C.I.C.S. Emp't Servs., Inc. v. Newport Newspapers, Inc.
420 P.3d 684
Or. Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiff C.I.C.S. Employment Services sued Newport Newspapers (Newport News‑Times), reporter Rick Beasley, and publisher James Rand for defamation arising from a 2016 article about a data breach. Complaint filed in Multnomah County on April 1, 2016; amended complaint adding claims and additional service occurred in April–May 2016.
- Defendants moved to change venue to Lincoln County on June 17; plaintiff stipulated and the transfer was ordered August 10.
- Defendants filed an anti‑SLAPP special motion to strike in Lincoln County on August 31, more than 60 days after initial and amended service.
- Oregon’s anti‑SLAPP statute (ORS 31.150–31.152) requires a special motion to be filed within 60 days of service, but the trial court may, in its discretion, allow a later filing.
- Lincoln County denied the motion as untimely and declined to exercise its discretion to permit a late filing; the court also stated it would have denied the motion on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 60‑day anti‑SLAPP filing period was tolled while defendants’ motion to change venue was pending | The 60‑day clock ran from service and was not tolled by the venue motion | The clock tolled while the venue motion under ORS 14.110(1)(a) was pending because Multnomah was the "wrong" venue; the proper court should decide the anti‑SLAPP motion | Clock was not tolled; the 60‑day period continued to run while the venue motion was pending; defendants’ motion was untimely |
| Whether venue challenge deprives the original court of authority to rule on timing or extensions | Multnomah retained jurisdiction and authority to rule on timing, extensions, or stays even when venue was disputed | Because venue was improper, defendants had the right to have the receiving (proper) court hear the anti‑SLAPP motion | Multnomah had jurisdiction to address timing matters; defendants could have filed timely or sought an extension there without forfeiting the venue challenge |
| Whether Oregon venue law or practice implies an automatic stay of other statutory deadlines when a venue motion is pending | Statutory deadlines run absent express tolling; plaintiff relied on Oregon statutes and practice | Venue statutes toll deadlines by operation of law (relying on California analogues) | Oregon law contains no automatic tolling; defendants point to California rules, which are distinguishable and not controlling |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to consider the untimely anti‑SLAPP motion | Court’s discretionary refusal was consistent with statute and precedent given the lateness and lack of excuse | Denying discretion was an abuse because anti‑SLAPP policy favors early dismissal and motion may have merit | No abuse of discretion; filing was at least 46 days late and court reasonably declined to permit a late filing absent adequate justification |
Key Cases Cited
- Yes on 24‑367 Committee v. Deaton, 276 Or. App. 347 (2016) (describing anti‑SLAPP purpose and early dismissal mechanism)
- Clackamas River Water v. Holloway, 261 Or. App. 852 (2014) (anti‑SLAPP context and purpose)
- Page v. Parsons, 249 Or. App. 445 (2012) (legislative intent for quick, inexpensive anti‑SLAPP process and relevance of 60‑day period)
- Horton v. Western Protector Ins. Co., 217 Or. App. 443 (2008) (discussing 60‑day period significance)
- Kohring v. Ballard, 355 Or. 297 (2014) (distinguishing jurisdiction from venue and recognizing right to insist on proper venue)
- Nibler v. Dept. of Transportation, 338 Or. 19 (2005) (venue statutes are procedural)
- Handy v. Lane County, 360 Or. 605 (2016) (Oregon anti‑SLAPP adoption intended to follow California cases as persuasive authority)
- State v. Rogers, 330 Or. 282 (2000) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
- South Sutter, LLC v. LJ Sutter Partners, LP, 193 Cal.App.4th 634 (2011) (California rule treating a venue motion as a stay; court explains California practice for resetting anti‑SLAPP deadlines)