Rajneesh Foundation Intern. v. McGreer
Decision Date | 31 March 1987 |
Citation | 734 P.2d 871,303 Or. 139 |
Parties | RAJNEESH FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL, a non-profit corporation, Rajneesh Neo- Sannyas International Commune, an Oregon cooperative corporation, and Ma Anand Sheela, Petitioners on Review, v. Rosemary McGREER, Respondent on Review. Rosemary McGREER, Respondent on Review. v. RAJNEESH FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL, a non-profit corporation, Rajneesh Neo- Sannyas International Commune, an Oregon cooperative corporation, Ma Anand Sheela, and Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, Petitioners on Review. A8210-06678; A31894; S33111. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Robert J. McCrea, Eugene, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner on review.
Mark K. Cushing, Portland, argued the cause for respondent on review. With him on the brief were Barbee B. Lyon and Tonkin, Torp, Galen, Marmaduke & Booth, Portland.
Before PETERSON, C.J., and LENT, LINDE, CAMPBELL, CARSON and JONES, JJ.
This case concerns a trial court's decision to consider the legal sufficiency of pleadings against a party in default after an order of default was entered. The Court of Appeals concluded that, even if the trial court has the authority to consider whether the pleadings state a claim for relief, that issue was not properly raised by a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Rajneesh Foundation v. McGreer, 80 Or.App. 168, 721 P.2d 867 (1986). We reverse.
The facts are as follows. Rajneesh Foundation International, Rajneesh Neo-Sannyas International Commune and Ma Anand Sheela (plaintiffs) filed an action for defamation against Rosemary McGreer (defendant). Defendant counterclaimed, joining Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (Bhagwan) as an additional counterclaim-defendant. 1 Defendant alleged that plaintiffs defamed her on three occasions and that they conspired to deprive her of her first amendment rights, giving rise to an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). Plaintiffs' answer to the counterclaim included a motion to dismiss the section 1985 counterclaim for failure to state a claim.
Bhagwan later refused to appear for deposition. As a sanction, the presiding judge ordered plaintiffs' pleadings stricken and entered an order of default in defendant's favor on her counterclaims. ORCP 69 A.
Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaims on the ground that they failed to state claims for relief. The trial court denied the motion as to the defamation claims but granted it as to the section 1985 claim. Both parties appealed. Defendant argued, inter alia, that the trial court did not have the authority to consider the motion to dismiss after a default order had been entered. 2 The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial judge erred in considering and granting the motion to dismiss the section 1985 counterclaim.
Defendant argues that the effect of the default order was to admit not only the truth of the facts alleged in the counterclaims, but also that the alleged actions were illegal and caused injury. She argues that the only issue properly before the trial court judge was the measure of damages, and that the trial court erred in considering plaintiffs' motion to dismiss after the order of default had been entered.
We disagree. According to the great weight of authority, a default establishes only the truth of the factual allegations contained in the complaint and does not admit that the facts alleged constitute a valid claim for relief. Under this view, the trial court has no authority to award damages against a defaulting defendant if the complaint fails to state a cause of action. See Southern Arizona School for Boys, Inc. v. Chery, 119 Ariz. 277, 580 P.2d 738 (1978) ( ); Kohlenberger, Inc. v. Tyson's Foods, Inc., 256 Ark. 584, 510 S.W.2d 555 (1974) ( ); Morehouse v. Wanzo, 266 Cal.App.2d 846, 72 Cal.Rptr. 607 (1968) ( ); Bay Prod. Corp. v. Winters, 341 So.2d 240 (Fla.App.1976) ( ); Olson v. Kirkham, 111 Idaho 34, 720 P.2d 217, 220 (App.1986) (); Productora E Importadora de Papel v. Fleming, 376 Mass. 826, 383 N.E.2d 1129 (1978) ( ); Lindsey v. Drs. Keenan, Andrews & Allred, 118 Mont. 312, 165 P.2d 804 (1946) ( ); American Credit Co. v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co., 7 N.C.App. 663, 173 S.E.2d 523 (1970) ( ); Pennsylvania Dep't of Environmental Resources v. Allias, 20 Pa.Commw. 222 341 A.2d 226 (1975) ( ).
Under Oregon law, a default judgment establishes all material facts alleged in the complaint. State ex rel Nilsen v. Cushing, 253 Or. 262, 265, 453 P.2d 945 (1969). Other Oregon caselaw suggests that a default judgment does not admit legal conclusions and that a pleading must state facts showing an entitlement to relief before a default judgment can be granted. See Bailey v. Malheur Irrigation Co., 36 Or. 54, 60, 57 P. 910 (1899); Carlson v. Bankers Discount Corp., 107 Or. 686, 215 P. 986 (1923).
Defendant cites two Oregon cases for the proposition that a trial court may not entertain a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief after an order of default has been entered. Walling v. Lebb, 140 Or. 691, 15 P.2d 370 (1932), is distinguishable because it involved a collateral attack rather than a direct appeal. See n. 3, infra. Askren v. Squire, 29 Or. 228, 232, 45 P. 779 (1896), suggests that even if the cause of action is imperfectly stated, a default judgment still is enforceable. That case involved a suit to foreclose at least eight miners' liens. The judgment was upheld even though some of the jurats on the miners' lien claim verification forms were not signed. These were technical defects and did not bar recovery. The case does not strike us as being inconsistent with a rule requiring the complaint to state a claim to support a default judgment. The case appears to hold that, after default, the pleadings should not be read narrowly, and the pleader should have the benefit of every inference in deciding whether the complaint states a claim for relief.
The rule suggested by defendant would allow her to recover damages even if it is apparent on the face of her pleading that she has suffered no legally cognizable injury. A default judgment, no less than any other judgment, must have a basis in the pleadings. The trial court acted within its authority in considering the legal sufficiency of defendant's counterclaims.
We emphasize that, following an order of default, the pleadings are not to be read technically. If the pleadings against the defaulting party imply or reasonably require an inference of facts constituting a claim for relief, they are sufficient to support a default judgment. However, if the complaint patently fails to state a valid claim for relief, a trial court may properly entertain an objection on that ground even after an order of default has been entered. 3
The Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs' motion to dismiss was untimely and that the appropriate method of raising this issue would be a motion for relief from default under ORCP 71:
80 Or.App. at 173, 721 P.2d 867.
We might agree with the Court of Appeals that, had judgment been entered on the default, a motion under ORCP 71 would properly have raised the issue. But ORCP 71 is not applicable, for no judgment had been given when the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss was made. 4
In any event, plaintiffs did not seek relief from default but instead filed a motion to dismiss under ORCP 21 A. (8), which provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Signora v. Liberty Travel, Inc.
...for appeal has expired, the defaulting party has no recourse unless the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment. Rajneesh, 734 P.2d at 874 n. 3. Accordingly, because the attack upon the instant default judgments is collateral in nature (the unappealed decision of this Court on......
-
Portland Gen. Elec. Co. v. Ebasco Services, INC.
...in a collateral proceeding.”Id. at 148, 69 P.2d 1069 (quoting 34 CJ, Judgments, 564 § 864). Similarly, in Rajneesh Foundation Intl. v. McGreer, 303 Or. 139, 144 n. 3, 734 P.2d 871,adhered to on recons.,303 Or. 371, 737 P.2d 593 (1987), this court concluded that a default judgment was not su......
-
In re Abblitt, Bankruptcy Case No. 09-61935-fra (Bankr.Or. 12/21/2009)
...Or. 469, 256 P. 195 (1927), State ex rel Nilsen v. Cushing, 253 Or. 262, 265, 453 P.2d 945 (1969), Raineesh Foundation International v. McGreer, 303 Or. 139, 142, 734 P.2d 871, 873 (1987). Under In re Nourbakhsh, 67 F.3d 798 and 28 U.S.C. 1738, the same standard is applied by this court wit......
-
Becker v. Pieper
...denied that allegation, but those who defaulted admitted the truth of it by virtue of their default. See Rajneesh Foundation Intern. v. McGreer, 303 Or. 139, 142, 734 P.2d 871, mod. on other grounds on recons, 303 Or. 371, 737 P.2d 593 (1987) (default establishes truth of factual allegation......