Page v. Parsons, 249 OrApp 445 (2012)

Holding:   Trial Court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff’s motion for “specified” discovery. Nor, did the Court err “as a matter of law:” a) When it refused to schedule a second opportunity for presentation of oral argument; or, b) When it granted defendant’s motion for attorney fees.

1)  “Plaintiff’s assertions are not supported by the statute’s text, context, or legislative history.” referencing State v. Gaines and PGE v. BOLI. at p. 459.

2)   Although statute sets forth two steps for resolving a special motion to strike, it does not require that the Court hold more than one hearing. Indeed, such a notion runs counter to the statute’s context, which shows a legislative intent that “special motions to strike” be filed early in the process and be heard by the Court in short order. at p. 460.

3)   The statute’s reference to “[a] hearing” undermines any claim that the Court is required to allow multiple hearings before deciding a special motion to strike. at p. 460.

4)   The legislative history reveals an express emphasis of the general rule that when the legislature borrows a statute from another state, it also borrows the existing case law. at p. 461.

Filed under: uncategorized

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!