Mohabeer v. Farmers Ins. Exchange

Plaintiff brought suit against defendants for wrongful use of civil proceedings, alleging that “defendants filed insurance fraud claims against plaintiff in federal court, which were ultimately settled, but which were brought with malicious intent and without probable cause.” On appeal, defendants contended that “the summary judgment ruling of the federal district court in the underlying action either conclusively establishes that [defendants] had probable cause to bring the underlying action or gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of probable cause.” Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute provides “an expedited procedure for dismissal of certain nonmeritorious civil cases without prejudice at the pleading stage.” Neumann v. Liles, 358 Or 706, 723, 369 P3d 1117 (2016). In the context of a special motion to strike, it is not premature for the court to decide whether prima facie evidence of the elements of the claim has been presented before full discovery or for a party to raise the issue on appeal of the denial of a special motion to strike. The court agreed. According to the court, “independent of the federal district court’s summary judgment ruling in the underlying action, there is ample evidence in the record that defendants had probable cause to name plaintiff as a defendant in the underlying action[.]” Although plaintiff disputed that evidence, the court concluded that he “ha[d] not rebutted it with evidence to support his position.” Thus, the court held that the trial court erred in denying the special motion to strike. Reversed and remanded.