provided when the landlord fails to fulfill or carry out the stated reason for eviction
as nonexclusive. The City that enacted the JCEO reads it this way, and such a
reading retains the integrity of both the unlawful detainer process and the ordinance. 8
We therefore reverse the lower courts' interpretation of the JCEO and remand to the
superior court for further proceedings consistent with our interpretation of the
ordinance.
II. Seattle's JCEO Allows the Tenant To Challenge the Landlord's
Certification of Just Cause in an Unlawful Detainer Proceeding
Few cases have discussed Seattle's JCEO. The parties direct us to Housing
Authority v. Silva, 94 Wn. App. 731, 972 P.2d 952 (1999), but it does not address
the issue in this case. Br. of Appellants at 31-32; Suppl. Br. of Resp'ts at 16. In
Silva, the court held that the landlord did not have just cause under SMC
tenant may bring a private cause of action for damages against a landlord who fails to carry
out the stated intent); see also Wash. Supreme Court oral argument, Faciszewski v. Brown,
No. 92978-5 (Nov. 8, 2016), at 24 min., 37 sec., recording by TVW, Washington State's
Public Affairs Network, http://www.tvw.org (acknowledging the statement in the Court of
Appeals opinion that once the landlord's certification is filed, the tenant has only
posteviction remedies, but arguing that statement does not reflect Landlords' position).
8
In its amicus brief, the City describes the remedies provided in the JCEO as
nonexclusive. Br. of Amicus Curiae City of Seattle at 7.
-11-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Faciszewski, et al. v. Brown, et al., 92978-5
22.206.160(C)(l )(d) because the landlord provided the tenant with only two 10-day