Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1012055.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,751 chars

STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 101205-5
)
Appellant, )
) EN BANC
v. )
)
CITY OF SUNNYSIDE; AL ESCALERA, ) Filed: June 20, 2024
in his official and individual capacities; )
MELISSA RIVAS, in her official and )
individual capacities; CHRISTOPHER )
SPARKS, in his official and individual )
capacities; JOEY GLOSSEN, in his official )
and individual capacities; and JAMES )
RIVARD, in his official and individual )
capacities, )
)
Respondents. )
___________________________________ )

MONTOYA-LEWIS, J.—The Washington State attorney general brought

suit against the city of Sunnyside (City), challenging the manner in which the City

operated its crime-free rental housing program (CFRHP). The attorney general

initiated this action due to the concern that the program was being used to

extrajudicially evict tenants and that such evictions impacted renters who are Latinx,
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
State v. City of Sunnyside et al.
No. 101205-5

women-headed households, and families with minor children. Such evictions appear

to have occurred without the due process afforded to renters under the state and

federal constitutions and the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act of 1973 (RLTA) 1 and

may have disparately impacted protected classes in violation of state and federal

laws against discrimination.

The City argues that the attorney general lacks the authority to act in this

manner because the scope of that authority under RCW 43.10.030(1) limits the

attorney general’s ability to act to matters that impact more people than those

impacted by the CFRHP. The defendants brought summary judgment on multiple

claims and the trial court granted the defendants’ motion. Although the court did