Jacobus v. Klamath County

"LUBA is entitled to deference in the interpretation of its own administrative rule if its interpretation is plausible and not inconsistent with the rule, the rule's context, or any other source of law." Maguire v. Clackamas County, 250 Or App 146, 162 (2012).

Petitioners sought judicial review of LUBA’s order that dismissed petitioners’ LUBA appeal.  Petitioners filed a notice of intent to appeal (NITA) of a Klamath County land use decision.  LUBA subsequently promulgated an order directing petitioners to correct and re-serve the NITA by listing the name of Klamath County’s legal counsel within 7 days of the order.  Petitioners failed to do so, and LUBA dismissed the appeal.  On appeal, Petitioners assigned error to the dismissal because (1) LUBA misread OAR 661-010-0015(3)(f)(B) to require they list a specific attorney and, (2) a technical error is insufficient to dismiss an appeal without a showing of prejudice to parties’ substantive rights.  "LUBA is entitled to deference in the interpretation of its own administrative rule if its interpretation is plausible and not inconsistent with the rule, the rule's context, or any other source of law." Maguire v. Clackamas County, 250 Or App 146, 162 (2012).  The Court found LUBA’s interpretation of NITA-related statutes was not implausible and held the Petitioners’ failure to file and serve a corrected NITA was “a jurisdictional defect in service on all required persons,” rather than a technical error, that validated dismissal. Affirmed.