Latest 3 Cases: Mathis v. St. Helens Auto Center, Inc. (Arbitration & Mediation), Gould v. Deschutes County (Civil Procedure), Oregon v. Chapman ...

American Law’s Worst Moment—2020

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost and Associate Dean of the Faculty and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence & Political Science at Amherst College—explains why the police murder of George Floyd was the worst moment of 2020 in American law. Professor Sarat proposes that we remember the event and that date—May 25—as “infamous,” a word reserved for rare and atrocious events like the bombing of Pearl Harbor, in an attempt to capture the brutality and inhumanity of the act.

Read More

Mathis v. St. Helens Auto Center, Inc.

Docket: S067064

Opinion Date: December 31, 2020

Judge: Flynn

Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, Civil Procedure, Labor & Employment Law

The issue this case presented for the Oregon Supreme Court's review centered on whether ORS 652.200(2) and ORCP 54 E(3) could be construed in a way that “will give effect” to both, in the words of the Oregon Legislature’s longstanding requirement for construing statutes. Plaintiff was employed by defendant for several years. Defendant terminated plaintiff’s employment, and, several months later, plaintiff filed the underlying action alleging defendant failed to pay wages that were due at termination. The case was assigned to mandatory court-annexed arbitration, and defendant made an offer of judgment under ORCP 54 E, which plaintiff rejected. The arbitrator ultimately found that defendant had failed to timely pay some of the wages that plaintiff claimed and that the failure was willful, entitling plaintiff to a statutory penalty. In addition, the arbitrator awarded plaintiff an attorney fee under ORS 652.200(2) and costs, but he applied ORCP 54 E(3) to limit those awards to fees and costs that plaintiff had incurred before defendant’s offer of judgment, because that offer of judgment exceeded the amount that plaintiff had ultimately recovered on his claims. Plaintiff filed exceptions to the arbitrator’s application of ORCP 54 E(3) to limit the award of fees and costs, but the award was affirmed by operation of law when the court failed to enter a decision within 20 days. In a divided en banc opinion, the Court of Appeals held that ORCP 54 E(3) could be applied to wage claims without negating the effect of ORS 652.200(2) and thus, both could be given effect. The Supreme Court concurred with the appellate dissent, finding that and need to limit the attorney fees of an employee who unreasonably rejects a good faith offer or tender could be addressed on a case-by-case basis under ORS 20.075(2), but the “reasonable” attorney fee required by ORS 652.200(2) could not be categorically limited through ORCP 54 E(3). Judgment was reversed and the matter returned to the circuit court for further proceedings.

Gould v. Deschutes County

Docket: S067074

Opinion Date: December 31, 2020

Judge: Nakamoto

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law

Relating to the Oregon Supreme Court's holding in Oregon v. Chapman, 367 Or 388 (2020), petitioner similarly contended that the Court of Appeals wrongly dismissed her petition for judicial review of an order of the Land Use Board of Appeals as untimely when she had mailed the petition by ordinary first-class mail on the last day of the appeals period. Petitioner was a party to a proceeding before the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). LUBA delivered its final order in the matter on June 21, 2019, and petitioner sought to challenge it. Under ORS 197.850(3)(a), petitioner could obtain judicial review of the final order by filing a petition in the Court of Appeals “within 21 days following the date the board delivered or mailed the order upon which the petition is based.” Twenty- one days from June 21, 2019, was July 12, 2019, a Friday. Although the lawyer had intended that the petitions be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, as stated in the certificate of filing and service that was enclosed, the legal assistant instead sent them by first-class mail and purchased a certificate of mailing for each one. The petition for judicial review was delivered to the Appellate Court Administrator on Monday, July 15, the date estimated on the USPS receipt. Shortly thereafter, the Appellate Commissioner issued an order dismissing the petition as untimely, explaining that it had been received by the court on July 15, 2019 - more than 21 days from the date that the LUBA order had been served. Applying the rule established in Chapman, the Supreme Court concluded ORS 19.260(1)(a)(B) applied here, and that as a consequence, petitioner’s petition for judicial review was timely filed and should not have been dismissed.

Oregon v. Chapman

Docket: S067066

Opinion Date: December 31, 2020

Judge: Nakamoto

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The issue presented for the Oregon Supreme Court's review in this case was whether ordinary first-class mail is, or can be, a “class of delivery calculated to achieve delivery within three calendar days.” Defendant was convicted on driving while suspended and for failing to register her vehicle. Wishing to appeal that judgment and acting without legal representation, defendant sent a notice of appeal to the Appellate Court Administrator by first-class mail. Defendant certified that the “method of filing” she had used for her notice was “United States Postal Service, ordinary first class mail.” A postage validation imprint (PVI) label on the envelope showed that petitioner had submitted her notice of appeal to the United States Post Office (USPS) for mailing on Monday, July 9, 2018, the last day of the applicable appeals period. The Appellate Court Administrator received defendant’s notice of appeal two days later, on Wednesday, July 11, 2018. The notice was forwarded to the Appellate Commissioner, who concluded that it was untimely and issued an order dismissing defendant’s appeal on that ground. The Court of Appeals majority concluded that first-class mail could, in no circumstances, be such a class of delivery and therefore, a notice of appeal that had been dispatched by first-class mail on the last day of the appeals period and received by the court two days later was untimely - requiring dismissal of the underlying appeal. The Supreme Court rejected the appellate majority’s analysis and conclusion, and also rejected an alternative theory for dismissing the appeal that was raised in a concurring opinion - a supposed failure to comply with proof-of-mailing-date requirements in ORS 19.260(1)(a)(B) and (1)(b). Accordingly, the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the appeal was reversed and the matter remanded to that court for further proceedings.