IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
CROSSROADS MANAGEMENT, LLC, )
)
Plaintiff, ) No. 101329-9
)
v. ) En Banc
)
)
LACY K. RIDGWAY (formerly Lacy )
Caldwell) and MATTHEW RIDGWAY, ) Filed: December 21, 2023
)
husband and wife, )
Respondents, )
CARL and SUZAN LEWIS, husband )
and wife, )
)
Petitioners. )
STEPHENS, J.—This case asks us to address important procedural aspects of
the Superior Court Civil Arbitration Rules (SCCARs) and how those rules impact a
litigant’s ability to appeal a prearbitration order granting partial summary judgment.
Carl and Suzan Lewis sued their landlords, Lacy and Matthew Ridgway, for
violating the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act of 1973 (RLTA), ch. 59.18 RCW,
including by intentionally withholding a portion of their security deposit. If proved,
this claim would entitle the Lewises to a return of their full security deposit plus
double damages and attorney fees and costs. The Ridgways moved for partial
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Crossroads Management, LLC v. Ridgway et al., No. 101329-9
summary judgment on the Lewises’ “intentionally withholding” claim, which the
trial court granted. This left only the Lewises’ claim for a return of the principal
sum of their deposit.
After failed settlement negotiations, the parties proceeded to arbitration
pursuant to the SCCARs. The arbitrator awarded the Lewises the entirety of their
security deposit and awarded attorney fees to the Ridgways under the small claims
statute, RCW 4.84.250-.300. Seeking to appeal the order granting partial summary
judgment and the fee award, the Lewises sought a trial de novo. They filed their
trial de novo request, using an outdated court form that did not provide a line for