we interpret it liberally to accomplish this purpose. See Jametsky, 179 Wn.2d at
763. 9
SMC 22.206.160(C)(1) provides that a tenant cannot be evicted without
having the opportunity for a show cause hearing. A show cause hearing must be
meaningful, as it is the first (and sometimes the only) step of the eviction process in
which the tenant is able to participate. See, e.g., Leda v. Whisnand, 150 Wn. App.
69, 83, 207 P.3d 468 (2009) (a tenant "subject to an action for unlawful detainer
9
Landlords contend that courts should interpret the JCEO strictly in their favor.
Resp. Br. at 9. They argue, "Just as the unlawful detainer act grants landlords an
accelerated eviction process unknown at common law, the [JCEO] grants tenants additional
procedural and substantive rights unknown at common law." Id. Because the unlawful
detainer act is in derogation of the common law, it is strictly construed in favor of the
tenant. !d. According to Landlords, it therefore follows that the JCEO, which is also in
derogation of the common law, should be strictly construed in favor of the landlord. Id. at
10. While this argument has some logical appeal, it overlooks the fact that the proceeding
at issue is actually an unlawful detainer action, not a special proceeding under the JCEO.
Even if we agree that tenants must strictly comply with JCEO provisions (for example, by
making a timely complaint to the director under subsection (C)(4), this does not lessen the
burden on landlords to establish just cause for eviction. Compare RCW 59.18.200(l)(a)
(requiring only that a residential landlord in Washington provide a tenant with 20 days'
advance written notice), with SMC 22.206.160(C)(l) (requiring a residential landlord in
Seattle to have "just cause" before evicting a tenant).