Allen v. County of Jackson
Decision Date | 11 August 1999 |
Citation | 986 P.2d 612,162 Or. App. 309 |
Parties | Richard ALLEN, James Anderson, John R. Atkins, David A. Baleria, Jeanne Burrows, Kenneth R. Curtis, Steven E. Daniels, Sandra Depiero, Sandra L. Eccker, Miltona L. Hendrix, Michel Holloran-Marshall, Brad L. Hope, Richard C. Kennedy, Robert O. Kennedy, Susan M. Luttes, Ed Mayer, Ronald D. Parker, Dewey P. Patten, Danny Lee Penland, David Roughton, Jeannette M. Sieg, Tenley Tanhoff, Edward C. Temple, Shirley A. Tolbert, James L. Vansant, and James N. Warren, Respondents—Cross-Appellants, v. COUNTY OF JACKSON, Appellant—Cross-Respondent. County of Jackson, Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of Oregon, Third-Party-Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Jacob Tanzer, Portland, argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant.
Gregory A. Hartman, Portland, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Bennett, Hartman & Reynolds.
No appearance for respondent State of Oregon.
Before EDMONDS, Presiding Judge, and DEITS, Chief Judge, and ARMSTRONG, Judge.
Defendant Jackson County appeals from a judgment that granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs. ORCP 47. Plaintiffs cross-appeal. We dismiss the appeal and cross-appeal for lack of a final judgment.
In its brief, defendant provides a summary of undisputed facts that plaintiffs accept. That summary explains the events that led to the dispute between plaintiffs and defendant:
Plaintiffs' complaint contains three claims for relief: (1) a claim under 42 USC section 1983 based on an impairment of contract theory under Article I, section 10, of the United States Constitution; (2) a claim for breach of employment contract; and (3) a claim for wages under ORS chapter 652. Their prayer for relief requests:
Defendant's answer included several affirmative defenses, including "mitigation" of damages, and a third-party complaint against the State of Oregon. After the trial court denied the state's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, the state, plaintiffs and defendant each filed a motion for summary judgment. Specifically, defendant sought dismissal of plaintiffs' section 1983 claim. Defendant also sought partial summary judgment on the "mitigation" affirmative defense that would have limited "each plaintiff's claim for damages to 0.3% of salary received during the period of alleged breach" based on the wage increase. In addition, defendant sought summary judgment against certain named plaintiffs who, defendant argues, were either hired after "the effective date of Measure 8 and the compensation changes made pursuant to it" or were promoted and had "bargained away their contract right to a county pick-up of their pension contributions and agreed to make the contributions personally." Defendant also asserted that it was entitled to summary judgment on the wage claim "because it is not a wage claim within the statutory meaning" and that the claim was "misconceived and should be dismissed."
Eventually, the trial court dismissed the third-party complaint without prejudice based on a stipulation between defendant and the state. Thereafter, the trial court also entered an order that provided, in part:
The trial court also entered what purports to be a final judgment on all claims without any further proceedings:
Although plaintiffs complaint sought an award of damages "for all amounts improperly withheld," no "money judgment" was entered.2
Defendant appeals3 and argues, in part, that "damages arising from deductions pursuant to Measure 8, if any, cannot exceed 0.3% of [plaintiffs'] compensation during the effective period of Measure 8." Plaintiffs counter:
We are unable to reach the merits of the issues framed by the parties because we conclude that the "judgment" from which defendant appeals is a legal nullity. Plaintiffs' complaint requests judgments for money damages as the relief if they prevail on their claims. Under ORCP 67A, a judgment "is the final determination of the rights of the parties in an action[.]" ORCP 70 defines money judgments and provides, in part:
Here, the "judgment" purports to award each plaintiff "a judgment against defendant * * * for all amounts withheld from their regular salary for the purpose of making pension contributions from December 1994 to October 1996 plus statutory interest from the date of each withholding." It purports to be a judgment for the payment of money. However, it does not comply with ORCP 70 because it does not adjudicate the amounts of the money judgments that plaintiffs seek. Without a legal judgment, we are faced with the issue of what action we should take.
One possible alternative...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Allen v. County of Jackson
...Reconsider September 13, 1999. ARMSTRONG, J. Defendant Jackson County moves for reconsideration of our opinion, Allen v. County of Jackson, 162 Or.App. 309, 986 P.2d 612 (1999), in which we dismissed defendant's appeal and plaintiffs' cross-appeal for lack of a final judgment. We allow the ......
- State v. May