HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEX - CE -- Sucio Order on Motion To DismissSuciu Code Enforcement - 1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF
RENTON
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
FILE NUMBER: CODE-20-000181 and Code 20-000182
SITE OF VIOLATION: 1916 and 1924 Aberdeen Ave NE
Renton, WA 98056
PROPERTY OWNER: Remus Suciu
1924 Aberdeen Ave NE
Renton, WA 98056
REVIEW AUTHORITY: City of Renton
TYPE OF CASE: Finding of Violation: Motion to Dismiss
DISPOSITION: Motion to Dismiss denied.
Salah Kornas, on behalf of her client Remus Suciu, filed a motion to dismiss the above
captioned mater on June 15, 2020. The City filed a response on June 19, 2020 and Ms. Kornas a
reply on June 19, 2020. The motion is denied.
The City of Renton does not have any adopted procedural rules that expressly authorize an
appellant to file a motion to dismiss. Overall, defendants in code enforcement cases are protected
by procedural due process, which means they must have the opportunity to be heard at a
meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Post v. City of Tacoma, 167 Wn. 2d 300, 313 (2009).
The Washington State Civil Rules of Procedure are based upon decades of judicial experience and
hundreds of years of common law. In the absence of any more directly applicable procedural rules
to govern how a code enforcement defendant can be heard in a “meaningful manner,” the rules
serve as a compelling default set of guidelines to govern prehearing motions.
The Civil Rules provide too pertinent opportunities for prehearing dismissal – summary
judgment under CR 56 and CR 12b motion for judgment on the pleadings. Ms. Kornas’ motion
cannot be treated as a summary judgment motion – the facts she relies upon are not attested to in
any affidavit or declaration. More important, she filed her motion only eight days in advance of the
appeal hearing. CR 56 requires summary judgment motions to be filed 28 days in advance of
hearing on the summary judgment motion. Although some accommodation can be made to shorten
that time because CR 56 is not directly adopted, eight days did not provide Renton with a
reasonable amount of time to respond, especially given that the City’s response had to be made due
just five days later because the examiner needed a business day to issue a ruling on the motion.
In the absence of complying with the procedural requirements of CR 56, Ms. Kornas was
left with filing a CR 12c motion for judgment on the pleadings. However, CR 12c prohibits such a
motion to be based upon any evidence outside the pleadings. Mr. Kornas’ motion is entirely based
Suciu Code Enforcement - 2
upon evidence outside the Finding of Violation issued against Mr. Suciu. Therefore, her motion
also does not qualify as a CR12c motion.
In the absence of qualifying for a CR 56 or CR 12c motion, Mr. Kornas must litig ate her
client’s defenses at the appeal hearing as scheduled on June 23, 2020.
DATED this 19th day of June 2020.
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Code Enforcement Decision -- 3