IN CLERK’S OFFICE
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON SARAH R. PENDLETON
MAY 22, 2025 SUPREME COURT CLERK
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
RAJIV SANGHA, )
) No. 103332-0
Respondent, )
)
v. ) En Banc
)
JEREMY KEEN, RACHEAL LOMAS, and ) Filed : May 22, 2025
ALL OTHER OCCUPANT(S), )
)
Appellants. )
)
MADSEN, J.—At issue in this case is whether RCW 59.18.365 permits a default
judgment against a tenant who appears but does not answer an unlawful detainer action.
Subsection (3) of the statute informs tenants that they may respond to a summons with a
notice of appearance. The trial court below entered a default judgment and writ of
restitution against Jeremy Keen and Racheal Lomas (collectively tenant) despite their
written notice of appearance. The tenant argues this was error pursuant to RCW
59.18.365(3). We agree and reverse the trial court.
BACKGROUND
In 2021, the tenant began renting a house from Rajiv Sangha (landlord). In
November 2023, the tenant stopped paying rent. Six months later, in April 2024, the
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Sangha v. Keen et al., No. 103332-0
landlord served a 14-day notice to pay rent or vacate on the tenant. The tenant took no
action on the notice. In early May, the landlord commenced an unlawful detainer action
by serving the tenant with a summons and complaint pursuant to RCW 59.18.365(3).
Among other things, the summons required the tenant to submit a “written response” by
5:00 p.m. on May 22, 2024, or lose the right to defend against the action or be
represented by a lawyer. Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 11 (boldface omitted). The summons
also stated that the tenant “may respond with a ‘notice of appearance’” and alerted the