
    Diane RIORDAN; Thomas J. Riordan, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. POWERS FASTENERS INC., a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Diane Riordan; Thomas J. Riordan, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Powers Fasteners Inc., a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 11-35901, 11-36003.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Dec. 6, 2012.
    
    Filed Dec. 10, 2012.
    Michael A. Barcott, Esquire, Megan Blomquist, Holmes Weddle & Barcott, APC, Charles L. Meyer, Esquire, Law Office of Charles L. Meyer, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants and Plaintiffs-Appel-lees.
    Yvonne M. Benson, Christopher Tompkins, Betts Patterson & Mines, PS, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee and Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: TALLMAN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and GLEASON, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Sharon L. Gleason, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

The district court’s order to dismiss is affirmed. The plaintiffs failed to follow the statutory requirements for personal service under Wash. Rev.Code § 4.28.080(9).

When the plaintiffs’ process server arrived at the defendant’s facility after business hours, he served a maintenance supervisor who had stayed late to solve a power failure. Under no construction of the statute can an employee with such limited responsibility qualify as a “managing agent.” See Crose v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 88 Wash.2d 50, 58-59, 558 P.2d 764 (1977). The plaintiffs failed to serve any of the persons enumerated in the statute. See Witt v. Port of Olympia, 126 Wash.App. 752, 757-58, 109 P.3d 489 (2005).

We need not consider whether Washington would apply a theory of apparent authority to personal service because the defendant, the supposed principal, did nothing to create a reasonable belief that the maintenance supervisor had any representative authority. See Estep v. Hamilton, 148 Wash.App. 246, 258-59, 201 P.3d 331 (2008).

The district court’s denial of statutory attorneys’ fees is also affirmed. There was no “personal service” under Wash. Rev.Code § 4.28.080. Therefore, the defendant could not have been “personally served,” a predicate for attorneys’ fees under § 4.28.185(5). See Ralph’s Concrete Pumping, Inc. v. Concord Concrete Pumps, Inc., 154 Wash.App. 581, 591-92, 225 P.3d 1035 (2010).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Tjjjg disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     