§3.7 Significant Authorities

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§3.7SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES

CR 3(a) clearly allows an action to be commenced either by service or by filing. Seattle Seahawks, Inc. v. King County, 128 Wn.2d 915, 917, 913 P.2d 375 (1996); Curtis Lumber Co. v. Sortor, 83 Wn.2d 764, 767, 522 P.2d 822 (1974).

In an action with more than one named defendant, service upon "one or more of" the defendants within 90 days of filing effectively tolls the statute of limitations with respect to all defendants, including those who have not been served. Sidis v. Brodie/Dohrmann, Inc., 117 Wn.2d 325, 329, 815 P.2d 781 (1991). The rule that timely service on one defendant in a multidefendant action tolls the statute of limitations with respect to all defendants applies to all cases involving multiple defendants joined by common factual issues, whether or not the suit involves separate causes of action. See Wakeman v. Lommers, 67 Wn.App. 819, 823, 840 P.2d 232 (1992), review denied, 121 Wn.2d 1010 (1993).

If the served defendants are dismissed from the lawsuit before the plaintiff properly serves the other defendants, however, the limitation period will expire, and the plaintiff will lose the right to proceed against the other defendants. See Fox v. Sunmaster Prods., Inc., 63 Wn.App. 561, 568, 821 P.2d 502 (1991), review denied, 118 Wn.2d 1029 (1992).

The plaintiff must file the summons and complaint and serve at least one defendant within 90 days before the statute of limitations is tolled. Adkinson v. Digby, Inc., 99 Wn.2d 206, 208, 660 P.2d 756 (1983). Failure to serve a defendant within 90 days, however, is only significant with respect to the statute of limitations. The action remains valid if filing and service are accomplished before the statute of limitations actually runs. Seamans v. Walgren, 82 Wn.2d 771, 776, 514 P.2d 166 (1973); Collins v. Lomas & Nettleton Co., 29 Wn.App. 415, 418, 628 P.2d 855 (1981). If service...