Waggoner v. Husk

“A prima facie showing under [Oregon's Corrupt Practices Act] requires evidence that defendant (1) published (2) a false statement (3) of a material fact (4) with knowledge or reckless disregard that it was false. ORS 260.532; Bryant v. Recall for Lowell’s Future Committee, 286 Or App 691, 698, 400 P3d 980 (2017).”

Despite Baker County’s legal obligation to provide ambulance services in Baker City, until September 2022, the city financed and operated those services through its fire department. As part of the city’s withdrawal from ambulance services, the fire department was to “reduce the number of firefighters from 15 to nine.” Casey Husk (Defendant), then initiated recall petition proceedings against several members of the city council. In the petition recall forms, Mr. Husk stated that “[Plaintiffs have] directly sanctioned the dissolution of the professional fire department in Baker City.”

Plaintiffs sued under ORS 260.532, alleging that the foregoing statement was false.  “Defendant moved to strike the complaint pursuant to Oregon’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statute, ORS 31.150,” however that motion was denied. Thus, “[t]he sole issue on appeal [was] whether Plaintiffs presented a prima facie case that defendant violated ORS 260.532(1).” Defendant provided three challenges on appeal: (1) that the ambulance services changes could fairly be described as the “dissolution” of Baker City’s fire department, so the challenged statement was not false; (2) in the alternative, even if the statement was not factually correct, it was merely a nonactionable opinion; and (3) that Plaintiffs had not put forward substantial evidence showing that Defendant acted “knowingly or recklessly in making a false statement.”

As the city’s withdrawal from ambulance services would end neither the fire department’s existence, nor its ongoing role in fighting fires, the Court of Appeals concluded that the withdrawal could not reasonably be described as the department’s “dissolution.” Second, applying the Neumann test, the Court concluded that the statement at issue did not qualify as an expression of opinion. Finally, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs,” the Court found sufficient evidence as to the claim’s mental state element.

“Affirmed.”