434 P.3d 438
Or. Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiffs Carol Neumann and Dancing Deer Mountain, LLC sued defendant Liles for defamation and related claims based on a negative Google review.
- The trial court dismissed the case on an anti‑SLAPP special motion; the Oregon Court of Appeals in Neumann I reinstated Neumann’s defamation claim.
- The Oregon Supreme Court in Neumann II adopted the Unelko framework for online speech, held the review was constitutionally protected opinion on a matter of public concern, and concluded the defamation claim was not actionable.
- The Supreme Court remanded to the Court of Appeals to decide whether Oregon’s anti‑SLAPP statutes (ORS 31.150–31.155) apply to the action and to resolve defendant’s cross‑appeal challenging the amount of attorney fees awarded under the anti‑SLAPP statute.
- On remand the Court of Appeals held the action falls within ORS 31.150(2)(d) because publishing protected online opinion is conduct in furtherance of the constitutional right of free speech and the review addressed an issue of public interest.
- The court affirmed that attorney fees are authorized under ORS 31.152(3) but reversed and remanded for recalculation because the trial court incorrectly treated plaintiffs’ total claimed damages as $7,500 rather than $7,500 per plaintiff (total $15,000), which affects the reasonableness analysis for fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oregon anti‑SLAPP procedures apply | Anti‑SLAPP does not apply (relied on Illinois cases; did not analyze ORS text) | The claims arise from a public online statement and therefore fall within ORS 31.150(2)(c) or (d) | Held: ORS 31.150(2)(d) applies; posting constitutionally protected opinion online is conduct in furtherance of free speech on an issue of public interest |
| Whether publishing the Google review was protected speech | Review was actionable defamation | Review was constitutionally protected opinion on matter of public concern under Unelko | Supreme Court earlier held review was protected opinion; Court of Appeals proceeds on that basis (Neumann II) |
| Whether defendant was entitled to attorney fees under anti‑SLAPP | Plaintiffs did not contest fees if anti‑SLAPP applied | Entitled to fees under ORS 31.152(3) after successful special motion to strike | Held: trial court authorized to award fees; fee entitlement affirmed |
| Whether trial court erred in limiting fee award to $8,000 (vs requested $11,527.50) based on $7,500 amount in controversy | Plaintiffs treated claim as $7,500 per plaintiff but trial court treated total as $7,500 | Trial court erred by treating the amount at stake as $7,500 total; plaintiffs’ complaint and demand letter sought $7,500 each (total $15,000) | Held: trial court erred; reversed and remanded to reassess fee reasonableness using $15,000 as amount in controversy |
Key Cases Cited
- Neumann v. Liles, 358 Or. 706 (Or. 2016) (adopts Unelko framework; holds online review was constitutionally protected opinion on matter of public concern)
- Neumann v. Liles, 261 Or. App. 567 (Or. Ct. App. 2014) (prior appellate decision reinstating defamation claim)
- Unelko Corp. v. Rooney, 912 F.2d 1049 (9th Cir. 1990) (framework for distinguishing fact from protected opinion in consumer statements)
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (Or. 2009) (statutory construction methodology cited)
- PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or. 606 (Or. 1993) (statutory construction principles cited)