Mendoza v. Xtreme Truck Sales, LLC

If a plaintiff rejects a defendant’s offer of judgment and then “fails to obtain a judgment more favorable than the offer,” the defendant, and not the plaintiff, is entitled to costs and fees. See generally Mathis v. St. Helens Auto Center, Inc., 367 Or 437, 448-50, 478 P3d 946 (2020).

Defendant appealed a trial court’s denial of his ORCP 54E(3) motion for an award of fees and costs. Defendant had made an offer of settlement to Plaintiff, which Plaintiff rejected. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s determination that his motion was not timely. On appeal, Defendant argued that because a motion under ORCP 54E(3) has a basis that does not apply until judgment has been entered, his filing post judgment was timely. Plaintiff argued that because the judgment was entered based on an arbitrator’s decision, Defendant should have appealed the arbitrator’s judgment if he wished to receive fees and costs. Plaintiff further argued that because Defendant did not file the motion until after entry of judgment, the motion to appeal the arbitrator’s judgment failed to be timely. If a plaintiff rejects a defendant’s offer of judgment and then “fails to obtain a judgment more favorable than the offer,” the defendant, and not the plaintiff, is entitled to costs and fees. See generally Mathis v. St. Helens Auto Center, Inc., 367 Or 437, 448-50, 478 P3d 946 (2020). Reversed and remanded.