Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Cheek v. EMPLOYMENT SEC. DEPT. OF WASHINGTON
Citation: 25 P.3d 481Docket: 19602-0-III
Court: Court of Appeals of Washington; June 21, 2001; Washington; State Appellate Court
Shannon Cheek applied for unemployment benefits after quitting her job as a respite worker due to a domestic violence situation. Her claim was denied by the Employment Security Department (ESD) and upheld by an administrative law judge (ALJ), who concluded that her personal reasons for leaving did not qualify as "good cause" under the applicable statute (RCW 50.20.050). Cheek's subsequent appeal to the Department Commissioner was also denied. She then filed a petition for review in Spokane County Superior Court, but it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the petition was not timely served on the ESD, as required by RCW 34.05.542. Although Cheek argued that service on the Attorney General's Office sufficed since they represent the ESD, the trial court disagreed, affirming the dismissal based on improper service. Cheek appealed this dismissal, seeking to contest the merits of her denial of benefits and requesting attorney fees, which were denied. The appellate court upheld the dismissal, confirming that the trial court's jurisdictional decision was appropriate. Ms. Cheek claims that the Office of the Attorney General, as the attorney of record for the Department under RCW 43.10.040, should be considered timely service for her petition for review, according to RCW 34.05.542(6). She contends that the Department should be estopped from challenging subject matter jurisdiction based on a letter it sent, which influenced her to serve the petition on the Attorney General's Office. However, her arguments are deemed without merit as an appeal from an administrative tribunal relies on the superior court's appellate jurisdiction, which is limited and requires strict adherence to statutory procedural requirements. The trial court only acquires subject matter jurisdiction if the petition for review is properly filed and served on all relevant parties. Under RCW 34.05.542, a petition must be filed and served on the agency that issued the decision, here the Employment Security Department, and on the attorney general and all parties of record within 30 days of the final order. The statute specifies that service on the agency must be directed to the agency's main office. Despite Ms. Cheek's interpretation of subsection (6), the definition of "attorney of record" necessitates a formal notice of appearance, which the Attorney General’s Office did not file until April 26, 2000. Ms. Cheek's petition was served on April 1, 2000, prior to this notice, meaning the Department was not timely served. The court concluded that substantial compliance with the service requirements does not confer jurisdiction. Therefore, since the Attorney General was not authorized to accept service for the Department at that time, the service requirements in RCW 34.05.542 were not satisfied, leading to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the superior court. The trial court's decision is affirmed, and Ms. Cheek's request for attorney fees is denied.