Oregon Education Ass'n v. Parks
253 Or. App. 558
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Public employee unions sue Parks, Sizemore, and related Parks entities under ORICO for a pattern of racketeering to influence 2008 antiunion ballot measures.
- Plaintiffs allege ATRF was used as a conduit to fund Sizemore’s antiunion campaign while avoiding prior judgments and injunctions.
- Sizemore allegedly committed perjury and unsworn falsification; Parks conspired to conceal ATRF’s true nature and tax status.
- Defendants moved to strike under ORS 31.150, arguing the claim arose from protected petition/free-speech activity; the trial court denied the motion.
- The trial court conducted an evidentiary review, incorporating pleadings and affidavits to determine substantial evidence for a prima facie ORICO claim.
- On appeal, the court must determine whether the trial court properly applied ORS 31.150 and whether plaintiffs presented substantial evidence to survive the strike.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the ORS 31.150 burden properly applied? | Plaintiffs: evidentiary burden met; nonmoving party must show probability of prevailing. | Parks: Staten misapplied; the court treated it as summary judgment evidence. | Yes; court correctly applied ORS 31.150(3) and did not misapply Staten. |
| Did the court properly consider admissible evidence under ORS 31.150(4)? | Plaintiffs: affidavits and pleadings state facts admissible under evidence rules. | Defendants: some submissions were inadmissible hearsay or opinion. | Yes; no reversible error in court’s evaluation of admissible affidavits. |
| Did plaintiffs prove ORS 166.720(3) and (4) wrongdoings by Parks and Sizemore? | Parks solicited concealment; Sizemore committed perjury and unsworn falsification as part of a conspiracy. | Parks: evidence insufficient to show solicitation or agreement to commit predicate acts. | Plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to support inference of solicitation and conspiratorial acts. |
| Is there direct causation under ORS 166.725(7)(a) for damages? | Damages arose from concealment and conspiracy to fund ballot measures harming plaintiffs. | Kotera/Holmes require direct cause by predicate acts; no direct causal link shown. | Yes; injuries were caused by the intended consequence of the ORICO violations. |
| Are voluntary political expenditures cognizable damages under ORICO? | Damages consistent with AFT I; expenditures linked to defeat of measures. | Not addressed explicitly; argues limited direct injury. | Cognizable; previously rejected in AFT I. |
Key Cases Cited
- Staten v. Steel, 222 Or App 17 (2008) (describes burden shifting under ORS 31.150 and comparison to summary judgment)
- Page v. Parsons, 249 Or App 445 (2012) (describes operation of ORS 31.150 on burden shifting)
- AFT v. Oregon Fed. of Teachers, 208 Or App 350 (2006) (racketeering damages and injunctive relief under ORICO)
- AFT II, 345 Or 1 (2008) (injury by reason of predicate acts; causation standard under ORICO)
- Kotera v. Daioh Int’l U.S.A. Corp., 179 Or App 253 (2002) (causation and injury under ORS 166.720; distinguishes subsections)
- Osborne v. Fadden, 225 Or App 431 (2009) (civil conspiracy elements under ORICO)