Wash. Rev. Code » Title 19 · Chapter 19.80
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.80.040 (2026)

Failure to file

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No person or persons carrying on, conducting, or transacting business under any trade name shall be entitled to maintain any suit in any of the courts of this state until such person or persons have properly completed the registration as provided for in RCW 19.80.010. Failure to complete this registration shall not impair the validity of any contract or act of such person or persons and shall not prevent such person or persons from defending any suit in any court of this state.
[ 1984 c 130 s 7; 1907 c 145 s 5; RRS s 9980. Formerly RCW 19.80.040 and 19.80.050.]

Notes:

Effective date—1984 c 130: See note following RCW 19.80.001.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1959–2024 · leading case: Griffiths & Sprague Stevedoring Co. v. Bayly, Martin & Fay, Inc., 430 P.2d 600 (Wash. 1967).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Griffiths & Sprague Stevedoring Co. v. Bayly, Martin & Fay, Inc., 430 P.2d 600 (Wash. 1967). · cites it 2× “RCW 19.80.040 reads: No person or persons carrying on, conducting or transacting business as aforesaid, or having an interest therein, shall hereafter be entitled to maintain any suit in any of the courts of this state without alleging and proving that such person or persons…”
Reese Sales Co. v. Gier, 557 P.2d 1326 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “RCW 19.80.040. 2 Ruling was reserved on these two motions until after trial.”
Caruso v. Local Union No. 690 of Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 653 P.2d 638 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). “RCW 19.80.040 provides: No person or persons carrying on, conducting or transacting business as aforesaid, or having an interest therein, shall hereafter be entitled to maintain any suit in any of the courts of this state without alleging and proving that such person or persons…”
Dearborn Lumber Co. v. Upton Enter., Inc., 662 P.2d 76 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “Capacity To Sue Upton now contends that Dearborn was barred from bringing suit by RCW 19.80.040, 2 because it failed to allege and prove compliance with the assumed name statute, RCW 19.”
Laliberte v. Wilkins, 638 P.2d 596 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). “RCW 19.80.040 states: No person or persons carrying on, conducting or transacting business as aforesaid, or having an interest therein, shall hereafter be entitled to maintain any suit in any of the courts of this state without alleging and proving that such person or persons…”
H. O. Meyer Drilling Co. v. Alton v. Phillips Co., 468 P.2d 1008 (Wash. Ct. App. 1970). “Under the California Contractors’ License Law, a license is issued by the Contractors’ State License Board upon a proper showing by an applicant of necessary experience and knowledge in the contracting field to the extent the board “deems necessary for the safety and protection…”
John Kendall, Jr., V Arthur W. Allen (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “ANALYSIS Allen argues that the trial court’s judgment is void because BSO did not have capacity to sue under RCW 19.80.040. Allen also argues that the trial court erred in finding an enforceable partnership between Allen and the LLC.”
Tbf Fin., Llc, Resp v. Stay In Home Mortg., Inc., Defs (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “On February 7, 2013, Petrenko filed a motion to dismiss, contending that TBF was barred from bringing suit in Washington pursuant to RCW 19.80.040, which provides that "[n]o person or persons carrying on, conducting, or transacting business under any trade name shall be entitled…”
Renfroe v. Taggares, 586 P.2d 1213 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). “Failure to file is controlled by RCW 19.80.040, which states, in part, "No person .”
Mark & Julie Daviscourt v. Quality Loan Servs. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “" RCW 19.80.040. Moreover, the Daviscourts' lawsuit against Countrywide in 2009 suggests they were aware of AWL's status as Countrywide's assumed business name long before the events giving rise to their current lawsuit occurred.”
Lewis v. Root, 337 P.2d 52 (Wash. 1959). “The last contention of the appellants is that the action should have been dismissed because of respondents’ failure to comply with RCW 19.80.040, which provides that one shall not be entitled to maintain any suit in any court of this state unless he first alleges and proves that…”
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.