Anna J. Brown

The case involved owners of Nookie’s Bistro & Spirits, a restaurant and bar in Hermiston, Oregon, who sued the city and its police chief after the Oregon Liquor Control Commission denied their application for a temporary outdoor liquor license for a special event. The denial followed the chief’s recommendation, which was based on dozens of prior police calls to the location involving fights, disturbances, drug activity, and other incidents. Plaintiffs alleged violations of their constitutional rights, including claims against the city under Monell and against the chief individually. The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims with prejudice. It concluded there was no evidence of any constitutional violation by the chief, insufficient basis for municipal liability, and that the chief was entitled to qualified immunity.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatory

In Barnett v. BAC Home Loan Servicing, L.P., plaintiff Jeffrey Barnett alleged that he had entered into a permanent loan modification agreement with BAC regarding his mortgage on property in Hillsboro, Oregon, after the original note and trust deed had been transferred among various entities including Fannie Mae, but defendants nonetheless scheduled a foreclosure sale for February 28, 2011. The U.S. District Court granted Barnett's motion for a temporary restraining order, restraining defendants from proceeding with the sale. The court's reasoning was that Barnett had made reasonable efforts to notify defendants of the impending complaint and motion, there was insufficient time before the sale for defendants to appear and respond, and the risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiff from losing his property outweighed the brief delay imposed by the order; the court also required a $500 bond as security.

propertyprocedure

In Erickson v. United States, the petitioner sought a writ of coram nobis or audita querela to vacate his 1968 felony conviction for refusing induction into the military during the Vietnam War, arguing his conscientious objection based on ethical and moral beliefs should have been recognized, and also requested expungement of the conviction records due to its impact on his eligibility for certain employment programs. The court granted the writ of audita querela, setting aside and vacating the conviction, but denied the request for expungement without prejudice. The decision to vacate was based on the invalidity of requiring religious belief for conscientious objector status and the issuance of a presidential pardon, while expungement was denied because no extraordinary circumstances were shown to outweigh the government's interest in maintaining criminal records.

criminal lawreligious liberty

The case involved Cynthia Maria Wilson Ste Claire's challenge to the Social Security Administration's denial of her application for Disability Insurance Benefits based on conditions including fibromyalgia, chronic pain, migraines, and hyperacusis. The court reversed the Commissioner's decision, finding that the ALJ failed to adequately consider the effects of the plaintiff's hyperacusis on her ability to work, the impact of her obesity on other impairments, and the opinions of examining physicians. It remanded the matter for further administrative proceedings to reassess the plaintiff's residual functional capacity and determine if she can perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

healthcarefederal power

This case arose from a business dispute in which plaintiffs alleged that defendants misused their idea for a door-lock light after an agreement to develop and market the product ended, asserting state-law claims for breach of implied contract, violation of Oregon’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs originally filed in state court, but defendants removed the action to federal court on the basis that the claims were preempted by federal patent law because they sought patent-like protection for an unpatented idea. The court denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand, finding federal jurisdiction proper due to preemption; granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that all claims were preempted by federal patent law; and denied leave to file an amended complaint adding a conversion claim as futile for the same preemption reason.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedureproperty

This case involves a contractual dispute arising from a 1998 agreement in which BNSF Railway conveyed rail line assets and a permanent easement to Albany & Eastern Railroad Company (AERC), including a liquidated damages clause imposing a $2,000 per car fee if AERC interchanged traffic with railroads other than BNSF. After AERC acquired the assets and later sought to interchange traffic with Union Pacific without paying the fee, it initiated arbitration before the Surface Transportation Board, leading to further litigation over contract enforcement, alleged fraud by BNSF, and various affirmative defenses and counterclaims. The court granted partial summary judgment to both BNSF and the defendants, denied BNSF's motion to file a third amended complaint, dismissed BNSF's fraud claims, and dismissed the defendants' fifth through ninth affirmative defenses along with all counterclaims. The rulings were based on principles including claim preclusion from the prior arbitration, interpretation of the agreement's terms regarding trackage rights and interchange restrictions, and the absence of viable fraud allegations. The case centers on enforcement of the rail service easement and related business arrangements between the railroads.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves Northwest Pipe Company seeking coverage from excess insurers RLI Insurance Company and Employers Insurance of Wausau for claims alleging personal injury and property damage. The court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and granted summary judgment to both defendants while denying the plaintiff's motion, dismissing all claims against the insurers, and declaring that neither has a duty to defend or indemnify under the relevant policies. The core reasoning focused on interpreting the excess policies under Oregon law, which require horizontal exhaustion of all primary and other collectible underlying insurance before the duty to defend is triggered. Because the plaintiff had not exhausted such coverage, and other insurers were fully defending the claims, the excess insurers' obligations had not arisen. The court found the policy language unambiguous in this regard and consistent with prior federal interpretations applying Oregon law.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involves a dispute over a subcontract for the fabrication, supply, and installation of wastewater treatment equipment on a municipal project in Oregon. Plaintiff Stellar J Corporation and third-party defendant Travelers Casualty and Surety Company moved for partial summary judgment on defendant Smith & Loveless's counterclaims and third-party claims for breach of contract and payment, arguing that Smith could not recover because it lacked an Oregon contractor's license when performing the work. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion, and the district court adopted the recommendation after de novo review. The court held that Oregon Revised Statutes § 701.131 bars unlicensed contractors from bringing actions to recover compensation for work requiring a license, that the work here qualified as contractor activity without any applicable exception, and that allowing dismissal and refiling of the claims would improperly circumvent the statute's timing requirement.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from a franchise dispute in which Juiceme entities and their owners sued US-based and Canadian Booster Juice entities and principals over regional development and franchise agreements. The defendants moved to dismiss the federal court action, citing arbitration clauses in the agreements that required binding arbitration of most disputes before the American Arbitration Association under the Federal Arbitration Act. The court denied both motions to dismiss and stayed the litigation, reasoning that the arbitration provisions applied to the claims, that a collateral fee-sharing arrangement and one party's inability to pay arbitration costs raised issues for the arbitrator rather than the court to resolve, and that a stay was required under FAA § 3 pending arbitration or an arbitrator's determination of any default.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Maxwell v. Kelly Services, Inc., plaintiff Diana Maxwell, a temporary employee assigned to a client site, sued her former employer alleging pregnancy discrimination under Title VII and Oregon law after she was removed from her assignment at Merix and not reinstated upon return from pregnancy leave; she also brought claims for wrongful discharge, retaliation, and violations of the FMLA. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation in full, as no timely objections were filed. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the pregnancy discrimination claim to the extent it alleged failure to reinstate constituted discrimination, but denied the motion on the claim to the extent it alleged removal from the Merix assignment was discriminatory. The court further denied summary judgment on the plaintiff's remaining claims for wrongful discharge, retaliation, and FMLA violations. The decision rested on a de novo review of legal principles finding no error in the magistrate's analysis of the evidence regarding performance issues, knowledge of pregnancy, and adverse actions.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves multiple parties, including landowners, developers, and banks, disputing liability for cleanup costs of a former Oregon farm site contaminated by hazardous waste from a nearby tannery, with claims brought under CERCLA for indemnification and cost recovery as well as related state-law claims for misrepresentation, negligence, and contribution. The court ruled on several motions by denying plaintiffs' and another defendant's requests to deny or continue Sterling's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, granting in part and denying in part Sterling's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, denying as premature Sterling's motion to sever, and denying plaintiffs' motion for default judgment on an equitable rescission claim. The decisions rested on the court's jurisdiction under CERCLA and supplemental jurisdiction for state claims, analysis of whether Sterling had made an appearance sufficient to preclude default, and application of procedural rules under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to the pleadings and undisputed facts about the parties' transactions and alleged liabilities.

environmentpropertyproceduretorts & liability

In this case, plaintiff Sterling Savings Bank sued defendant JHM Properties, LLC for judicial foreclosure on a deed of trust securing a promissory note, and sued individual defendants for breach of guaranty agreements, after JHM defaulted by failing to make required interest payments starting April 2008 and the full balance due in November 2008. The defendants raised affirmative defenses including breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, estoppel, failure to state a claim, and unclean hands, primarily alleging that the bank had delayed or failed to make disbursements or approve a set-aside agreement for property development. The magistrate judge recommended granting the bank's motion for summary judgment, and the district court adopted that recommendation after de novo review, finding no genuine issue of material fact that the defendants had defaulted and that the affirmative defenses failed as a matter of law based on the evidence in the record, including deposition testimony refuting the defendants' claims. The court therefore entered judgment in favor of the bank on the foreclosure and guaranty claims.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved Defendant Milenko Krstic, who was indicted for fraud and misuse of a visa under 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) based on alleged false statements about his military service in immigration forms submitted when entering the U.S. as a refugee from Bosnia and later adjusting status. Krstic moved to suppress statements made during a 2005 interview with immigration agents, arguing the interrogation was custodial without Miranda warnings, the statements were involuntary, and the use of his adult daughter as an interpreter violated his due process rights related to family integrity. After an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the motion in full. The court reasoned that under the totality of the circumstances, Krstic was not in custody, his statements were voluntary, and no due process violation occurred because his daughter volunteered to interpret without objection and did not act as a government agent.

immigrationcriminal lawprocedure

In Moore v. Potter, an African-American U.S. Postal Service employee sued the Postmaster General under Title VII, alleging race discrimination in his removal from a supervisor training program (ASP) and retaliation for complaining about unfair treatment during the program. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court found no evidence that the plaintiff's race motivated his removal, noting consistent documentation of performance issues such as tardiness, unpreparedness, and failure to follow instructions both before and after his complaints. It also concluded there was insufficient evidence of a causal link between the complaints and the removal, and that the plaintiff failed to show the employer's nondiscriminatory explanations were pretextual.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case concerns a health plan beneficiary's challenge to her ERISA-governed plan's attempt to assert a lien or obtain reimbursement from settlement proceeds she recovered after an automobile accident. The plaintiff had received medical benefits from the plan, pursued claims against the third-party driver and her own uninsured motorist insurer, and reached settlements totaling $100,000; the plan had sought direct reimbursement from the third-party insurer under Oregon Revised Statute § 742.534 but did not pursue further remedies under related statutes. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied the plan's cross-motion, ruling that the federal common-law made-whole doctrine applies to the plan and bars enforcement of any lien or reimbursement right until the plaintiff is fully compensated. The court also granted leave to file a second amended complaint to add allegations regarding the made-whole issue while denying certain other proposed amendments as futile.

healthcareprocedure

This case involves Seiko Epson Corporation suing Ninestar entities for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, alleging infringement of multiple patents on printer ink cartridges. Ninestar asserted counterclaims and affirmative defenses alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act through sham litigation and Walker Process fraud, plus related state-law tort claims for interference with economic advantage. The court granted Ninestar leave to file an amended answer but granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss the antitrust counterclaims, dismissing the sham litigation claims because Seiko Epson had prevailed in prior ITC proceedings on the patents, making those claims not objectively baseless as a matter of law, and addressing related issues of bifurcation and striking extraneous allegations.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned a dispute between Verizon Northwest, an incumbent telecommunications carrier, and real estate developers over responsibility for costs to relocate Verizon's underground facilities, which was required to widen a public road as a condition of land-use approval for a townhome project in Washington County, Oregon. Verizon sought to enforce its PUC-approved tariff requiring payment by the developer or property owner, while defendants argued the tariff did not apply and the county's order under ORS 758.010 controlled; defendants also counterclaimed for trespass arising from Verizon's entry onto the property to perform the work. The court granted summary judgment to Verizon on the trespass counterclaim, finding statutory authorization and consent for the entry, but denied Verizon's tariff-enforcement claim because defendants were not customers or applicants under the tariff and the statute did not assign payment liability; it allowed Verizon's alternative quantum meruit claim to proceed after denying the developers' motions on that issue.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Jason DeBaugh suing Greyhound Lines, Inc. for injuries from a collision with a company bus driven by employee Dan O’Connor, with claims for negligence, negligence per se, and negligent entrustment. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granted the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the negligent entrustment claim. Under Oregon law, a plaintiff must show the entrustment was unreasonable, caused harm, and involved a reasonably foreseeable risk, supported by facts showing the defendant’s knowledge of an unreasonable danger. The court concluded there was no genuine issue of material fact because medical exams found no sleep disorders or fatigue issues for the driver, and a prior fatigue reference was too remote to establish the defendant’s awareness of a foreseeable risk.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved Native American tribes and individuals challenging federal agencies' approval and construction of a highway-widening project on Highway 26 in Oregon, alleging violations of NEPA, NHPA, and the Department of Transportation Act due to inadequate consideration of impacts on cultural, historical, and ecological resources. The court reviewed a magistrate judge's recommendations and dismissed the Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth Claims along with certain plaintiffs (including Slockish, Jackson, and two tribes) for lack of standing, while denying dismissal of the remaining claims on mootness grounds. The core reasoning was that the Administrative Procedure Act confers broad equitable authority on courts to remedy agency violations, the bar for establishing mootness is high especially in NEPA cases, and effective relief could still be provided even if the project was nearly complete.

environmentfederal powercivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a disabled minor student who was assaulted by other students at a public high school and sued the school district for negligence, denial of a free appropriate public education under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and violations of equal protection and substantive due process, along with state-law battery and parental liability claims against the student assailants and their parents. On the school district's motion to dismiss, the court denied dismissal of the negligence claim, finding it timely under the Oregon Tort Claims Act because the statute of limitations was tolled during the plaintiff's minority. The court granted dismissal of the § 1983 claims, holding that the FAPE claim required exhaustion of IDEA administrative remedies, the constitutional claims failed to allege a municipal custom or policy under Monell, and public school attendance did not create the special custodial relationship needed for a due process duty to protect. The court allowed the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability