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UNPUBLISHED OPINION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^