Lang v. Rogue Valley Medical Center/Asante
361 Or. 487
| Or. | 2017Background
- Ruth Miller died in 2008; her personal representative (Lang) sued Rogue Valley Medical Center, Dr. Savage, and related entities for wrongful death and related claims.
- After partial summary judgment and postponement of a 2013 trial, the court’s January 25, 2013 order allowed discovery to proceed and stated plaintiff "may" move for leave to file a third amended complaint upon completion of discovery.
- Discovery was completed October 8, 2013. Plaintiff did not move within a specified period; the court initially declined to construe the January 25 order as imposing a 10-day deadline.
- On April 14, 2014, the court struck certain new allegations from plaintiff’s proposed third amended complaint, said (in a bench colloquy) the order should provide "Ten days," and later (in a written order) directed plaintiff to file any conforming motion within 10 days. Plaintiff filed his motion April 28 (four days after the date defendants claimed was the deadline, and before the written order was signed May 1).
- Defendants moved to dismiss under ORCP 54 B(1) for plaintiff’s alleged willful failure to comply with court orders; the trial court concluded plaintiff willfully violated two orders and dismissed with prejudice. The Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion. The Oregon Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for dismissal under ORCP 54 B(1) for failure to comply with a court order | Pamplin standard applies: dismissal only for willful/bad faith/similar fault and court must explain why dismissal is just | Same (court may dismiss for willful/bad faith noncompliance and must consider lesser sanctions) | Court: ORCP 54 B(1) permits dismissal only when failure was willful, in bad faith, or similarly at fault; court must consider/record why lesser sanctions are insufficient. |
| Whether plaintiff willfully violated the April 14, 2014 oral bench statement (10-day requirement) | April 14 statement did not clearly vary ORCP 15(B)(2)’s presumption that the 10 days runs from service of a written order; filing April 28 complied with the objective meaning | The bench "Ten days" meant 10 days from the hearing; plaintiff had notice and filed late (April 28 vs April 24) | Court: objectively the April 14 colloquy did not direct departure from ORCP 15(B)(2); plaintiff did not willfully violate that oral ruling by filing April 28. |
| Whether dismissal was justified (consideration of lesser sanctions / reliance on prior conduct) | Even if a violation occurred, court failed to explain why lesser sanctions were inadequate; earlier ruling had said plaintiff did not violate the Jan. 25 order, so reliance on a prior willful violation was inconsistent | Dismissal was justified because plaintiff had two willful violations (2013 and 2014) demonstrating dismissal was the only adequate remedy | Court: Trial court’s reliance on two willful violations was erroneous—one alleged violation (April 14) was not willful and the court’s later characterization of the earlier 2013 conduct contradicted its prior ruling; record lacks explanation why lesser sanctions were insufficient; reversal and remand. |
| Notice of June 23 dismissal hearing | Plaintiff argued lack of adequate notice of the June 23 hearing | Defendants showed communications; trial court found at least constructive notice; plaintiff did not press this on appeal | Court did not address notice challenge on the merits (plaintiff did not pursue it); review focused on whether dismissal for order-noncompliance was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pamplin v. Victoria, 319 Or. 429 (1994) (explains standards and required findings when dismissing for discovery-order noncompliance)
- Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (federal discussion of dismissal for failure to prosecute and relation to deliberate/dilatory conduct)
- Union Lumber Co. v. Miller, 360 Or. 767 (2016) (applies abuse-of-discretion review to dismissal rules and recognizes trial-court discretion within legal limits)
- State v. Hightower, 361 Or. 412 (2017) (records must disclose reasons for a court’s exercise of discretion; express findings not always required if record suffices)