Wash. Rev. Code » Title 19 · Chapter 19.100
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.100.160 (2025)

Application of chapter—Jurisdiction—Service of process—Consent

✓ laws through the 2025 session: 2026 session laws are not yet included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any person who is engaged or hereafter engaged directly or indirectly in the sale or offer to sell a franchise or a subfranchise or in business dealings concerning a franchise, either in person or in any other form of communication, shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter, shall be amenable to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state and shall be amenable to the service of process under RCW 4.28.180, 4.28.185, and 19.86.160. Every applicant for registration of a franchise under this law (by other than a Washington corporation) shall file with the director in such form as he or she by rule prescribed, an irrevocable consent appointing the director or his or her successor in office to be his or her attorney, to receive service or any lawful process in any noncriminal suit, action, or proceeding against him or her or his or her successors, executor, or administrator which arises under this law or any rule or order hereunder after the consent has been filed, with the same force and validity as if served personally on the person filing consent. A person who has filed such a consent in connection with a previous registration under this law need not file another. Service may be made by leaving a copy of the process in the office of the director but it is not as effective unless:
(1) The plaintiff, who may be the director, in a suit, action, or proceeding instituted by him or her forthwith sends notice of the service and a copy of the process by registered or certified mail to the defendant or respondent at his or her last address on file with the director; and
(2) The plaintiff's affidavit of compliance with this section is filed in the case on or before the return day of the process, if any, or within such further times the court allows.
[ 2011 c 336 s 561; 1991 c 226 s 9; 1971 ex.s. c 252 s 16.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: Allison v. Medicab Int'l, Inc., 597 P.2d 380 (Wash. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Allison v. Medicab Int'l, Inc., 597 P.2d 380 (Wash. 1979). · cites it 2× “190 gives an aggrieved franchisee a right to sue at law or in equity for rescission or other relief, including treble damages.”
Huebner v. Sales Promotion, Inc., 684 P.2d 752 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “RCW 19.100.160 provides in part: Any person who is engaged or hereafter engaged *70 directly or indirectly in the sale or offer to sell a franchise or in business dealings concerning a franchise, either in person or in any other form of communication, shall be subject to the…”
Skistimas v. Hotworx Franchising LLC, No. 3:23-cv-05974 (W.D. Wash. June 18, 2024). · cites it 4× “32 at 3; 35 at 2) and (2) RCW § 19.100.160 (Dkt. No. 32 at 4) as the bases 24 1 for their argument that the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over the Individual 2 Defendants.”
Skistimas v. Hotworx Franchising LLC, No. 3:23-cv-05974 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 22, 2024). · cites it 2× “23 Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 19.100.160 (West).”
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.