Moore v. Urquhart, No. 16-36086 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
The Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996 (FCIA) does not limit injunctive relief against an executive branch officer enforcing a court order, and the Sheriff in this case was not entitled to immunity from plaintiffs' request for declaratory and injunctive relief. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of a class action challenging the constitutionality of Washington Revised Code 59.18.375, which allows tenants to be evicted from their homes without a court hearing. The panel held that original plaintiffs had standing to sue at the time they filed this action, which was the relevant time frame for analyzing Article III standing; plaintiffs who were subsequently added to the action did not have standing to sue because their circumstances left their prospects of injury too speculative to support Article III standing; and, even after original plaintiffs settled their dispute with their landlord, the action was not moot because the dispute was capable of repetition, yet evading review.
On the merits, the panel held that the district court misread the statute and that the text of section 375 makes clear that a hearing was not mandatory; the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not apply because plaintiffs were not asking the district court to review and reject the judgment entered against them in state court; the Sheriff's two alternative arguments for affirmance of the district court's judgment -- that the action must be brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and that the Sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity -- lacked merit; and the Sheriff's remaining arguments were without merit. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Constitutional Law / Mootness / Landlord-Tenant. The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of a class action challenging the constitutionality of Washington Revised Code § 59.18.375 (“§ 375”), which allows tenants to be evicted from their homes without a court hearing. Plaintiffs rent an apartment in King County, Washington, and their landlord filed an unlawful detainer action seeking to evict them under Washington’s Residential Landlord-Tenant Act. Washington Revised Code § 59.18.375 (“§ 375”) applies when the basis for eviction is non-payment of rent: The landlord must serve the tenant with a written notice advising the tenant that the landlord is entitled to an eviction order without a hearing unless the tenant takes one of two actions, either paying the amount the landlord claims is owed or disputing the amount in a sworn written statement. If the tenant does not take either of these actions, then the landlord is entitled to a writ of restitution. The panel held that the original plaintiffs had standing to sue at the time they filed this action, which is the relevant time frame for analyzing Article III standing. The panel also held that plaintiffs who were subsequently added to the action did not have standing to sue because their circumstances left their prospects of injury too speculative to support Article III standing. MOORE V. URQUHART 3 With respect to mootness, the original plaintiffs conceded that their claim for declaratory and injunctive relief had become moot because the writ of restitution expired, and they eventually settled their dispute with their landlord. The panel held that one of the mootness exceptions applied, however, because the dispute was capable of repetition, yet evading review. The panel held that the otherwise moot dispute remained live for Article III purposes. Turning to the merits, the panel held that the district court dismissed plaintiffs’ action based on a misreading of the statute in question when the district court held that § 375 required state courts to schedule a hearing in all cases before a writ of restitution could be issued. The panel held that the text of § 375 makes clear that a hearing is not mandatory. The panel held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not apply here because plaintiffs were not asking the district court to review and reject the judgment entered against them in state court. The panel held that the Sheriff’s two alternative arguments for affirmance of the district court’s judgment lacked merit. First, the panel held that the contention that plaintiffs’ action must be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was without merit because plaintiffs sought to recover only declaratory and injunctive relief against the Sheriff in his official capacity, and to obtain that relief plaintiffs did not need a statutory cause of action. The panel held that the plaintiffs could rely on the judge-made cause of action recognized in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908); and the Sheriff was a proper defendant in an Ex parte Young suit seeking to enjoin enforcement of § 375. 4 MOORE V. URQUHART Second, the panel also rejected the Sheriff’s argument that he was entitled to judicial immunity. The panel held that common law judicial immunity was of no help to the Sheriff because it only barred suits seeking damages, and it did not preclude a court from granting declaratory or injunctive relief. The panel also held that the expanded scope of judicial immunity afforded under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as amended by the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996, did not limit injunctive relief against an executive branch officer enforcing a court order, and the Sheriff was not entitled to immunity from plaintiffs’ request for declaratory and injunctive relief. The panel held that Sheriff’s remaining arguments were without merit. The panel reversed, and remanded for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.