[No. 37281-9-II. Division Two. March 31, 2009.]
Carolyn A. Lake (of Goodstein Law Group, PLLC), for appellants. Gerald A. Horne, Prosecuting Attorney, and David B. St Pierre, Deputy, and Cheryl Carlson, Puyallup City Attorney, and Kevin J. Yamamoto and Gary N. McLean, Assistants, for respondents. Authored by J. Robin Hunt. Concurring: Marywave Van Deren, David H. Armstrong. ¶1 HUNT, J. -- Ted Spice and Plexus Development, LLC, appeal the superior court's denial of their CR 60(b)(5) and (11) motion to vacate the superior court's dismissal of their LUPA ¶2 We hold that Spice and Plexus's voluntary withdrawal of their LUPA petition from superior court finally terminated all further appellate review of the County Hearing Examiner's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision. FACTS ¶3 On February 2, 2006, Ted Spice and Plexus Development, LLC, filed a petition in superior court under LUPA, chapter 36.70C RCW, seeking review of a primarily favorable Petitioners Ted Spice and Plexus Development, LLC, by and through their attorneys, Carolyn A. Lake of the Goodstein Law Group PLLC, hereby withdraws their Petition to the Pierce County Superior Court for review of the Pierce County Deputy Hearing Examiner's May 19, 2005 Decision in the Resolution of a Water Service Dispute involving Ted Spice and Plexus Development, LLC and the City of Puyallup and the Deputy Examiner's January 12, 2005 Decision on Reconsideration for same ("Decision"). Petitioner intends to seek alternative, supplemental relief as set forth in Pierce County Deputy Hearing Examiner's January 12, 2005 Decision on Reconsideration. A copy of this withdrawal will [be] sent to all parties. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 29.» ¶4 On November 22, the County moved the superior court to dismiss Spice and Plexus's LUPA petition with prejudice under CR 41(b). On December 6, Spice and Plexus moved to continue the hearing date for the motion to dismiss. The County opposed the continuance. On December 8, with only the County and the City present, the superior court entered an order dismissing Spice and Plexus's LUPA petition with prejudice. Spice and Plexus neither moved the superior court to reconsider its dismissal with prejudice, nor did they appeal the superior court's dismissal to us. ¶5 Thirteen months later, on January 3, 2008, Spice and Plexus filed a motion in superior court under CR 60(b)(5) and (11) and CR 41(b) to vacate its December 8, 2006 order dismissing their LUPA petition, which they had previously withdrawn. On January 11, the superior court denied Spice and Plexus's motion to vacate its 13-month-old order of dismissal. Spice and Plexus now appeal the superior court's denial of their motion to vacate the court's order dismissing their previously voluntarily withdrawn LUPA appeal. ANALYSIS ¶6 We do not address the bulk of Spice and Plexus's arguments because (1) there is no meaningful relief we can grant them and (2) the order they appeal is moot in light of their prior voluntary withdrawal of their LUPA petition, which terminated all further review of the County Hearing Examiner's ruling by any court under LUPA (ch. 36.70C RCW) and its corresponding procedures. VOLUNTARY WITHDRAWAL OF LUPA PETITION [1, 2] ¶7 An appeal from an administrative tribunal invokes the appellate, rather than the general, jurisdiction of the superior court. Chaney v. Fetterly, 100 Wn. App. 140, 145, 995 P.2d 1284, review denied, 142 Wn.2d 1001 (2000). Acting in its appellate capacity, the superior court has limited statutory jurisdiction, and all statutory requirements must be met before it properly invokes this jurisdiction. Chaney, 100 Wn. App. at 145 (quoting Skagit Surveyors & Eng'rs, LLC v. Friends of Skagit County, 135 Wn.2d 542, 555, 958 P.2d 962 (1998)). [3-5] ¶8 The legislature intended LUPA to function as "the exclusive means of judicial review of land use decisions." Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 155 Wn.2d 397, 407, 120 P.3d 56 (2005) (quoting RCW 36.70C.030(1)). To serve the purpose of timely review, LUPA provides stringent deadlines, requiring the parties to file a petition for review and to serve it on the parties within 21 days of the date of the land use decision. Asche v. Bloomquist, 132 Wn. App. 784, 795, 133 P.3d 475 (2006) (citing RCW 36.70C.040(3)), review denied, 159 Wn.2d 1005 (2007). "[O]nce a party has had a chance to challenge a land use decision and exhaust all appropriate administrative remedies, a land use decision becomes unreviewable by the courts if not appealed to the superior court within LUPA's specified timeline." Habitat Watch, 155 Wn.2d at 406-07 (holding that even illegal decisions under local land use codes must be challenged under LUPA within the 21-day period). ¶9 Spice and Plexus complied with the initial LUPA requirements when they filed their LUPA petition in superior court within 21 days of the County Hearing Examiner's decision. If they had pursued their LUPA petition and obtained superior court review, sitting in its appellate capacity, they could have sought further appellate review in our court. [6-10] ¶10 Instead, Spice and Plexus served and filed a formal pleading that withdrew their LUPA petition from the superior court. ¶11 Accordingly, we hold that the superior court's subsequent orders dismissing Spice and Plexus's LUPA petition and denying their motion to vacate the dismissal order were moot for purposes of the matter currently before us. Moreover, because Spice and Plexus voluntarily withdrew their LUPA petition from superior court, there is no relief we can provide and the issues they raise are not properly before us. For these reasons, we further hold that their appeal before our court is frivolous VAN DEREN, C.J., and ARMSTRONG, J., concur.