Sankey Davenport, V. Employment Security Department

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: June 9, 2025
• Docket: 86748-2
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

SANKEY DAVENPORT, No. 86748-2-I Appellant, DIVISION ONE v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT,

Respondent.

CHUNG, J. — Sankey J. Davenport appeals the superior court’s dismissal of his

administrative appeal of decisions by the Employment Security Department (ESD) for

insufficient service under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), RCW 34.05.542(2).

We affirm.

FACTS

Davenport failed to attend a hearing set for October 16, 2023 by the Office of

Administrative Hearings. The ESD Commissioner affirmed the dismissal of Davenport’s

administrative appeals based on his nonappearance at the hearing without good cause

in three final decisions, which it mailed to Davenport on February 2, 2024.

On February 23, 2024, Davenport filed notices of appeal of the ESD

Commissioner’s decisions in King County Superior Court. Davenport also filed a

document titled “Complaint for Good Cause for failing to appear at the October 16, 2023

hearing,” which identified his claim as one for good cause for failing to appear at the

October 16, 2023 administrative hearing and set out the background facts and basis for No. 86748-2-I/2

his claim on appeal. However, Davenport did not serve ESD with a copy of the

“complaint.” Instead, the record shows that Davenport served ESD only with a

document titled “Notice Regarding Administrative Law Review Cases.” The notice bore

a case caption identifying Davenport as the initiating party of the case against ESD and

a case number, but it did not indicate what agency decisions he was appealing, nor did

it include a copy of the complaint.

ESD moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to serve it with a petition for judicial

review. Davenport did not file a response. At the hearing on ESD’s motion, the court

noted that the documents in the record showed that the process server served only the

document “Notice Regarding Administrative Law Review Cases” to ESD. Davenport

agreed that was the only paperwork served; however, he stated that he also had

provided the summons and the complaint to the process server but that “there must

have been a mistake.”

At the hearing, the court also reviewed the record with ESD, noting that on the

document titled “Proof of Personal Service,” under the heading “List of All Documents

You Served,” the box for “Complaint/Petition to/for Review” was checked. However,

ESD pointed out that in the “actual Declaration of Service” from the process server, the

only document identified as personally served was the “Notice regarding administrative

law review cases,” and “that is what the AGO was, in fact, served with.” Davenport

agreed that in the “Proof of Service” document, under the list of documents served, the

boxes for summons and complaint should have been checked, but were not. He also

acknowledged he had not attempted to get a declaration from the process server stating

that he received the documents but failed to serve them. The court concluded that it

2 No. 86748-2-I/3

lacked jurisdiction due to Davenport’s failure to “serve a copy of a petition for judicial

review on the Department within thirty days after service of the Commissioner’s final

decisions, as is required by RCW 34.05.542(2)” and dismissed Davenport’s appeal.

Davenport timely filed a notice of appeal of the superior court’s dismissal order.

DISCUSSION

Before a superior court can exercise its appellate jurisdiction under the APA, “ ‘all

statutory procedural requirements must be met.’ ” Stewart v. Dep’t of Emp. Sec., 191

Wn.2d 42, 52, 419 P.3d 838 (2018) (quoting Union Bay Pres. Coal. v. Cosmos Dev. &

Admin. Corp., 127 Wn.2d 614, 617, 902 P.2d 1247 (1995)). The APA requires that to

timely perfect an appeal, a party must serve their petition 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). The petition for review must include “[t]he name and mailing

address of the agency whose action is at issue” and “[i]dentification of the agency action

at issue, together with a duplicate copy, summary, or brief description of the agency

action.” RCW 34.05.546(3), (4).

Compliance with this 30-day deadline is strict, as “ ‘[i]t is impossible to

substantially comply with a statutory time limit. . . . It is either complied with or it is not.’ ”

Stewart, 191 Wn.2d at 53 (quoting City of Seattle v. Pub. Emp’t Relations Comm’n, 116

Wn.2d 923, 928-29, 809 P.2d 1377 (1991)). “ ‘By failing to serve [a] petition[ ] within the

30 day time limit,’ a party ‘fail[s] to invoke the superior court’s appellate jurisdiction.’ ”

Stewart, 191 Wn.2d at 54 (quoting City of Seattle, 116 Wn.2d at 929).

Here, because ESD mailed the Commissioner’s final decisions to Davenport on

February 2, 2024, to meet the APA’s 30-day deadline for judicial review, Davenport had

3 No. 86748-2-I/4

until Monday, March 4, 2024, to both file and serve his petition. Although Davenport

served the “Notice Regarding Administrative Law Review Cases” by that deadline, he

acknowledges that he “failed to handover the correct documentation (summons,

complaint) to the Commissioner of the ESD, and the office of Attorney General of

Washington (AG).”1

Davenport’s briefing then focuses on the merits of ESD’s dismissal of his appeal,

rather than the superior court’s dismissal—i.e., good cause for why he did not appear

for his original hearing. However, on the only issue decided by the superior court—

whether Davenport satisfied RCW 34.05.542(2)’s requirements for service of a petition

for review—it is undisputed that he did not. Because the superior court’s appellate

jurisdiction was predicated on all statutory requirements being met, the superior court

lacked jurisdiction. “A court lacking jurisdiction must enter an order of dismissal.” Conom

v. Snohomish County, 155 Wn.2d 154, 157, 118 P.3d 344 (2005).

Accordingly, we affirm the superior court’s dismissal of Davenport’s appeal.

WE CONCUR:

1 In his briefing on appeal, Davenport suggests that it was not proper for the superior court to

consider his statements during the hearing as he was not sworn in under oath. But even without his statements, he does not point to any evidence that rebuts the documentary evidence in the record that shows the petition was not properly served.