Wash. Rev. Code » Title 36 · Chapter 36.70C
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.080 (2026)

Initial hearing

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Within seven days after the petition is served on the parties identified in RCW 36.70C.040(2), the petitioner shall note, according to the local rules of superior court, an initial hearing on jurisdictional and preliminary matters. This initial hearing shall be set no sooner than thirty-five days and no later than fifty days after the petition is served on the parties identified in RCW 36.70C.040(2).
(2) The parties shall note all motions on jurisdictional and procedural issues for resolution at the initial hearing, except that a motion to allow discovery may be brought sooner. Where confirmation of motions is required, each party shall be responsible for confirming its own motions.
(3) The defenses of lack of standing, untimely filing or service of the petition, and failure to join persons needed for just adjudication are waived if not raised by timely motion noted to be heard at the initial hearing, unless the court allows discovery on such issues.
(4) The petitioner shall move the court for an order at the initial hearing that sets the date on which the record must be submitted, sets a briefing schedule, sets a discovery schedule if discovery is to be allowed, and sets a date for the hearing or trial on the merits.
(5) The parties may waive the initial hearing by scheduling with the court a date for the hearing or trial on the merits and filing a stipulated order that resolves the jurisdictional and procedural issues raised by the petition, including the issues identified in subsections (3) and (4) of this section.
(6) A party need not file an answer to the petition.
[ 1995 c 347 s 709.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2024 · leading case: Conom v. Snohomish Cnty., 118 P.3d 344 (Wash. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Conom v. Snohomish Cnty., 118 P.3d 344 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 20× “¶ 1 This case requires us to determine whether a superior court is divested of jurisdiction to hear a land use petition if a party fails to note an initial hearing within seven days of serving the petition as required under RCW 36.70C.080(1). This case was dismissed by the trial…”
Conom v. Snohomish Cnty., 155 Wash. 2d 154 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 17× “This case requires us to determine whether a superior court is divested of jurisdiction to hear a land use petition if a party fails to note an initial hearing within seven days of serving the petition as required under RCW 36.70C.080(1). This case was dismissed by the trial…”
Knight v. City of Yelm, 267 P.3d 973 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 8× “In Conom, we held that a party's failure to note the initial hearing on preliminary matters within seven days, as required by RCW 36.70C.080(1), did not divest the superior court of jurisdiction.”
King's Way Foursquare Church v. Clallam Cnty., 116 P.3d 1060 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “The court reasoned that although King’s Way had timely filed its petition, it had failed to note an initial hearing within seven days as required by *691 RCW 36.70C.080 and that such failure deprived the court of jurisdiction to proceed.”
Keep Watson Cutoff Rural v. KITTITAS Cnty., LLC, 184 P.3d 1278 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “¶ 18 The same year as Quality Rock , the Washington Supreme Court addressed whether a superior court is divested of jurisdiction to hear a LUPA petition if a party fails to timely note a hearing within seven days of serving the petition as required under RCW 36.70C.080(1).…”
Keep Watson Cutoff Rural v. Kittitas Cnty., 145 Wash. App. 31 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “¶18 The same year as Quality Rock, the Washington Supreme Court addressed whether a superior court is divested of jurisdiction to hear a LUPA petition if a party fails to timely note a hearing within seven days of serving the petition as required under RCW 36.70C.080(1). Conom,…”
Sleasman v. City of Lacey, 116 P.3d 446 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 14× “[2] The purpose of the "initial hearing" under RCW 36.70C.080 is to highlight jurisdictional and preliminary matters and either to resolve or to put them on the calendar: (1) Within seven days after the petition is served on the parties identified in RCW 36.”
Sleasman v. City of Lacey, 128 Wash. App. 617 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 13× “The purpose of the “initial hearing” under RCW 36.70C.080 is to highlight jurisdictional and preliminary matters and either to resolve or to put them on the calendar: (1) Within seven days after the petition is served on the parties identified in RCW 36.”
Quality Rock Prods., Inc. v. Thurston Cnty., 108 P.3d 805 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “Furthermore, CR 4(b)'s directive that the summons provide notice and warn of potential default can be inapplicable in the LUPA context for necessary parties. Here, Quality Rock is not seeking a judgment or any type of relief against Black Hills and the statute itself provides…”
Quality Rock Prods., Inc. v. Thurston Cnty., 126 Wash. App. 250 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “” RCW 36.70C.080(6). ¶40 In sum, a defect in the caption of a land use petition’s summons is not ideal practice, but it does not violate RCW 36.”
Reeves v. City of Wenatchee, 121 P.3d 777 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 12× “¶ 1 Under RCW 36.70C.080(1), a party has seven days after filing a Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) petition to note an initial hearing on jurisdictional and preliminary matters.”
World Wide Video of Washington, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 103 P.3d 1265 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “The statute, which sets out the procedure for the initial hearing on a land use petition, provides that "[t]he parties shall note all motions on jurisdictional and procedural issues for resolution at the initial hearing." RCW 36.70C.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.080(1) — 11 cases
Conom v. Snohomish Cnty., 118 P.3d 344 (Wash. 2005). “¶ 1 This case requires us to determine whether a superior court is divested of jurisdiction to hear a land use petition if a party fails to note an initial hearing within seven days of serving the petition as required under RCW 36.70C.080(1). This case was dismissed by the trial…”
Conom v. Snohomish Cnty., 155 Wash. 2d 154 (Wash. 2005). “This case requires us to determine whether a superior court is divested of jurisdiction to hear a land use petition if a party fails to note an initial hearing within seven days of serving the petition as required under RCW 36.70C.080(1). This case was dismissed by the trial…”
Knight v. City of Yelm, 267 P.3d 973 (Wash. 2011). “In Conom, we held that a party's failure to note the initial hearing on preliminary matters within seven days, as required by RCW 36.70C.080(1), did not divest the superior court of jurisdiction.”
Keep Watson Cutoff Rural v. KITTITAS Cnty., LLC, 184 P.3d 1278 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “¶ 18 The same year as Quality Rock , the Washington Supreme Court addressed whether a superior court is divested of jurisdiction to hear a LUPA petition if a party fails to timely note a hearing within seven days of serving the petition as required under RCW 36.70C.080(1).…”
Keep Watson Cutoff Rural v. Kittitas Cnty., 145 Wash. App. 31 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “¶18 The same year as Quality Rock, the Washington Supreme Court addressed whether a superior court is divested of jurisdiction to hear a LUPA petition if a party fails to timely note a hearing within seven days of serving the petition as required under RCW 36.70C.080(1). Conom,…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.080(2) — 5 cases
Suquamish Indian Tribe v. Kitsap Cnty., 965 P.2d 636 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
Est. of Jepsen v. Miles, 358 P.3d 403 (Wash. 2015).
World Wide Video of Washington, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 103 P.3d 1265 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “The statute, which sets out the procedure for the initial hearing on a land use petition, provides that "[t]he parties shall note all motions on jurisdictional and procedural issues for resolution at the initial hearing." RCW 36.70C.”
World Wide Video of Washington, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 103 P.3d 1265 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
In re Est. of Jepsen (Wash. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.080(3) — 7 cases
Conom v. Snohomish Cnty., 118 P.3d 344 (Wash. 2005). “¶ 1 This case requires us to determine whether a superior court is divested of jurisdiction to hear a land use petition if a party fails to note an initial hearing within seven days of serving the petition as required under RCW 36.70C.080(1). This case was dismissed by the trial…”
Conom v. Snohomish Cnty., 155 Wash. 2d 154 (Wash. 2005). “This case requires us to determine whether a superior court is divested of jurisdiction to hear a land use petition if a party fails to note an initial hearing within seven days of serving the petition as required under RCW 36.70C.080(1). This case was dismissed by the trial…”
World Wide Video of Washington, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 103 P.3d 1265 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “The statute, which sets out the procedure for the initial hearing on a land use petition, provides that "[t]he parties shall note all motions on jurisdictional and procedural issues for resolution at the initial hearing." RCW 36.70C.”
Lauer v. Pierce Cnty., 238 P.3d 539 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
Lauer v. Pierce Cnty., 157 Wash. App. 693 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.080(4) — 2 cases
Conom v. Snohomish Cnty., 118 P.3d 344 (Wash. 2005). “¶ 1 This case requires us to determine whether a superior court is divested of jurisdiction to hear a land use petition if a party fails to note an initial hearing within seven days of serving the petition as required under RCW 36.70C.080(1). This case was dismissed by the trial…”
Conom v. Snohomish Cnty., 155 Wash. 2d 154 (Wash. 2005). “This case requires us to determine whether a superior court is divested of jurisdiction to hear a land use petition if a party fails to note an initial hearing within seven days of serving the petition as required under RCW 36.70C.080(1). This case was dismissed by the trial…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.080(5) — 2 cases
Conom v. Snohomish Cnty., 118 P.3d 344 (Wash. 2005). “¶ 1 This case requires us to determine whether a superior court is divested of jurisdiction to hear a land use petition if a party fails to note an initial hearing within seven days of serving the petition as required under RCW 36.70C.080(1). This case was dismissed by the trial…”
Conom v. Snohomish Cnty., 155 Wash. 2d 154 (Wash. 2005). “This case requires us to determine whether a superior court is divested of jurisdiction to hear a land use petition if a party fails to note an initial hearing within seven days of serving the petition as required under RCW 36.70C.080(1). This case was dismissed by the trial…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.080(6) — 2 cases
Quality Rock Prods., Inc. v. Thurston Cnty., 108 P.3d 805 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “Furthermore, CR 4(b)'s directive that the summons provide notice and warn of potential default can be inapplicable in the LUPA context for necessary parties. Here, Quality Rock is not seeking a judgment or any type of relief against Black Hills and the statute itself provides…”
Quality Rock Prods., Inc. v. Thurston Cnty., 126 Wash. App. 250 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “” RCW 36.70C.080(6). ¶40 In sum, a defect in the caption of a land use petition’s summons is not ideal practice, but it does not violate RCW 36.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.080(l) — 1 case
Sleasman v. City of Lacey, 128 Wash. App. 617 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “The purpose of the “initial hearing” under RCW 36.70C.080 is to highlight jurisdictional and preliminary matters and either to resolve or to put them on the calendar: (1) Within seven days after the petition is served on the parties identified in RCW 36.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.