Title: Gleason v. INTERN. MULTIFOODS CORP.

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

577 P.2d 931 (1978)
Royal E. GLEASON and Janet M. Gleason, Appellants,
v.
INTERNATIONAL MULTIFOODS CORPORATION DBA SMOKE-CRAFT, Inc., and William Mikkelson, Respondents.

Supreme Court of Oregon, Department No. 1.
Decided May 2, 1978.
Argued and Submitted April 6, 1978.
Gerald D. Wygant, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellants.
*932 Barnes H. Ellis, of Davies, Biggs, Strayer, Stoel & Boley, Portland, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Michael L. Rosenbaum, of Davies, Biggs, Strayer, Stoel & Boley, Portland.
Before DENECKE, C.J., and HOLMAN, TONGUE and LENT, JJ.
TONGUE, Justice.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of defendants in a stockholders' derivative suit. Defendants' motion for summary judgment must be considered in the light of the facts as alleged in plaintiffs' complaint, which may be summarized as follows (omitting jurisdictional and other formal allegations):
Defendants' motion for summary judgment was supported by the affidavit of the secretary of Smoke-Craft, Inc., which included the following statements, among others:
Plaintiffs' brief on this appeal includes the following statements:
Thus, although it appears that plaintiffs contend that there are issues of fact which should be resolved upon a trial of this case, plaintiffs filed no affidavits opposing those filed by defendants in support of their motion to dismiss.
ORS 18.105(4) expressly provides that
It follows that when defendants filed their motion for summary judgment, supported by affidavit, plaintiffs were required to respond by affidavit or "otherwise as provided" by that statute, and were not entitled to rely either upon the allegations of their complaint or statements in their trial memorandum. See Pelage v. Chrysler, 278 Or. 223, 227, 563 P.2d 701 (1977). If plaintiffs were then unable to present such affidavits, but expected to be able to develop such facts through discovery, their proper recourse was to proceed under ORS 18.105(5) by the filing of an affidavit explaining why such discovery was necessary.[1]
*934 Because of plaintiffs' failure to either submit affidavits opposing the affidavits supporting defendant's motion for summary judgment or to show why they were unable to do so, the trial court did not err in allowing defendants' motion for summary judgment unless a summary judgment would not have been "appropriate" within the meaning of ORS 18.105(4), even under facts as stated in defendants' affidavits.
Although plaintiffs made no such direct contention, they say that:
In response, defendants cite Zidell v. Zidell, Inc., 277 Or. 413, 419, 560 P.2d 1086 (1977), in which this court, in a suit to require a corporation to declare dividends, quoted with approval the following rule, as stated in Gay v. Gay's Super Markets, Inc., 343 A.2d 577, 580 (Me. 1975):
With reference, however, to the refusal of the directors of a corporation to bring an action to recover money allegedly due to the corporation, the rule has been stated as follows in 13 Fletcher Cyclopedia Corporations 131, § 5822 (Rev. vol. 1970):
In our judgment, the facts as stated in the affidavit supporting defendants' motion for summary judgment were sufficient to show that the directors of Smoke-Craft acted in good faith in settlement of the Oldright case, in the absence of a statement of contrary facts in opposing affidavits. *935 Not only did plaintiffs' file no affidavits contradicting defendants' claim of good faith, but plaintiffs filed no affidavits stating facts sufficient to show that the right of the corporation to recover $315,000 from Mr. Mikkelson was "clear" or to otherwise show that its board of directors acted wrongfully in approving that settlement.
In the absence of such affidavits we cannot say that the entry of a summary judgment was not "appropriate" within the meaning of ORS 18.105(4).[2]
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.[3]
[1]  ORS 18.105(5) provides:

"Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that he cannot, for reasons stated, present by affidavit facts essential to justify his opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment, or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had, or may make such other order as is just."
[2]  We have read Groel v. United Electric Co. of New Jersey, 70 N.J. Eq. 616, 61 A. 1061 (N.J. 1905), as well as Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 57 S. Ct. 904, 81 L. Ed. 1307 (1937), and Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S. Ct. 466, 80 L. Ed. 688 (1936), as cited by plaintiffs, and do not believe that they require a different result.
[3]  Plaintiffs also assign as error the overruling of their objection to the inclusion in defendants' cost bill of the cost of the deposition of plaintiff Royal E. Gleason, as taken by defendants and submitted to the trial court in support of their motion for summary judgment. Portions of the deposition were also read to the court as the hearing on that motion. ORS 20.020 includes as allowable costs to the prevailing party "the necessary expenses of taking depositions." We have held that whether the taking of a deposition was "necessary" is ordinarily a matter to be left to the discretion of the trial court. American Sanitary Service v. Walker, 276 Or. 389, 395, 554 P.2d 1010 (1976). We hold that the trial court did not abuse that discretion in this case.