Robin's Ruminations

During the just finished WSPSA Spring Seminar a question arose regarding an individual's immunity from service of process.  There is at least one circumstance under which such immunity might be granted.  You'll notice I used the conditional "might" since, as you'll see, the immunity is by no means foolproof.  I reviewed a number of Washington appellate and supreme court decisions and the following (Click Here and then search for 54518-3-1) case summarizes the situation as well as any I found.

There is a rational basis for granting immunity from service of process for non-residents but not residents.  The basis for the distinction is apparent from the purpose underlying immunity for non-residents: The underlying purpose of the rule extending immunity from the service of unrelated civil process to nonresident suitors and witnesses, attending upon a local civil judicial proceeding, is to insulate the pending litigation against the interference and vexation which might arise from the untimely intervention of unrelated litigation.  It proceeds upon the ground that courts should not permit the progress of a civil trial to be interrupted by the service of process in other civil suits, the portent of which could prevent or tend to discourage the voluntary attendance of those nonresident persons whose presence is essential or desirable if justice in the pending cause is to be fully and fairly administered. The privilege of the immunity is, therefore, primarily a privilege of the courts rather than a privilege of the individual, resting, as it does, upon the foundation of judicial convenience and the furtherance of the orderly and unfettered administration of justice.  The exemption provided by the privilege, however, is not one to be arbitrarily and rigorously enforced upon all occasions; but, rather, it can and should be extended or withheld only as judicial necessities dictate.

My interpretation is that if you only have one shot at service, and it is while the servee is in the state for another legal matter, then you might want to take it.  That said, this is definitely the type of situation where your client should make the decision.  The service might hold or, on the other hand, it might not.  It will all depend on how the court interprets the "dictate" of the "judicial necessities."