- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Civil Law
- Date Filed: 04-17-2019
- Case #: A166511
- Judge(s)/Court Below: DeVore, J. for the Court; Lagesen, P.J.; & James, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendants appealed from a limited judgment denying their special motion to strike against Plaintiff’s claims, pursuant to ORS 31.150. Defendants assigned error to the trial court's denial of their motion to strike. On appeal, Defendants argued the trial court erred in its judgment because the writs of garnishment, under Oregon’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) statute, were statements “submitted in a judicial proceeding” under ORS 31.150(2)(a) or submitted “in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a judicial body” under ORS 31.150(2)(b). Additionally, Defendants argued Plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood to prevail on their claim under 31.150(3). In response, Plaintiff argued the trial court did not err by making numerous procedural arguments. The legislature’s intent can be understood by looking at the text of ORS 31.150(2)(a)-(b); in context, under State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-72, 206 P3d 1042 (2009), the Court examined “submitted” and “judicial proceeding,” determining the plain meaning according to the dictionary definitions was “statements that are sent for consideration or presented for use in a court proceeding or a proceeding initiated to procure an order, decree, judgment, or similar action.” The Court concluded the trial court did not err because Defendants failed to provide "persuasive" support for their argument and nothing in the record indicated the writs at issue were "submitted in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a judicial body."
Affirmed.