State v. City of Sunnyside

3 Wn.3d 279

[No. 101205-5. En Banc.]

Argued June 15, 2023. Decided June 20, 2024.

The State of Washington, Appellant, v. The City of Sunnyside et al., Respondents.

[3 Wn.3d 284]

Montoya-Lewis, J., filed the lead opinion, in which Owens and Gordon McCloud, JJ., concurred. Madsen, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Johnson and Stephens, JJ., and Lawrence-Berrey, J. Pro Tem., concurred. González, C.J., filed an opinion dissenting in part, in which Yu, J., concurred. Whitener, J., did not participate in the disposition of this case.

Nature of Action: The attorney general sued a city and multiple city employees challenging the manner in which the city operated its crime-free rental housing program (CFRHP). The attorney general alleged that the CFRHP was being used to extrajudicially evict tenants and that such evictions appeared to have occurred without the due process afforded to renters under the state and federal constitutions and the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act of 1973 (RLTA) (ch. 59.12 ROW) and may have disparately impacted protected classes in violation of state and federal laws against discrimination.

Superior Court: The Superior Court for Yakima County, No. 20-2-00411-39, Kevin S. Naught, J., on July 7, 2022, entered a summary judgment in favor of the city.

Supreme Court: Holding that (1) the attorney general was authorized to maintain the action under RCW 43.10-.030(1) because the lawful operation of CFRHPs constituted a matter of public concern, (2) the city and its employees were not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity, municipal liability, the availability of injunctive relief, or the prima facie challenge to the housing discrimination claims, and (3) summary judgment was proper on the RLTA claims because no facts indicated that RLTA

[3 Wn.3d 285]

applied to the city and its employees, the court affirms the judgment in part, reverses it in part, and remands the case for further proceedings.

Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General, and Mitchell A. Riese, Neal H. Luna, Colleen M. Melody, and Lane Polozola, Assistants, for appellant.

Kirk A. Ehlis (of Menke, Jackson, Beyer LLP), for respondents.

Jeffrey L. Taren and Jesse A. Wing on behalf of Fair Housing Center of Washington, amicus curiae.

Melissa R. Lee, Jessica Levin, and Robert S. Chang on behalf of Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, amicus curiae.

Tyler W. Graber, Macy Disney, and Scott Crain on behalf of Northwest Justice Project, amicus curiae.

Isaac Ruiz, Denise Chen, and La Rond Baker on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, amicus curiae.

¶1 Montoya-Lewis, J. — The Washington State attorney general brought suit against the city of Sunnyside (City), challenging the manner in which the City operated its crime-free rental housing program (CFRHP). The attorney general initiated this action due to the concern that the program was being used to extrajudicially evict tenants and that such evictions impacted renters who are Latinx, women-headed households, and families with minor children. Such evictions appear to have occurred without the

[3 Wn.3d 286]

due process afforded to renters under the state and federal constitutions and the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act of 1973 (RLTA)¹ and may have disparately impacted protected classes in violation of state and federal laws against discrimination.

¶2 The City argues that the attorney general lacks the authority to act in this manner because the scope of that authority under RCW 43.10.030(1) limits the attorney general’s ability to act to matters that impact more people than those impacted by the CFRHP. The defendants brought summary judgment on multiple claims and the trial court granted the defendants’ motion. Although the court did not specifically state the basis for the grant of summary judgment, we review each ground raised by the defendants and reverse and remand on all claims except the RLTA claim; on that claim we agree with the trial court and affirm the grant of summary judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Factual Background

1. The City’s CFRHP

¶3 The City established the CFRHP in 2010, stating the "goal of reducing crime and improving the quality of life for residents of rental housing." Sunnyside Municipal Code (SMC) 5.02.030(A). The legislature authorizes CFRHPs for the benefit of "the public health, safety, and welfare," subject to certain requirements. RCW 35.106.005, .020. CFRHPs should be "designed to reduce crime, drugs, and gangs on rental housing premises under the supervision of the local police department" without preventing people from obtaining housing simply due to criminal history. RCW 35.106.010(1), .005. Under the City’s CFRHP, participating landlords must require renters to sign a "crime-free lease/rental agreement

[3 Wn.3d 287]

addendum" (agreement addendum), which lists crimes that constitute material breach if committed or permitted by the resident on or near the rental property. SMC 5.02.030(A)(3). If the City’s police believe a crime has been committed at the residence, they will issue a notice of noncompliance to the landlord. SMC 5.02.030(F). The landlord then must serve a notice to comply or quit to the residents "and pursue all remedies … to terminate the tenancy and evict the residents." Id. Though the ordinance requires landlords to issue this notice within five days upon notification by the police, the agreement addendum and the landlord declaration of participation provide a time frame of only three days, and the latter states that landlords must serve eviction notices without opportunity to comply or quit. Compare id., with SMC 5.02.030(A)(3), and 2 Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 494.

¶4 While landlords are typically required to pay an annual fee for a rental housing license, the City waives this fee for landlords who participate in the CFRHP. SMC 5.02.020(B), (D). If a landlord fails to comply with the CFRHP, the City will revoke the license and charge the landlord 110 percent of the fee plus interest. SMC 5.02.020(D). Failure to maintain a residential housing license is also a civil infraction punishable by a fine of $1,000. SMC 5.02.070. However, in the information it provides to landlords, the Sunnyside Police Department describes this as a misdemeanor punishable by the fine "and/or a jail sentence of up to 90 days." 2 CP at 495.

¶5 The Washington State Attorney General’s Office first raised concerns about the operation of the program in 2017. According to the City, it "took steps to address the concerns," including conducting an annual training on the CFRHP for police officers. 1 CP at 151. Police training records indicate that a CFRHP training was given once in 2011 and not offered again until 2019. Those records show that only two of the five respondent officers participated in those trainings.

[3 Wn.3d 288]

¶6 As a matter of practice, the police department has placed one officer in charge of the CFRHP; other officers would refer CFRHP-related matters to them. Respondent Melissa Rivas² has been the officer in charge of the CFRHP since 2010. Rivas states she has received training on both the RLTA and the CFRHP ordinance. She maintains that she understands it is not the role of police to evict anyone and she has never done so.

¶7 The other individual respondents include Police Chief Al Escalera, police officers Christopher Sparks and Joey Glossen, and code enforcement officer James Rivard. Like Rivas, the officers state they understand they do not have authority to evict tenants and claim they have not done so. As chief of police, Escalera is responsible for establishing the City’s customs and policy with respect to the CFRHP, though he did not regularly review CFRHP matters.

¶8 The City has paused enforcement of the CFRHP pending this litigation.

2. Tenants’ Experiences

¶9 The State argues the respondents have enforced the CFRHP unlawfully from 2014 to 2019, demonstrated, in part, by the individual experiences of numerous tenants. The State offers declarations of nine tenants and a landlord as evidence of this pattern.

Angelita Guizar and family

¶10 Angelita Guizar was living in rental housing with her three children when Rivas and Rivard came to her home and arrested her daughter’s friends. Guizar recalls Rivard said she and her children would have to move out of the house in three days. Rivas claims Guizar received a civil

[3 Wn.3d 289]

infraction for nuisance, unrelated to the CFRHP. But Guizar recalls the landlord told her she "would have to move out of the house, because otherwise he would get in trouble with the police," and police followed up with her afterward and reiterated that she had to move out. 2 CP at 826. The family moved out to "compl[y] with the Code Enforcement Officer’s [Rivard’s] orders." Id. at 827. They were able to move in with a friend, where Guizar and her three children had to share a single room.

Eliseo Vargas

¶11 Eliseo Vargas lived alone in a rental house in Sunnyside. When his daughter visited, police came to his home with a warrant and arrested her. Vargas recalls Rivas returning two days later to tell him he could no longer live there. His landlord said he had to leave the house in a month and "she had to ask [him] to leave because the police told her to." Id. at 791. He never received a notice of eviction, but a police officer came to check if he was still there on the day of the one-month deadline. Vargas left, and he slept many nights in his truck. He was not able to find housing in Sunnyside and had to move to Prosser.

Yvonne Chagolla and family

¶12 Yvonne Chagolla and her family were living in a rental home when Rivas responded to a domestic violence call. There were no criminal charges against either Chagolla or her husband for that incident, but according to Chagolla, Rivas told them "there had been too many domestic violence reports coming from [their] house" and they had to be evicted. Id. at 799. The next day, the landlord gave her husband "a document that said [th...