
appropriate.
Under RCW 4.28.080(9), personal service on a corporation is accomplished by
delivering a copy of the summons to the president or other head of the company or
corporation, the company's registered agent, the corporate secretary, the cashier, or the
managing agent, or by serving the secretary, stenographer, or office assistant of any of
-3-
No. 75863-2-1/4
these persons. It is undisputed that Lutaaya mailed a copy of her summons and
complaint to Suhrco and EMB's attorney and mailing addresses. Because Lutaaya
failed to deliver a copy of the summons and complaint to any of the entities identified in
RCW 4.28.080(9), dismissal of the complaint against Suhrco and EMB was appropriate.
Subpoena Duces Tecum
Lutaaya argues also that the superior court erred in dismissing her subpoena
duces tecum. We review a superior court's order granting a motion to quash a
subpoena for abuse of discretion. Eugster v. City of Spokane, 121 Wash. App. 799, 807,
91 P.3d 17(2004). A court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on
untenable grounds or reasoning. Gunn v. Rielv, 185 Wash. App. 517, 528, 344 P.3d 1225
(2015).
Because the superior court properly dismissed Lutaaya's action against Suhrco
and EMB for lack of personal jurisdiction, there was no action pending before the court
at the time Lutaaya obtained and issued her subpoena duces tecum. Because there
was no action pending, the superior court did not abuse it discretion in quashing the
subpoena.
We affirm.
4#,,
WE CONCUR:
-4-