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
C Davis, V. City Of Aberdeen (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “” RCW 36.70C.080. If a defense of untimely filing is not raised at this hearing, the defense is waived.”
Schnitzer West, Llc v. City Of Puyallup (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “6 We also note that Viking, as an owner of the property, has standing under LUPA in an administrative hearing.”
Est. of Jepsen v. Miles, 358 P.3d 403 (Wash. 2015). “RCW 36.70C.080(2)-(3). The will contest statutes do not contain similar waiver provisions.”
In re Est. of Jepsen (Wash. 2015). “RCW 36.70C.080(2)-(3). The will contest statutes do not contain similar waiver provisions.”
Toward Responsible Dev., App. v. City Of Black Diamond, Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “"12 7\A 8 See RCW 36.70C.080 (requiring that within 7 days after the petition is served, petitioner must note the initial hearing, which must be set between 35 and 50 days after the petition is served, and at which time the court shall enter an order setting a date for…”
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.”
Lauer v. Pierce Cnty., 238 P.3d 539 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “¶ 21 The statute provides that listed defenses including "untimely filing or service of the petition" are "waived" if not raised by a timely motion at an initial hearing on jurisdictional and preliminary matters following the filing of a LUPA appeal.”
Lauer v. Pierce Cnty., 157 Wash. App. 693 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “¶20 Lauer also counters in her supplemental briefing that Mellish is not dispositive because the Garrisons failed to raise an appropriate timeliness issue at the initial hearing in the superior court as RCW 36.70C.080 requires. We agree. ¶21 The statute provides that listed…”
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,…”
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…”
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). “RCW 36.70C.080(2)-(3). The will contest statutes do not contain similar waiver provisions.”
World Wide Video of Washington, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 103 P.3d 1265 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
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). “RCW 36.70C.080(2)-(3). The will contest statutes do not contain similar waiver provisions.”
— 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).
Lauer v. Pierce Cnty., 238 P.3d 539 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “¶ 21 The statute provides that listed defenses including "untimely filing or service of the petition" are "waived" if not raised by a timely motion at an initial hearing on jurisdictional and preliminary matters following the filing of a LUPA appeal.”
Lauer v. Pierce Cnty., 157 Wash. App. 693 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “¶20 Lauer also counters in her supplemental briefing that Mellish is not dispositive because the Garrisons failed to raise an appropriate timeliness issue at the initial hearing in the superior court as RCW 36.70C.080 requires. We agree. ¶21 The statute provides that listed…”
— 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).
Quality Rock Prods., Inc. v. Thurston Cnty., 126 Wash. App. 250 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.080(l) — 1 case
Sleasman v. City of Lacey, 128 Wash. App. 617 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
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.