Thomas Matteson sued LeafFilter North, LLC, Sally Bloomstrom, and related parties for declaratory and injunctive relief plus damages, alleging violations of Oregon wage statutes (ORS chapters 652 and 653) and construction labor contractor licensing requirements (ORS chapter 658) arising from his work installing LeafFilter products. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied Matteson’s motion to amend the complaint, dismissing the claims. On appeal, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the record contained no genuine issue of material fact on whether LeafFilter was Matteson’s employer—pay stubs showed payment by a subcontractor—or whether Bloomstrom and LeafFilter received agreed remuneration for supplying labor, both prerequisites for the statutory claims. The court also concluded that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying the proposed amendments, which depended on the same unresolved factual issues or appeared time-barred, and found no merit in Matteson’s remaining procedural arguments.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

Thomas Matteson sued LeafFilter North, LLC, and several individuals including Sally Bloomstrom and Zack Hickman over a dispute arising from his work installing LeafFilter products, asserting wage claims under ORS chapter 652 for unpaid wages and improper itemization, licensing claims under ORS chapter 658 against Hickman for acting as an unlicensed labor contractor, and related requests for declaratory and injunctive relief. The trial court dismissed the wage claims against both individuals and the licensing claims against Hickman with prejudice under ORCP 21, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court reasoned that the complaint failed to allege facts showing Bloomstrom or Hickman individually employed or paid Matteson, so they did not qualify as his “employers” under the wage statutes. It further held that Hickman’s supervisory actions as an installation manager for LeafFilter did not make him a “construction labor contractor” who recruits or supplies workers, and the allegations could not support individual liability under the licensing statutes even with amendment.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves unmarried parents who separated and disputed custody and parenting time for their child. After a four-day hearing, the trial court awarded sole legal custody to the father, with shared parenting time, based on its evaluation of the statutory best-interests factors under ORS 107.137(1). The mother appealed, arguing errors in the application of those factors, the exclusion of new evidence on reconsideration regarding the father's educational decisions, and the admission of an investigator's testimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court properly considered all relevant statutory factors without legal error, acted within its discretion on the reconsideration motion, and committed no reversible error in handling the evidence. A detailed factual recitation was unnecessary for the nonprecedential decision.

family lawprocedure

In Matteson v. LeafFilter North, LLC, plaintiff Thomas Matteson, proceeding pro se, sued individual defendants Sally Bloomstrom and Zack Hickman (along with corporate defendants) for declaratory and injunctive relief plus damages, alleging violations of Oregon wage statutes under ORS chapter 652 and labor contractor licensing requirements under ORS chapter 658 arising from his work installing LeafFilter products. The trial court dismissed the wage claims against both individuals and the licensing claims against Hickman with prejudice on a motion under ORCP 21, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the complaint did not allege facts showing Hickman or Bloomstrom were plaintiff's employers under ORS 652.310, as neither paid or agreed to pay him at a fixed rate, and that Hickman's role as an installation manager assigning and supervising work for LeafFilter did not make him a "construction labor contractor" requiring a license under ORS 658.405 and 658.410, since his actions were performed entirely as part of his employment rather than recruiting workers for personal remuneration.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In Matteson v. LeafFilter North, LLC, plaintiff Thomas Matteson sued LeafFilter North, LLC, Sally Bloomstrom, and related parties after a dispute arising from his installation work for LeafFilter products, asserting wage claims under ORS chapters 652 and 653, licensing claims under ORS chapter 658, and related requests for declaratory and injunctive relief. The trial court denied Matteson’s motion to amend his complaint and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying the amendment because the proposed changes depended on facts already challenged in the summary-judgment motion and some new claims appeared time-barred. It further held that summary judgment was proper because the record contained no genuine issue of material fact that LeafFilter was Matteson’s employer or that Bloomstrom and LeafFilter received remuneration as construction labor contractors, and the remaining assignments of error lacked merit.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a custody dispute between unmarried parents who had separated after living together with their child. Following a four-day hearing, the trial court awarded sole legal custody to the father with shared parenting time, based on an analysis of the statutory best-interest factors under ORS 107.137(1). The mother appealed, arguing that the court misapplied those factors (particularly regarding the primary caregiver preference and family relationships), improperly excluded new evidence on reconsideration about the father’s educational decisions, and wrongly admitted testimony from an investigator. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in a nonprecedential opinion, concluding that the trial court had adequately considered all required statutory factors without legal error and had acted within its discretion on evidentiary matters.

family law