Woodroffe v. State

• Jurisdiction: Oregon
• Parties: Robert WOODROFFE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Oregon, Defendant-Respondent, and Jessica Spooner et al., Defendants.
• Citation: 422 P.3d 381,292 Or.App. 21
• Docket Number: A161071
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
• Decision Date: 23 May 2018

292 Or.App. 21

422 P.3d 381

Robert WOODROFFE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. STATE of Oregon, Defendant-Respondent,andJessica Spooner et al., Defendants.

A161071

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Submitted April 7, 2017.

May 23, 2018

Robert A. Woodroffe filed the briefs pro se.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Robert M. Wilsey, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Chief Judge, and Lagesen, Judge.

LAGESEN, J.

This case was about a number of things when it began but, at this point, it is about a television (TV). Plaintiff, who is incarcerated, obtained a small claims judgment against the state. That judgment—the parties appear to agree—required it to provide him with a new TV "with cables and accessories including box." Although the state gave plaintiff a TV with a box and accessories, the parties dispute whether that TV was new. Plaintiff contends that the TV provided to him was not new but, instead, was banged up and without all of its proper accessories. The state contends that the TV that it supplied to plaintiff was brand new from the manufacturer. Rather than resolving that dispute, the trial court granted summary judgment to the state on the ground that plaintiff's claim was barred as a matter of law because plaintiff signed a satisfaction when he received the TV, even though the state had not moved for summary judgment on that basis. Because it was error for the trial court to grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the state's motion, Eklof v. Steward , 360 Or. 717, 736, 385 P.3d 1074 (2016), and because plaintiff's evidence is sufficient to establish a factual dispute as to whether the TV provided to him was new, as required by the small claims judgment, we reverse the judgment insofar as it dismissed plaintiff's claim about the TV.¹

We review the trial court's grant of summary judgment for legal error, "to determine whether there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Evans v. City of Warrenton , 283 Or. App. 256, 258, 388 P.3d 1167 (2016) ; ORCP 47. Under ORCP 47, "the party opposing summary judgment has the burden of producing evidence on any issue ‘raised in the motion ’ as to which [that party] would have the burden of persuasion at trial."

Two Two v. Fujitec America, Inc. , 355 Or. 319, 324, 325 P.3d 707 (2014) (emphasis added). If, on an issue as to which the nonmoving party would have the burden of persuasion at trial, the evidence contained in the summary judgment record, when viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, would permit an objectively reasonable juror to find in the nonmoving party's favor on the issue in question, then summary judgment is not permissible. ORCP 47. Further, it is improper for a trial court to grant summary judgment on an issue that is not raised in the moving party's motion. Eklof , 360 Or. at 736, 385 P.3d 1074 ; Two Two , 355 Or. at 325-26, 325 P.3d 707.

We consider this appeal in view of those standards. At its core, this is an action to enforce the prior small claims judgment obligating the state to supply plaintiff with a new TV. See State ex rel. English v. Multnomah County , 348 Or. 417, 432, 238 P.3d 980 (2010) (party to a judgment may bring an action to enforce the judgment). As noted, the parties appear to agree that the judgment required the state to provide plaintiff with a new 13-inch TV, along "with cables and accessories including box." Several months after the judgment was entered, the state supplied plaintiff with a TV that was "new to [him]," and plaintiff signed an "acknowledgment" that he had received that TV in satisfaction of the small claims judgment. However, according to plaintiff, when he removed the TV from its packaging upon returning to his cell, he discovered that the TV was not new and did not have all of its accessories. Thus, plaintiff alleges, the state has not complied with its obligation to provide him with a new 13-inch TV.

The state moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff would not be able to demonstrate that it had failed to comply with the terms of the small claims judgment. In full, the state's motion asserted:

"This action stems from a prior small claim where [plaintiff] obtained both monetary and non-monetary relief from the State of Oregon. [Plaintiff] now seeks enforcement of unspecified provisions of that contract, and he raises various tort claims against multiple state actors. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on [plaintiff's] claims. The only possible cause of action in this proceeding is an action against the State of Oregon for failure to comply with the prior small claim judgment. And because the State of Oregon has complied with terms of that judgment, [plaintiff] cannot demonstrate an issue of fact as to whether he is entitled to additional relief. Accordingly, this Court should grant summary judgment in favor of defendants."

Addressing plaintiff's claim regarding the TV, the state argued in its supporting memorandum that plaintiff would be unable to demonstrate that the state did not provide him with a new TV:

"[Plaintiff] received a new television and accessories on May 1, 2014. [Plaintiff] signed an acceptance, and the State of Oregon provided photos of the television. He therefore cannot demonstrate that the State of Oregon failed to provide him with a television."

(Internal citations omitted.)

In response, plaintiff asserted that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the TV that the state had provided to him was a new TV, as required by the small claims judgment. Plaintiff submitted a declaration describing the condition of the TV that he received, explaining that the TV (1) was missing four screws; (2) was missing the protective cover on the screen; (3) "had a big dent in the screen"; (4) did not come with the earbuds that the manual reflected would be contained in the package with the TV; and (5) came with a different power cord than what was depicted in the manual. Plaintiff attached to his declaration the portion of the TV's manual identifying the accessories that should have been included with the TV, as well as photographs showing the TV and accessories provided to him. Plaintiff explained in his declaration that he signed the acknowledgment that he had received the TV in satisfaction of the judgment based on representations that the TV was new, but he did not find out until he was back in his cell that it was not new:

"[P]laintiff was tricked and believed it was new until he took it back to his cell and takes it out of the box and see no screen protector and a dent/scratc[h] in the scree[n] and missing parts and is documented in these exhibits by [DOC] staff as it was just dropped off and I was told to sign that I got it and paperwork says it [is] new[;] *** all [of] it was new to me but it was not brand new as it should have been."

In reply, the state acknowledged the evidence submitted by plaintiff in support of his claim that the TV was not new. To counter that evidence, the state submitted a declaration from the corrections officer who issued the TV to plaintiff. He averred that plaintiff's representations about the condition of the TV were "entirely false." He stated that no screws were missing, and that the purported screw holes that plaintiff had identified in a photograph on the TV were not screw holes at all but, instead, were "white plastic forms" designed by the manufacturer to hold the TV frame together. The officer further stated...