Opinion
No. 62704-0-I.
September 21, 2009.
Appeal from the Superior Court, King County, No. 08-2-11600-0, Deborah D. Fleck, J., entered November 7, 2008.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Dwyer, A.C.J., concurred in by Agid and Ellington, JJ.
Chin Haynen appeals from a superior court order dismissing her petition for review of an Employment Security Department (Department) commissioner's decision denying her request for unemployment training benefits. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), chapter 34.05 RCW, requires such a petition for review to be filed in court and served on opposing parties within 30 days of the decision being appealed. RCW 34.05.542(2). Because Haynen did not serve the Department within the 30-day time limit, the superior court properly dismissed her petition. Accordingly, we affirm.
I
The Department found Haynen to be ineligible to receive unemployment benefits pursuant to the training benefits provisions of the Employment Security Act, RCW 50.22.150. An administrative law judge reviewed and affirmed the Department's determination that Haynen had not satisfied the statutory requirements for commissioner-approved training benefits. A Department commissioner affirmed that decision on March 7, 2008. Haynen's request for reconsideration by the commissioner was denied. On April 3, 2008, she filed a petition for review of the commissioner's decision in the superior court. However, the Department did not receive a copy of this petition within the 30-day statutory period for service. Haynen attempted to serve the petition by mail and the envelope addressed to the Department, containing a copy of the petition, was postmarked April 9, 2008.
The Department moved to dismiss Haynen's petition "for lack of subject matter jurisdiction." The superior court initially denied this motion based on a lack of evidentiary support. The Department then renewed the motion, submitting an affidavit from an assistant attorney general declaring that a photocopy attached to the affidavit was a true and correct copy of the envelope the Department had received containing Haynen's petition for review. The envelope is postmarked April 9. The superior court then granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that it did not acquire appellate jurisdiction, "as notice was late."
II
The Department contends that the superior court did not have appellate jurisdiction to review Haynen's petition because she failed to timely serve the petition on the Department. We agree.
Whether a court has jurisdiction is a question of law; the issue is subject to de novo review. Crosby v. Spokane County, 137 Wn.2d 296, 301, 971 P.2d 32 (1999). When reviewing an administrative decision of the Employment Security Department, the superior court exercises appellate jurisdiction, rather than general jurisdiction. Clymer v. Empl. Sec. Dep't, 82 Wn. App. 25, 27, 917 P.2d 1091 (1996). The superior court's appellate jurisdiction is properly invoked only when all statutory procedural requirements are satisfied. City of Seattle v. Public Empl. Relations Comm'n, 116 Wn.2d 923, 926, 809 P.2d 1377 (1991) (hereinafter PERC); Clymer, 82 Wn. App. at 27. "`Without subject matter jurisdiction, a court . . . may do nothing other than enter an order of dismissal.'" Ricketts v. Bd. of Accountancy, 111 Wn. App. 113, 116, 43 P.3d 548 (2002) (quoting Inland Foundry Co., v. Spokane County Air Pollution Control Auth., 98 Wn. App. 121, 123-24, 989 P.2d 102 (1999)).
The APA governs appeals from orders in unemployment compensation cases. RCW 50.32.120; RCW 34.05.510. The APA sets forth the procedural requirements for superior court review, requiring that 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). Service of the agency's final order is "complete when the agency mails the decision to the parties." PERC, 116 Wn.2d at 927.
The APA contains no "good cause" exception excusing failure to comply with these strict filing and service requirements. Clymer, 82 Wn. App. at 30 (dismissing petition when Clymer failed to file petition for review until one day after the 30-day limitation period for filing). "It is impossible to substantially comply with a statutory time limit. . . . It is either complied with or it is not. . . . [F]ailure to comply with a statutorily set time limitation cannot be considered substantial compliance." PERC, 116 Wn.2d at 928-29. Therefore, if service is not accomplished prior to expiration of the statutory time limit, it will not invoke the superior court's appellate jurisdiction. See Cheek v. Empl. Sec. Dep't, 107 Wn. App. 79, 84-85, 25 P.3d 481 (2001) (dismissing petition where Cheek timely served the attorney general, but served the Department four days after the 30-day limitation period expired).
Here, Haynen is seeking to appeal an unemployment compensation decision of the Department; thus, the APA's time limitations apply. Haynen had 30 days from the date of the March 7 commissioner's order to both file her petition for review and serve the petition on the Department and the attorney general's office. It is undisputed that the envelope containing Haynen's petition for review was not served on the Department within 30 days of the commissioner's order, given that the envelope is postmarked April 9. Because Haynen failed to satisfy the statutory requirements, the superior court did not obtain appellate jurisdiction over her case. The superior court properly entered an order of dismissal.
Affirmed.