Wash. Rev. Code » Title 23 · Chapter 23.95
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 23.95.450 (2026)

Service of process, notice, or demand on entity

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A represented entity may be served with any process, notice, or demand required or permitted by law by serving its registered agent.
(2) If a represented entity ceases to have a registered agent, or if its registered agent cannot with reasonable diligence be served, the entity may be served by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or by similar commercial delivery service, addressed to the entity at the entity's principal office. The address of the principal office must be as shown in the entity's most recent annual report filed by the secretary of state. Service is effected under this subsection on the earliest of:
(a) The date the entity receives the mail or delivery by the commercial delivery service;
(b) The date shown on the return receipt, if executed by the entity; or
(c) Five days after its deposit with the United States postal service or commercial delivery service, if correctly addressed and with sufficient postage or payment.
(3) If process, notice, or demand cannot be served on an entity pursuant to subsection (1) or (2) of this section, service may be made by handing a copy to the individual in charge of any regular place of business or activity of the entity if the individual served is not a plaintiff in the action.
(4) The secretary of state shall be an agent of the entity for service of process if process, notice, or demand cannot be served on an entity pursuant to subsection (1), (2), or (3) of this section.
(5) Service of process, notice, or demand on a registered agent must be in a tangible medium, but service may be made on a commercial registered agent in other forms, and subject to such requirements, as the agent has stated in its listing under RCW 23.95.420 that it will accept.
(6) Service of process, notice, or demand may be made by other means under law other than this chapter.
[ 2020 c 57 s 33; 2015 c 176 s 1411.]

Notes:

Effective date—Contingent effective date—2015 c 176: See note following RCW 23.95.100.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (19 in the last 5 years), 2020–2026 · leading case: Richard Mcvay, V. Lee Crossridge Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Richard Mcvay, V. Lee Crossridge Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 18× “The trial court denied McVay’s motion for reconsideration.”
Grays Harbor Drug Task Force & Grays Harbor Cnty. v. Real Prop. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 17× “Specifically, Tao Yuan contends that the default order is void because the County failed to comply with RCW 23.95.450 by not exercising reasonable diligence in locating Tao Yuan’s registered agent before serving the Secretary of State and thus violated Tao Yuan’s due process…”
Affordable Aerial Photography Inc v. Transblue LLC (W.D. Wash. 2021). · cites it 12× “080(9); see also RCW 23.95.450(1). That being said, if a business entity’s registered agent 13 cannot be served with “reasonable diligence,” Washington’s Uniform Business Organizations 14 Code provides other service options.”
Symon Mandawala v. Era Living Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 5× “II Mandawala first asserts that a process server personally served Era Living and, consequently, the trial court erred by concluding that service of process was insufficient.”
Russell v. WADOT Capital Inc (W.D. Wash. 2023). · cites it 5× “Russell now asserts that she has 1 (1) served NCP in accordance with Rule 4(e)(1) and RCW 23.95.450 and (2) met 2 Washington’s requirements to serve the NCP Defendants by mail.”
Mandawala v. Era Living LLC (W.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 4× “450, the party must present facts 7 establishing that the represented entity either “ceases to have a registered agent, or [that] 8 its registered agent cannot with reasonable diligence be served.”
Oregon Mut. Ins. Co. v. Int'l Lucky Buffet, Inc (W.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 3× “040 and/or RCW 23.95.450. See Letter (C17-1814, docket no.”
Reed v. Oregon Mut. Ins. Co. (W.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 3× “040 and/or RCW 23.95.450. See Letter (C17-1814, docket no.”
NY Black & Gold Corp. v. SF Grp. LLC (W.D. Wash. 2025). · cites it 3× “(2) Plaintiff must serve Defendant within 90 days after filing its Complaint. 20 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1), (m).”
Stephens (E.D. Wash. 2025). · cites it 3× “RCW 23.95.450. Under Washington Law, process 4 must be served, as required or permitted by law, which means upon a represented 5 entity’s registered agent.”
Jameila Stewart, V. Seattle Childrens Hosp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 3× “450, the party must present facts establishing that the represented entity either “ceases to have a registered agent, or [that] its registered agent cannot with reasonable diligence be served.” RCW 23.95.450(2). Stewart does not establish either of these.”
Boards of Trs. of the Locals 302 & 612 of the Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Constr. Indus. Health & Sec. Fund v. RG Constr. Inc (W.D. Wash. 2023). · cites it 2× “4; Wash. Rev. Code § 23.95.450 (4)). The Trust Funds then 7 moved for default again, providing additional evidence to show that they served RG Construction.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 23.95.450(1) — 10 cases
Richard Mcvay, V. Lee Crossridge Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “The trial court denied McVay’s motion for reconsideration.”
Affordable Aerial Photography Inc v. Transblue LLC (W.D. Wash. 2021). “080(9); see also RCW 23.95.450(1). That being said, if a business entity’s registered agent 13 cannot be served with “reasonable diligence,” Washington’s Uniform Business Organizations 14 Code provides other service options.”
Oregon Mut. Ins. Co. v. Int'l Lucky Buffet, Inc (W.D. Wash. 2022). “040 and/or RCW 23.95.450. See Letter (C17-1814, docket no.”
Reed v. Oregon Mut. Ins. Co. (W.D. Wash. 2022). “040 and/or RCW 23.95.450. See Letter (C17-1814, docket no.”
Locals 302 & 612 of the Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Constr. Indus. Health & Sec. Fund v. 509 Excavating LLC (W.D. Wash. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 23.95.450(2) — 9 cases
Affordable Aerial Photography Inc v. Transblue LLC (W.D. Wash. 2021). “080(9); see also RCW 23.95.450(1). That being said, if a business entity’s registered agent 13 cannot be served with “reasonable diligence,” Washington’s Uniform Business Organizations 14 Code provides other service options.”
Richard Mcvay, V. Lee Crossridge Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “The trial court denied McVay’s motion for reconsideration.”
Grays Harbor Drug Task Force & Grays Harbor Cnty. v. Real Prop. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “Specifically, Tao Yuan contends that the default order is void because the County failed to comply with RCW 23.95.450 by not exercising reasonable diligence in locating Tao Yuan’s registered agent before serving the Secretary of State and thus violated Tao Yuan’s due process…”
Russell v. WADOT Capital Inc (W.D. Wash. 2023). “Russell now asserts that she has 1 (1) served NCP in accordance with Rule 4(e)(1) and RCW 23.95.450 and (2) met 2 Washington’s requirements to serve the NCP Defendants by mail.”
Symon Mandawala v. Era Living Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “II Mandawala first asserts that a process server personally served Era Living and, consequently, the trial court erred by concluding that service of process was insufficient.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 23.95.450(3) — 4 cases
Richard Mcvay, V. Lee Crossridge Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “The trial court denied McVay’s motion for reconsideration.”
Affordable Aerial Photography Inc v. Transblue LLC (W.D. Wash. 2021). “080(9); see also RCW 23.95.450(1). That being said, if a business entity’s registered agent 13 cannot be served with “reasonable diligence,” Washington’s Uniform Business Organizations 14 Code provides other service options.”
Grays Harbor Drug Task Force & Grays Harbor Cnty. v. Real Prop. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “Specifically, Tao Yuan contends that the default order is void because the County failed to comply with RCW 23.95.450 by not exercising reasonable diligence in locating Tao Yuan’s registered agent before serving the Secretary of State and thus violated Tao Yuan’s due process…”
Penske Truck Leasing Co LP v. Berkley Reg'l Ins. Co. (E.D. Wash. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 23.95.450(4) — 4 cases
Richard Mcvay, V. Lee Crossridge Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “The trial court denied McVay’s motion for reconsideration.”
Affordable Aerial Photography Inc v. Transblue LLC (W.D. Wash. 2021). “080(9); see also RCW 23.95.450(1). That being said, if a business entity’s registered agent 13 cannot be served with “reasonable diligence,” Washington’s Uniform Business Organizations 14 Code provides other service options.”
Grays Harbor Drug Task Force & Grays Harbor Cnty. v. Real Prop. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “Specifically, Tao Yuan contends that the default order is void because the County failed to comply with RCW 23.95.450 by not exercising reasonable diligence in locating Tao Yuan’s registered agent before serving the Secretary of State and thus violated Tao Yuan’s due process…”
Stephens (E.D. Wash. 2025). “RCW 23.95.450. Under Washington Law, process 4 must be served, as required or permitted by law, which means upon a represented 5 entity’s registered agent.”
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.