Greenwood Forest Products, Inc. v. Sapp
Decision Date | 24 April 1987 |
Citation | 84 Or.App. 120,733 P.2d 110 |
Parties | GREENWOOD FOREST PRODUCTS, INC., Appellant, v. James L. SAPP, Respondent. 83-0841C; CA A36407. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Larry D. Moomaw, Beaverton, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Moomaw, Miller & Reel, and Brien Hildebrand, Beaverton.
Lloyd W. Weisensee, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Barry L. Adamson, and Williams, Fredrickson, Stark, Norville & Weisensee, P.C., Portland.
Before RICHARDSON, P.J., and NEWMAN and DEITS, JJ.
Plaintiff employed defendant to design, sell and perform services in connection with plaintiff's manufacture and marketing of "audio-video furniture." After firing defendant, plaintiff brought this action, alleging that defendant had breached the parties' employment agreement in a number of respects and that he had later engaged in unfair competition by marketing a computer storage cabinet in his new business which was similar to the cabinet which plaintiff sells and by retaining certain materials related to the cabinet. Defendant counterclaimed, inter alia, under the wage claim statutes, ORS 652.110 et seq, for a bonus which he contended was due him. At the close of plaintiff's case, defendant moved to dismiss the unfair competition claim, and the trial court granted the motion. The jury then awarded damages to plaintiff on its contract claim and damages to defendant in a greater amount on his wage claim. The trial court subsequently awarded defendant attorney fees pursuant to ORS 652.200. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The trial court concluded that Prentice Dryer v. Northwest Dryer, 246 Or. 78, 424 P.2d 227 (1967) is controlling and went on to explain in its oral ruling:
The parties disagree over the nature of the trial court's ruling, the scope of this court's review, what, if anything, has been preserved for our review and what substantive law is controlling. Plaintiff maintains that the ruling was in the nature of a directed verdict and is reviewable only to determine whether there was evidence from which the jury could find in plaintiff's favor. According to plaintiff, it produced evidence that it had communicated "trade secrets" to defendant concerning the cabinet, that defendant was hired in part to develop products for plaintiff, that a confidential relationship existed and that defendant appropriated the information which plaintiff had communicated to him. The principal authority on which plaintiff relies is Kamin v. Kuhnau et al, 232 Or. 139, 374 P.2d 912 (1962). The court held there that it was unfair competition on the part of contractors who had been engaged by the inventor to assist in the construction of certain design improvements in garbage trucks to use the improvements in competition with the inventor.
Plaintiff argues that Kamin, not Prentice Dryer v. Northwest Dryer, supra, controls this case. In Prentice, the court held that it was not unfair competition for the plaintiff's former employe, Gordon, to use design innovations that he had developed for the plaintiff after he entered a new business which was the plaintiff's competitor. The court said:
Plaintiff contends that there was evidence from which the trier of fact could find, contrary to the trial court's ruling, that employes of plaintiff other than defendant were also involved in designing the cabinet, that defendant obtained design information from those other employes, that he was not solely responsible for the cabinet design and, therefore, that Prentice Dryer is not controlling.
Defendant's view of the issue is wholly different from plaintiff's. He argues that the unfair competition claim was equitable and triable to the court, because the principal relief sought was injunctive, that the trial court's dismissal of the claim was based on a finding of fact rather than a ruling on the sufficiency of plaintiff's evidence and that plaintiff seeks only our review of what it misperceives as a directed verdict and does not seek our de novo review of the trial court's finding. Consequently, defendant concludes, there is an uncontested finding against plaintiff, and plaintiff cannot obtain a reversal in the absence of a challenge to that finding.
Defendant is correct in asserting that the unfair competition claim was primarily equitable. See Rexnord Inc. v. Ferris, 55 Or.App. 127, 134, 637 P.2d 619 (1981), rev'd on other grounds 294 Or. 392, 657 P.2d 673 (1983). However, there are problems with the rest of his argument. Its central premise is that, in ruling on a defendant's motion to dismiss at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case on a claim tried to the court, the judge may make dispositive findings rather than confining his concern to the sufficiency of the evidence. See ORCP 54B(2); Joseph v. Cohen, 61 Or.App. 559, 658 P.2d 544 (1983); Castro and Castro, 51 Or.App. 707, 626 P.2d 950 (1981). The difficulty with defendant's argument is that it is not clear what kind of motion the court was ruling on: defendant called the motion one to take the claim from the jury; the judgment refers to the ruling as one granting a directed verdict pursuant to ORCP 60; the substance of the trial judge's oral ruling suggests that he may have treated the motion pursuant to ORCP 54B(2).
The judgment recites on its face that, pursuant to ORCP 60, the "court granted defendant's motion for directed verdict as to" the unfair competition claim. We cannot uphold the ruling if we review it as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Elliott v. Tektronix, Inc.
...proceedings as are necessary. Gearhart v. Employment Div., 99 Or.App. 601, 603, 783 P.2d 536 (1989); Greenwood Forest Products, Inc. v. Sapp, 84 Or.App. 120, 124-25, 733 P.2d 110, rev. den. 303 Or. 454, 737 P.2d 1248 (1987); Joseph v. Cohen, 61 Or.App. 559, 563, 658 P.2d 544 (1983). Plainti......
-
Gearhart v. Employment Div. of the Dept. of Human Resources of State of Or.
...was appropriate at the close of plaintiff's case. Norbeck and Norbeck, 96 Or.App. 345, 772 P.2d 954 (1989); Greenwood Forest Products, Inc. v. Sapp, 84 Or.App. 120, 125, 733 P.2d 110, rev. den. 303 Or. 454, 737 P.2d 1248 (1987); Joseph v. Cohen, 61 Or.App. 559, 563, 658 P.2d 544 (1983). Wri......
-
Marriage of McJunkin, Matter of
...based on findings before the opposition has put on a case should be granted only in clear cases. Greenwood Forest Products, Inc. v. Sapp, 84 Or.App. 120, 125 n. 1, 733 P.2d 110, rev. den. 303 Or. 454, 737 P.2d 1248 (1987); Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Tempest Fugat, 75 Or.App. 536, 541, 70......
-
Greenwood Forest Products, Inc. v. Sapp
...fees. We reverse on the appeal, and that makes the cross-appeal moot. This case has been here before. Greenwood Forest Products, Inc. v. Sapp, 84 Or.App. 120, 733 P.2d 110, rev. den. 303 Or. 454, 737 P.2d 1248 (1987) (Greenwood I ). Many of the facts that are set forth there need not be res......