Scott Sandsberry v. Washington State Department Of Financial Institutions
74454-2
| Wash. Ct. App. | Mar 20, 2017Background
- The Department of Financial Institutions fined Scott Sandsberry $5,000 under the Washington Securities Act; an ALJ upheld the fine and the Director affirmed the initial order as Sandsberry’s Director-level petition was untimely.
- The Department served its final order on Sandsberry on May 20, 2015.
- Sandsberry claims he mailed a petition for judicial review on June 19, 2015; copies were received by the AGO and the Department on July 2, 2015.
- Envelopes delivering the petition bore no postage and no postmarks and were stamped "Returned for Postage;" the record contains no declaration of service or other evidence of timely mailing or delivery to the Department.
- The Department moved to dismiss for failure to comply with APA service requirements; the trial court dismissed the petition for lack of strict or substantial compliance and no good cause.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding Sandsberry failed to timely serve the agency or show required delivery, and that statutory service and timing requirements are mandatory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of service under RCW 34.05.542(2) | Sandsberry contends he mailed petition June 19, within 30 days | Department notes receipt July 2 (43 days after final order); no postmark or proof of timely mailing | Court: Service was untimely; record shows receipt after 30-day deadline, no proof of timely deposit |
| Method of service required for agency under RCW 34.05.542(4),(6) | Sandsberry argues mailing to AGO suffices as service on the Department | Department: petitioner must deliver to agency office or serve AGO, but here mailing was untimely/defective | Court: Even if AGO service could substitute, the attempted mail service was untimely and thus defective |
| Substantial compliance / actual notice defense | Sandsberry asserts attempted mailings and Department’s receipt show substantial compliance or actual notice | Department: statutory timing and delivery requirements are mandatory and were not met | Court: Failure to meet statutory time limitation cannot constitute substantial compliance; petition dismissed |
| Good cause exception / jurisdictional effect | Sandsberry argues good cause or that jurisdiction exists despite service defects | Department: APA has no good cause exception to service timing; court retains subject-matter jurisdiction but may dismiss for service failure | Court: No good-cause exception; superior court had jurisdiction but dismissal for noncompliance was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Ricketts v. Washington State Bd. of Accountancy, 111 Wn. App. 113 (discussing de novo review of dismissal for APA service failures)
- City of Seattle v. Pub. Emp't Relations Comm'n, 116 Wn.2d 923 (failure to comply with statutorily set time limitation is not substantial compliance)
- Mulenex v. Dep't of Emp't Sec., 47 Wn. App. 486 (time limitations treated as mandatory)
- Sprint Spectrum, LP v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 156 Wn. App. 949 (petition may be dismissed for failure to timely serve agency)
- Chimer v. Emp't Sec. Dep't, 82 Wn. App. 25 (no good-cause exception to APA service requirements absent agency rule)
- Puget Sound Med. Supply v. Washington State Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 156 Wn. App. 364 (same)