428 P.3d 893
Or.2018Background
- Plaintiff, a former driver, filed a 2013 putative class action under Oregon wage-and-hour statutes against Driver Resources and related entities.
- Defendants successfully petitioned to compel arbitration based on a signed agreement; plaintiff argued the agreement was unconscionable.
- Plaintiff sought interlocutory appellate review of the order compelling arbitration; the Court of Appeals dismissed that effort and the trial court refused a certification under ORS 19.225.
- Plaintiff then moved to dismiss all claims with prejudice so he could appeal the final judgment challenging the order compelling arbitration, asserting arbitration would effectively preclude recovery.
- The trial court entered a voluntary dismissal with prejudice; defendants moved to dismiss the ensuing appeal, citing Steenson v. Robinson and ORS 36.730.
- The Oregon Supreme Court held the voluntary-with-prejudice dismissal was appealable and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration on the merits or reachability of issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Steenson's bar on appeals from voluntary dismissals was abrogated by current statutes (ORS 19.205/19.245) | Statutes permitting appeals of judgments abrogated the common-law Steenson rule | Steenson remains good law and still bars appeals from voluntary dismissals | Steenson remains valid; statutes did not abrogate it |
| Whether Steenson's exception (when nonsuit is taken because a ruling precludes recovery) applies here | Plaintiff dismissed with prejudice because arbitration would effectively preclude recovery; thus exception applies | Exception should apply only if recovery is factually impossible in arbitration; plaintiff hasn’t shown that | Exception applies because plaintiff dismissed all claims with prejudice; inability to refile prevents piecemeal appeals |
| Whether ORS 36.730 (arbitration appeals) precludes appeal from a final judgment dismissing claims after order compelling arbitration | The statute governs interlocutory appeals only and does not bar appeals from final judgments | Omission of an interlocutory right to appeal orders compelling arbitration implies appeals must await final judgment after arbitration | ORS 36.730 does not bar an appeal from a final general judgment; plaintiff may appeal the dismissal |
| Whether the appeal should be dismissed by the Court of Appeals for lack of jurisdiction | Voluntary-with-prejudice final judgment is appealable under ORS 19.205/19.245 and within exceptions to Steenson | Appeal should be dismissed under Steenson or ORS 36.730 | Appealability affirmed; Court of Appeals order dismissing the appeal reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Steenson v. Robinson, 236 Or. 414, 385 P.2d 738 (Ore. 1963) (established rule barring appeals from voluntarily requested judgments, with a noted exception)
- Farris v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty, 273 Or. 628, 542 P.2d 1031 (Or. 1975) (appeal allowed where a prior ruling effectively determined the merits and precluded other recovery)
- Taylor v. Baker, 279 Or. 139, 566 P.2d 884 (Or. 1977) (plaintiff's voluntary abandonment of related claims can make a nonsuit appealable because res judicata prevents refiling)
- Sheets v. Knight, 308 Or. 220, 779 P.2d 1000 (Or. 1989) (applied Taylor: res judicata barred relitigation of voluntarily dismissed claim, so appeal permitted)