Young v. Davis, 259 Or. App. 497

Background

Plaintiff, a VA employee, sued defendant (a coworker) for defamation (two surviving statements labeled (u) and (v)) and wrongful use of civil proceedings after defendant reported alleged sexual harassment and secured a stalking protective order (SPO) that was later dismissed with prejudice.
Defendant filed a special motion to strike under Oregon’s anti‑SLAPP statute, ORS 31.150, invoking the statute’s two‑step burden‑shifting framework.
At step one the trial court found defendant met the prima facie burden that the claims arose from protected conduct under ORS 31.150(2) (court did not address that determination in detail on appeal and the court of appeals assumed the point for purposes of this opinion).
At step two the trial court concluded plaintiff had produced substantial evidence but also substantial contrary evidence and therefore was not “likely” to prevail; the court granted the special motion to strike and dismissed the claims.
On appeal plaintiff argued the trial court erred by weighing competing evidence (imposing a higher burden than ORS 31.150(3) requires) and by denying additional discovery; the court of appeals reviewed only the weighing‑of‑evidence issue.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper standard under ORS 31.150(3) at step two: may court weigh competing evidence to decide if plaintiff is "likely" to prevail?	The statute requires only that plaintiff present "substantial evidence to support a prima facie case;" court may not weigh evidence or assess likelihood of success.	Court must decide whether plaintiff has established a "probability" of success — i.e., may assess whether plaintiff is likely to prevail.	Court of appeals: Trial court erred. ORS 31.150(3) requires only that plaintiff present substantial evidence supporting a prima facie case; the court may not weigh competing evidence except to determine if defendant defeats plaintiff as a matter of law.
Proper role of defendant's evidence under ORS 31.150(4)	Defendant's evidence may be considered only to the extent it defeats plaintiff's prima facie showing as a matter of law; otherwise accept plaintiff's evidence as true for the motion.	Defendant contended its opposing evidence could be weighed to show lack of probability of success.	Court of appeals: Defendant's evidence can be considered only to determine if it legally defeats plaintiff's prima facie case; weighing credibility or relative weight is impermissible at this stage.
Whether trial court’s dismissal violated right to jury trial (Art I, §17)	Court’s weighing usurped the jury’s fact‑finding function.	Defendant argued ORS 31.150 procedure and court's application did not violate jury right.	Court of appeals did not decide constitutional claim because it resolved the case on statutory error—remanded for application of correct standard.
Whether claims were within ORS 31.150(2) (protected activity)	Plaintiff argued certain statements were private coworker disputes and not protected.	Defendant argued statements arose in connection with administrative/official proceedings and self‑protective petitioning activity.	Court of appeals bypassed the issue on appeal (assumed the statute applied) because plaintiff did not develop focused arguments on the remaining statements.

Key Cases Cited

Staten v. Steel, 222 Or App 17 (context on ORS 31.150’s purpose)
State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (methodology for statutory interpretation)
Page v. Parsons, 249 Or App 445 (California anti‑SLAPP caselaw as interpretive guide for ORS 31.150)
OEA v. Parks, 253 Or App 558 (rejecting a higher standard than a reasonable jury could find)
Oviedo v. Windsor Twelve Props., LLC, 212 Cal App 4th 97 (California rule: probability satisfied by admissible evidence showing prima facie case)
Greene v. Bank of Am., 216 Cal App 4th 454 (anti‑SLAPP: do not weigh credibility or evidence weight; accept plaintiff’s evidence as true)
Consumer Justice Ctr. v. Trimedica Int’l, Inc., 107 Cal App 4th 595 (plaintiff’s burden compatible with early stage and limited discovery)
Williams v. Salem Women’s Clinic, 245 Or App 476 (remand to permit trial court to apply correct standard)