Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 10-504 (2026)

Service on corporation

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

10-504. Service on corporation

A. The statutory agent appointed by a corporation is an agent of the corporation on whom process, notice or demand that is required or permitted by law to be served on the corporation may be served and that, when so served, is lawful personal service on the corporation.

B. If a corporation fails to appoint or maintain a statutory agent at the address shown on the records of the commission, the commission is an agent of the corporation on whom process, notice or demand may be served. Pursuant to the Arizona rules of civil procedure, service on the commission of any process, notice or demand for an entity that is registered pursuant to this title shall be made by delivering to and leaving with the commission duplicate copies of the process, notice or demand, and the commission shall immediately cause one of the copies of the process, notice or demand to be forwarded by mail, addressed to the corporation at its known place of business. Service made on the commission is returnable pursuant to applicable law relative to personal service on the corporation. If service is made on the commission, whether under this chapter or a rule of court, the corporation has thirty days to respond in addition to the time otherwise provided by law.

C. The commission shall keep a permanent record of all processes, notices and demands served on it under this section and shall record in the record the time of the service and its action with reference to the service.

D. Notice required to be served on a corporation pursuant to section 10-1421 or 10-1422 may be served:

1. By mail addressed to the statutory agent of the corporation or, if the corporation fails to appoint and maintain a statutory agent, addressed to the known place of business required to be maintained pursuant to section 10-501.

2. By electronic transmission to the statutory agent or to the corporation, or both.

3. Pursuant to the rules for service of process authorized by the Arizona rules of civil procedure.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Barlage v. Valentine, 110 P.3d 371 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Barlage v. Valentine, 110 P.3d 371 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 10-504 (service of process on corporation may be on its statutory agent or pursuant to civil procedure rules); Ariz.”

Union Constr. Co. v. Beneficial Stand. Mortg. Investors, 610 P.2d 67 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 4× “See, generally, A.R.S. §§ 10-504 and 10-505. More persuasive are the specific provisions of A.”

Hahne v. Az Air Time (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “4Although both Appellants and AZ Air Time cite to the statutory agent provision for corporations, A.R.S. § 10-504(A), we focus on § 29-606(A), which governs service of process for limited liability companies.”

Dahl v. Tarahumara Express Inc. (D. Ariz. 2021). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 10-504(B). There is no indication that Tarahumaras’ 28 failure to defend this case is due to excusable neglect.”

Dukes v. Meta Platforms Inc. (D. Ariz. 2025). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 10-504. But for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction 25 in federal court, a corporation is a citizen of every state in which it has been incorporated 26 and where it has its principal place of business, not where its state statutory agent receives 27 process.”

Barlage v. Valentine (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 10-504 (service of process on corporation may be on its statutory agent or pursuant to civil procedure rules); Ariz.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 10-504(A) — 1 case

Hahne v. Az Air Time (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “4Although both Appellants and AZ Air Time cite to the statutory agent provision for corporations, A.R.S. § 10-504(A), we focus on § 29-606(A), which governs service of process for limited liability companies.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 10-504(B) — 1 case

Dahl v. Tarahumara Express Inc. (D. Ariz. 2021). “See A.R.S. § 10-504(B). There is no indication that Tarahumaras’ 28 failure to defend this case is due to excusable neglect.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.