Perry v. Rein
Decision Date | 26 September 2007 |
Docket Number | A126163.,000909797. |
Citation | 168 P.3d 1163,215 Or. App. 113 |
Parties | Kenneth R. PERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Scott J. REIN; Dressler, Rein, Evans and Sestanovich, LLP, a California limited liability partnership; Stuart I. Teicher and Sussman, Shank, Wapnick, Caplan & Stiles, LLP, an Oregon limited liability partnership, Defendants-Respondents. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Linda K. Williams, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the briefs was Kafoury & McDougal.
Richard J. Stone, Portland, argued the cause for respondents Scott J. Rein and Dressler, Rein, Evans and Sestanovich LLP. With him on the briefs were Brad T. Summers, Robert W. Wilkinson, and Ball Janik LLP.
David C. Landis, Portland, argued the cause and filed the briefs for respondents Stuart I. Teicher and Sussman, Shank, Wapnick, Caplan & Stiles, LLP.
Before SCHUMAN, Presiding Judge, and EDMONDS and ORTEGA, Judges.
Plaintiff, an attorney, appeals a judgment dismissing his claims for wrongful initiation of civil proceedings. Those claims allege that defendants, attorneys Rein and Teicher and their respective law firms, prosecuted an action against him in federal court without probable cause and with an improper purpose. The trial court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the federal action was terminated in his favor. ORCP 47 C. Defendants cross-assign as error the trial court's order allowing plaintiff to amend his complaint to request punitive damages. We reverse and remand the judgment and reverse in part the order allowing plaintiff to amend his complaint to request punitive damages.
The summary judgment record in this case is, to some measure, an outgrowth of its procedural history, including an earlier appeal, Perry v. Rein, 187 Or.App. 572, 71 P.3d 81 (2003) (Perry I). Plaintiff commenced this action in 2000, alleging that defendants had, on behalf of their client, DeAbate, wrongfully initiated an action in federal court in the District of Oregon that named him as a defendant on the theory that he was part of a scheme to defraud DeAbate of $1 million. Plaintiff's complaint further alleges that defendants initiated the action without probable cause and with a purpose other than to secure adjudication of the claims against him. Defendants moved for summary judgment on plaintiff's claims on various grounds, including that the federal action had not terminated in plaintiff's favor, that defendants had probable cause for bringing the federal action, and that plaintiff had not demonstrated that defendants acted with malice. The trial court granted the motion on the ground that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendants lacked probable cause and did not reach the other issues.
Plaintiff appealed that ruling. On appeal, we summarized the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Because that factual summary provides relevant background for purposes of the present appeal, we quote it at length:
187 Or.App. at 574-77, 71 P.3d 81.
After summarizing the facts, we proceeded in Perry I to determine whether, on the record before the trial court, there existed a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants initiated the federal action without probable cause. Based on the record before us, we concluded that there was "no evidence in the record from which it [could] be inferred that defendants reasonably believed that plaintiff was involved in the alleged original scheme to defraud DeAbate of her funds." Id. at 580, 71 P.3d 81 (emphasis in original). Thus, we held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants on that ground. Id.
Id. (quoting Portland Trailer & Equipment v. A-1...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Deborah Westwood v. City of Hermiston
...... Perry v. Rein, 215 Or.App. 113, 125, 168 P.3d 1163 (2007). C. Initiation and prosecution of the judicial proceedings against Westwood. ......
-
DEBORAH WESTWOOD v. CITY of HERMISTON
...... Perry v. Rein, 215 Or. App. 113, 125 (2007). C. Initiation and prosecution of the judicial proceedings against Westwood. Defendants ......
-
Hayes Oyster Co. v. Dep't of Envtl. Quality
...... 316 Or.App. 194 Perry v. Rein , 215 Or. App. 113, 126, 168 P.3d 1163 (2007). In other words, an adverse party cannot create a genuine issue of material fact by relying on ......
- State v. Travalini