Plotkin v. SAIF

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law:
  • Date Filed: 09-08-2016
  • Case #: A159273
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Short, J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Egan, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

A tort action arises on appeal involving a grant of a special motion to strike under ORS 31.150. ORS 31.150 creates a two-step procedure for expeditiously dismissing unfounded lawsuits attacking certain types of public speech. Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute creates an expedited process for dismissal of certain non-meritorious civil cases without prejudice at the pleading stage. Although the trial court’s threshold determination that plaintiff’s claim is susceptible to an anti-SLAPP motion to strike was correct. The trial court erred in concluding that plaintiff failed to satisfy his burden at the second step of the analysis and in granting the motion to strike on that basis. All the evidence and reasonable inference support plaintiff’s assertion that defendant make false statement regarding plaintiff that had a “casual effect” on defendant’s termination of plaintiff. Therefore the trial court erred in concluding that plaintiff failed to need his evidentiary burden to present a prima facie case. The trial court erred in concluding that plaintiff failed to establish a probability that he will prevail on the claim by presenting substantial evidence to support a prima facie case and in granting the motion to strike regarding ORS 31.150(3). Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search