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

1,789 chars

invoking the attorney general’s authority under RCW 43.10.030(1).3 The State

named the City, Escalera, Rivas, Sparks, Glossen, and Rivard as defendants for their

actions enforcing the CFRHP. The complaint alleged seven causes of action: (1)

denial of procedural due process under color of law, in violation of the United States

Constitution4, (2) denial of substantive due process under color of law, in violation

of the United States Constitution, (3) denial of due process under the color of law,

in violation of the Washington Constitution, (4) housing discrimination in violation

of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) 5, (5) housing discrimination in violation of the

Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) 6, (6) evicting residents without

a court order, in violation of the RLTA, and (7) evicting residents because they were

3
The State first challenged the City’s practices in 2019, in a separate action filed in federal
court. The district court dismissed the case without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1),
finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the State failed to allege sufficient facts for
standing in federal court. The two complaints are similar, but not identical. Compare 1 CP at 25-
44, with id. at 170-86.
4
See 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
5
42 U.S.C. § 3604.
6
Ch. 49.60 RCW.
12
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
State v. City of Sunnyside et al.
No. 101205-5

victims of domestic violence or sexual assault, in violation of the RLTA. The State

requested declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages.

1. In Federal Court: Defendants’ First Summary Judgment Motion

The defendants immediately removed the case to federal court and, after some

discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment.