Nyland v. City of Portland

"There is no applicable 'comprehensive [and exclusive] pattern for judicial review,' as there was in Bay River. Cf. Bay River, 26 Or App at 720.

Plaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment action because Defendant’s subpoena was allegedly overbroad and unduly burdensome. Furthermore, Plaintiffs argue that the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act (APA) applies to Defendant’s subpoena and that under the court’s precedent, it would preclude them from filing a declaratory judgment action to challenge the subpoena. Plaintiffs claimed that under Bay River, the lower court lacked jurisdiction to consider the argument and should dismiss with prejudice. Bay River v. Envir. Quality Comm., 26 Or App 717, 554 P2d 620 (1976). The Court distinguished Plaintiff’s argument from Bay River, stating that Defendant correctly can assert a new jurisdictional defense arguing that Plaintiffs lacked standing in pursuing a declaratory action. Additionally, the lower court had jurisdiction because only one part of the relevant statute, ORS 183.440, applied to Defendant’s investigative subpoena. The Court reasoned that “there is no applicable “comprehensive [and exclusive] pattern for judicial review,” as there was in Bay River. Cf. Bay River, 26 Or App at 720. The Court disregarded other arguments Plaintiff asserted. Reversed and remanded.