show cause. Pinzon and Mendez were ordered to appear at a hearing before the
court on March 10, 2022, to show cause why the court should not issue a writ of
restitution restoring to Sherwood Auburn possession of the apartment and enter
judgment against the tenants.
Following the show cause hearing, a superior court commissioner issued
a writ of restitution and entered judgment against Pinzon and Mendez. At the
hearing, the commissioner “acknowledge[d] that the requirements of the federal
law and the state law being different, certainly could be confusing,” but
determined that Mendez had not found the two notices to be confusing, “because
he still hasn’t vacated the premises.” The commissioner thus found that, in
issuing the two notices, Sherwood Auburn was “in compliance with the state
statute and the federal statute.”
Pinzon and Mendez thereafter filed a motion to revise the commissioner’s
order. On May 6, 2022, a superior court judge denied the motion, thus adopting
the ruling of the commissioner. Pinzon and Mendez appeal.
3
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 84119-0-I/4
II
Pinzon and Mendez assert that, pursuant to the federal CARES Act,
Sherwood Auburn was required to provide a 30-day notice to pay rent or vacate
the premises prior to commencing an unlawful detainer action. Indeed, the plain
language of the CARES Act mandates that a landlord that has received certain
federal financial benefits must provide such a notice to tenants residing in
housing units covered by the Act. Sherwood Auburn nevertheless contends that
the CARES Act simply precludes state trial courts from enforcing eviction actions
on a timeline not in keeping with the CARES Act requirements. This