Laack v. Botello

Under Phan v. Morrow, 185 Or App 628, 633, 60 P3d 1111 (2003), “the striking of pleadings and the dismissal of claims as a sanction is not within the court’s authority under ORS 1.010 and must be statutorily authorized.”

Plaintiffs sought a declaration of their ownership of the strips and damages for Defendant’s alleged trespass into their property. Defendant appealed the trial court’s issuance of sanctions caused by Defendant’s attorney’s failure to appear at status conferences. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s imposition of sanctions and the order and judgment of default. On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that “the court had ‘inherent authority’ under ORS 1.010 to maintain the orderly conduct of proceedings and to compel compliance with its orders.” Under Phan v. Morrow, 185 Or App 628, 633, 60 P3d 1111 (2003), “the striking of pleadings and the dismissal of claims as a sanction is not within the court’s authority under ORS 1.010 and must be statutorily authorized.” The Court explained that “there is no statutory authority to impose as sanctions the striking of defendant’s responsive pleadings and the dismissal of his counterclaims. While the Court acknowledged and “appreciate[d] the trial court’s frustration” with defense counsel, it concluded that “in the absence of explicit statutory authorization . . . the trial court lacked statutory or inherent authority to sanction Defendant.” Thus, the Court held that the trial court erred in entering a default order and judgment for Plaintiffs. Reversed and remanded.