Follansbee v. Ooi

Under ORS § 19.270, “a party seeking dismissal of an entire appeal based on inadequate service on less than all parties on which service was required must establish that prejudice is likely to arise to such a degree to warrant dismissal of the entire appeal.”

Plaintiffs filed a property dispute case against the defendants, and the trial court issued a partial judgment with some rulings favoring the plaintiffs and others favoring the defendants. Plaintiffs then filed a notice of appeal, naming the defendants as adverse parties. However, the defendants sought to dismiss the appeal, arguing improper service of the notice. Under ORS § 19.270, “a party seeking dismissal of an entire appeal based on inadequate service on less than all parties on which service was required must establish that prejudice is likely to arise to such a degree to warrant dismissal of the entire appeal.” The Court found that the notice was not properly served to the company’s only counsel, violating ORCP 9(B). The Court reasoned that the company had not been timely served, thus depriving the court of jurisdiction over the appeal concerning the company. The Court also found the dismissal of the entire appeal was unwarranted, noting that the filing of the notice had adequately informed other parties of the intended adverse parties for the cross-appeal, and no one was prejudiced by naming the company in the notice. The Court held that the dismissal of the entire appeal was inappropriate but allowed reconsideration.