Wa State Department Of Employment Security v. Shaw Rahman ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                      015 JUL c\ Aiill'- \
    ill
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
    SHAW RAHMAN,
    No. 72396-1-1
    Appellant,
    DIVISION ONE
    v.
    WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT
    OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY,
    UNPUBLISHED OPINION
    Respondent.
    FILED: July 27, 2015
    Becker, J. — Because the petition for review of the administrative
    agency's final order was not timely filed, we affirm the order of dismissal.
    On November 12, 2013, appellant Shaw Rahman petitioned the
    Commissioner of the Employment Security Department for review of an
    employment benefit decision. The commissioner ruled on Rahman's petition on
    December 13, 2013. A copy of the decision was mailed to Rahman that same
    day.
    On January 6, 2014, Rahman asked the commissioner to reconsider the
    decision. Under WAC 192-04-190(1), a petition for reconsideration must be filed
    no more than 10 days after the commissioner's decision has been mailed. The
    commissioner dismissed Rahman's petition for reconsideration as untimely.
    No. 72396-1-1/2
    On January 30, 2014, Rahman petitioned the superior court for review of
    the commissioner's ruling of December 13, 2013. Rahman served the
    commissioner with a copy of the petition on March 4, 2014. The commissioner
    moved to dismiss, arguing that Rahman's petition for judicial review was not
    timely filed or served. The superior court granted the commissioner's motion and
    dismissed Rahman's petition for review on the basis that the filing on January 30,
    2014, was beyond the 30-day time limit.
    Rahman filed a "motion to amend" the order of dismissal, alleging that he
    timely delivered the petition to the court on January 6. The court treated the
    "motion to amend" as a motion for reconsideration and denied it.
    Rahman appeals. Rahman contends his petition for review should be
    considered because of his alleged attempt to file it with the superior court on
    January 6, before the 30-day deadline. According to Rahman's brief, the clerk of
    the superior court did not file his petition because it lacked a cover sheet.
    Rahman contends the clerk then returned his petition to his Washington
    residence even though he provided a temporary mailing address in Canada.
    Judicial review of an agency's decision is governed by the Washington
    Administrative Procedure Act (APA), chapter 34.05 RCW. Under the APA, "a
    petition for judicial review of an order shall be filed with the court and served on
    the agency, the office of the attorney general, and all parties of record within thirty
    days after service of the final order." RCW 34.05.542(2).
    There are no "good cause" exceptions excusing a failure to comply with
    the strict filing and service requirements of the APA. Clvmer v. Emp't Sec. Dep't,
    No. 72396-1-1/3
    
    82 Wn. App. 25
    , 30, 
    917 P.2d 1091
     (1996). And even if the doctrine of
    substantial compliance applies, Rahman's alleged attempt to file his petition on
    time does not satisfy it. See Citv of Seattle v. Pub. Emp't Relations Comm'n. 
    116 Wn.2d 923
    , 928-29, 
    809 P.2d 1377
     (1991). First, the excuse that a timely filed
    petition was returned because it lacked a cover sheet is not supported by
    competent evidence. Second, Rahman did not provide this excuse to the trial
    court until after the court had already granted the agency's motion to dismiss for
    untimely filing and service. Third, Rahman does not explain why he should be
    excused from providing a cover sheet if that was necessary to get his petition
    filed on time.
    Rahman had 30 days from December 13, 2013, to file his petition for
    review with the superior court. It is undisputed that Rahman's petition was not
    filed within the statutory time period. Rahman has not cited authority, and we are
    not aware of any, that would permit this court to find that he complied with the
    filing deadline.
    Dismissal is an appropriate response to noncompliance. Sprint Spectrum.
    LP v. Dep't of Revenue. 
    156 Wn. App. 949
    -50, 953-54, 963, 
    235 P.3d 849
     (2010)
    (noncompliance with service requirements of the statute supports dismissal),
    review denied, 170Wn.2d 1023(2011).
    No. 72396-1-1/4
    Affirmed.
    WE CONCUR:
    s^j" v—"-~V"Ll/
    z^
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 72396-1

Filed Date: 7/27/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/27/2015