Darleen Ortega

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

In State v. Grimaud, the Oregon Court of Appeals reviewed a probation violation judgment from Umatilla County Circuit Court. The defendant was found in violation for failing to obey all laws after declining to testify at his hearing. The trial court had advised him of his right to remain silent and warned that any testimony could be used against him in a separate pending criminal case. On appeal, the defendant argued that this warning violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by discouraging him from testifying, though he had not objected at the time. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court’s statements did not constitute plain error because they were not obviously “threatening remarks” of the kind that have been found to infringe due process in prior cases such as Webb v. Texas.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In State v. T.L., the Oregon Court of Appeals reviewed a trial court judgment involuntarily committing appellant T.L. for up to 180 days as a “person with mental illness” under the expanded criteria for chronic mental illness in former ORS 426.005(1)(f). T.L. challenged whether his three prior commitments within the previous three years could be used to meet the statute’s hospitalization requirement and whether the remaining criteria were satisfied on the record. The court affirmed the commitment, holding that the statute’s plain text allows any prior qualifying hospitalizations—including those based on the expanded criteria—to count toward the two-placement threshold. It further concluded that the evidence, viewed favorably to the trial court’s findings, showed T.L.’s current symptoms were substantially similar to those preceding his past commitments and that, without treatment, he would likely deteriorate to become dangerous to others or unable to meet basic needs.

healthcarecivil rightsprocedure

In Robinson v. Pedro, petitioner Brandon Michael Robinson appealed the denial of post-conviction relief after pleading guilty to 22 charges across 14 cases in exchange for a negotiated 105-month sentence, claiming his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge one methamphetamine delivery conviction based on a legal theory that only became viable after his plea. The post-conviction court rejected the claim, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that, even assuming counsel’s performance was deficient for not anticipating the later overruling of State v. Boyd in State v. Hubbell, Robinson failed to prove prejudice because the record contained no contemporaneous evidence that he would have rejected the favorable plea agreement—which resolved exposure in multiple cases—and insisted on going to trial. Instead, the evidence showed his primary goal was minimizing incarceration time, making it unlikely he would have risked the deal over one charge. The decision relied on established standards requiring concrete proof of a different outcome rather than post-hoc assertions.

criminal law

In State v. Bement, the defendant was retried and convicted of first-degree murder, first-degree robbery with a firearm, and felon in possession of a firearm after shooting and killing a man during a robbery; he appealed, challenging his true-life sentence and claiming prosecutorial misconduct involving the state's presentation of evidence about bloody money found in his car without disclosing that the blood was not the victim's. The Court of Appeals remanded for resentencing but otherwise affirmed the convictions. It held that the trial court's imposition of life imprisonment without parole under ORS 163.107(2)(b) based on its own findings of premeditation, victim vulnerability, criminal history, and lack of remorse violated the Sixth Amendment, as interpreted in Apprendi and Blakely, because such enhancement facts must be found by a jury. The court rejected the misconduct claims as unpreserved or undeveloped and declined to consider one pro se assignment for failure to comply with appellate rules.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a father's appeal of a juvenile court permanency judgment that changed his young child's plan from reunification with him to adoption, based on the child's removal shortly after birth due to concerns over the parents' substance abuse, domestic violence, and instability. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that the Department of Human Services (ODHS) had made reasonable efforts toward reunification as required by ORS 419B.476(2)(a). The court reasoned that ODHS had treated the father as the child's parent from the outset, offered services such as assessments, treatment referrals, and visitation support, and maintained contact with him during his multiple short jail terms for probation violations, while the father had been inconsistently engaged, declined services and visits at times, and did not request paternity testing until late in the case. It further noted that the father had repeatedly violated probation through drug use and contact with the mother, and that earlier paternity confirmation or jail-based services would not have altered his engagement given the overall circumstances.

family law

In Eller v. ABM Industry Groups, LLC, plaintiff Kyle Eller appealed a trial court ruling that dismissed his negligence claim on summary judgment after he slipped and fell at work, on the ground that judicial estoppel barred the claim because he had omitted it from his bankruptcy petition (though he listed a related workers’ compensation claim). The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that defendant failed to establish the affirmative defense of judicial estoppel as a matter of law. The court reasoned that defendant had not shown the required causal link between plaintiff’s omission and the bankruptcy discharge he received, that the bankruptcy court had reopened the case and accepted an amended petition disclosing the claim, and that the record did not conclusively demonstrate any final inconsistent position or manipulation of the judicial system that would support estoppel.

proceduretorts & liability

In InteliStaf Healthcare v. Daniels, the employer sought review of a Workers’ Compensation Board order requiring payment for medical services, including pain management visits and a trial of a spinal cord stimulator, for claimant Julie Daniels’ chronic low back pain. The Board had ruled that the services were compensable because they addressed an ordinary condition caused in material part by her 2004 work injury, relying primarily on the opinions of her treating physician and an examining doctor. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Board applied the correct legal standard under ORS 656.245(1)(a) by identifying the specific condition and the applicable causation test, and that substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that the disputed services were directed to that condition. The court rejected the employer’s arguments that the medical evidence failed to link the services to a qualifying condition or that the opposing expert opinion should have been credited instead.

labor & employment

In State v. King, the defendant appealed his convictions for identity theft, second-degree theft, possession of a burglary tool or theft device, and giving false information to a peace officer, which arose from his arrest after leaving a Kohl’s store with unpaid merchandise in his backpack. The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the conviction for possession of a theft device, holding that the evidence was insufficient to show the defendant had altered an item to create such a device, and remanded for resentencing, but otherwise affirmed the judgment. The court upheld the identity theft conviction, finding legally sufficient evidence that the defendant possessed an identification card bearing another’s name but his own photo with intent to defraud. It also rejected the challenge to the denial of the motion to suppress, concluding that the arresting officer had probable cause based on reliable information from the store’s loss prevention supervisor—whose personal observations were corroborated by the officer’s own sightings—along with the defendant’s suspicious behavior in the store.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. C.M., the defendant appealed a trial court judgment finding him in contempt for repeatedly interrupting the judge during a civil commitment proceeding, arguing for the first time on appeal that the court erred in finding his conduct “willful” without considering whether it stemmed from mental illness. The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the contempt order. The court declined de novo review and held that any error was not plain because questions about the compatibility of summary contempt with civil commitment statutes, and the need for an affirmative finding on mental capacity for willfulness, were not obvious or beyond reasonable dispute under existing law. The record showed the defendant had followed instructions earlier in the hearing and continued speaking only after repeated warnings, supporting the trial court’s willfulness determination without plain error.

criminal lawprocedurehealthcare

This case involved a dispute among shareholders of Sound-Rite Plastics, Ltd., over the company’s attempt to redeem minority shareholder William Wright’s shares under a shareholders agreement that set a two-step process for determining “fair market value.” After a jury found that the Sound-Rite parties breached the agreement by seeking redemption at an earlier valuation date, the trial court initially ordered specific performance compelling the redemption, issued declaratory rulings on the parties’ rights under the agreement (including the valuation date), and awarded attorney fees; Wright I reversed the specific performance ruling but left other aspects intact. On remand, the trial court concluded that its prior declarations regarding the shareholders agreement and earlier fee awards remained unchanged. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Wright had not shown reversible error because the reversal of specific performance did not require the trial court to unwind its declaratory rulings or fee determinations, which were based on a plausible reading of the prior judgment and the agreement itself.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In State v. Granados-Gonzalez, the defendant appealed his convictions for driving under the influence of intoxicants and recklessly endangering another person, arguing that the trial court should have suppressed his statements to police because he was questioned in compelling circumstances without Miranda warnings after a rural car crash. The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress. The court examined the totality of the circumstances using four factors—the location and short length of the encounter (about eight minutes on a public road), the limited pressure exerted by officers who did not raise their voices, draw weapons, or confront the defendant with evidence of probable cause, and the defendant's limited ability to terminate the questioning—and concluded that the interaction did not create a police-dominated atmosphere requiring warnings under Article I, section 12 of the Oregon Constitution.

criminal lawprocedure

In this medical negligence case, plaintiff Dan Dorman sued Northwest Gastroenterology Clinic, Dr. Edward Galen, and CRNA Holland Cunningham after suffering a pulseless electrical activity event requiring resuscitation following an upper endoscopy performed in an ambulatory surgery center. He alleged negligence in failing to properly assess his comorbidities before choosing the procedure setting and in post-procedure care. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment dismissing the claims after a jury trial, upholding the denials of Dorman’s motions to file a fourth amended complaint, to compel production of an audit log, for discovery sanctions, and to qualify his pulmonologist expert on the standard of care. The court found no abuse of discretion or legal error, reasoning that the proposed amendments would cause undue prejudice because the information had been available earlier, the clinic did not possess the audit log and no sanctionable violations occurred, and the expert lacked sufficient experience with endoscopy planning to offer helpful testimony.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Gary Walter Higgs, who developed COPD after smoking Winston cigarettes made by defendant R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company from 1963 to 2017. He sued for product liability, negligence, and fraud, alleging that the company had misrepresented and concealed the health risks and addictiveness of its cigarettes, and a jury awarded him $100,000 in economic damages and $18 million in noneconomic damages while allocating 70 percent fault to the defendant. On appeal, the defendant challenged only the fraud claim, arguing that the trial court should have granted a directed verdict and that its instruction on fraudulent concealment was legally flawed, and it sought a new trial on all claims or a reduction in damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff was sufficient to support the jury’s fraud finding and that the challenged instruction, when read with the other fraud instructions, correctly required proof of an intended false representation on which the plaintiff reasonably relied.

torts & liability

In this Oregon juvenile delinquency case, youth R.M.M. appealed from circuit court judgments that found he violated probation and committed him to the Oregon Youth Authority for placement in a youth correctional facility. The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting all four assignments of error. It held that the probation officer's testimony about the youth's termination from a treatment program was based on personal knowledge rather than hearsay, that the record supported the probation violation finding, and that claims regarding inadequate written findings were unpreserved with no plain error. The court further concluded that committing the youth to OYA custody was within the juvenile court's discretion because community-based mental health treatment had repeatedly failed, the father had already been rejected as a placement option, and the facility could provide needed services in one location.

criminal lawprocedure