N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KIP O’ C ONNOR , e t a l.,

Pla i ntiffs - Appe lla

nts,
v. C OUNTY OF C LAC KAM AS, e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts - Appe lle e s. No. 16-35526 D.C . No. 3:11-C V-01297-SI
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M ic ha e l H. Sim on, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay 7, 2018 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : R AW LINSON a

nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s , a nd SILVER , ** Se nior Distric t Judge
. Appe lla nts a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s award of attorne y ’ s fe e s a nd c osts in fa vor of Appe lle e s, who we re m e m be rs of a now-de func t C om m unity Pla nning Organiz ation (“ C PO” ). The C PO wa s a volunte e r orga

niz a tion tha

t a ddre sse d 

# FIL ED JUN 29 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble R osly n O. Silve r, Unite d State s Se nior Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de s igna tion.c onc e rns ove r la n d use in C la c kam a s C o unty , Ore gon. Appe lle e s a n d the C PO pre v a i le d on a ll c la i m s, inc luding a n Ore gon sta

te tort c la im

for Inte ntiona l Inte rfe re nc e with Ec onom i c R e lations (“ IIER ” ). W e a ffirm e d. O’C onnor v . C ounty of C l ac k a m as , 627 Fe d. App’ x. 670 (9th C ir. 2015). For theIIER c l a im , Appe l le e s we re e ntitle d to a ttorne y ’ s fe e s a

nd c o sts pe r Ore gon’ s Anti-SLAPP sta tute . 1 Or. R e v . Stat. § 31.152(3). W e grante d Appe lle e s’ unoppose d m otion for transfe r of fe e s to the distric t c o urt. The distric t c ourt a warde d $77,352.50 in fe e s to the “ C PO De fe n d ants.” This a ppe a l followe d. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

n d we a ffirm
. 1. W e re j e c t Appe lla

nts’ atte m pt to re litiga

te the m e rits of the ir IIER c la im
. Appe l la n ts a rgue tha t ne w c a se la

w dic tate s a

diffe re nt outc om e , but Handy v . Lane C ounty is e a s ily distinguisha

ble . 362 P.3d 867 (Or. App. 2015) , aff’d in part, re

v ’d in part on othe

r grounds , 385 P.3d 1016 (Or. 2016). In Handy , the c ourt he ld tha t Ore gon’ s Anti-SLAPP sta tute did not a

pply to c la im s ba se d

on a lle g e d

viola tions of public m e e ting la

ws be c a use the a lle ge d viola

t ions we re not “prote c te d
a c tivitie s” unde r the Anti-SLAPP sta tute . Id. a t

882. He re , unlike in Handy , Appe l la n ts fa ile d to show a

ny viola tion of publicm e e ting la

w s. Inde e d, the distric t

1 “ SLAPP” sta

nds for “ Stra te gic La

wsuits Aga inst Public Partic i pation.” Or. R e v. Stat. § 31.150(1); Mulle n v . Me r e dith C orp ., 353 P.3d 598, 600 (Or. App. 2015). 2c ourt ha d dism isse d the IIER c la im be c a u se Appe lla

n ts fa ile d to show a prim a fa c i e
c a se for this c la im
. For this re a s on, too, were je c t Appe lla

n ts’ c onte ntion tha

t the distric t c ourt’ s fe e s award c o ntrave ne s the public polic y unde rly i ng Ore g on’ s Anti-SLAPP sta tute . This sta tute a llows litiga

n ts “ to e xpe ditiously te rm inate unfounde d c la im s tha t thre a te n c onstitutiona

l fre e spe e c h rights, not to de prive litiga

n ts of the be ne fit of a jury de te rm inat ion tha

t a c la im is me ritorious .” State n v . Ste e l , 191 P.3d 778, 789 (Or. App. 2008) (e m

p h a sis in origina

l). This issue

wa s c onc lusive ly

de c ide d whe n
we pre viously a ffirm e d the dism issa l of Appe lla n ts’ IIER c la im
. 2. W e re v ie w the distric t c ourt’ s a w ard of fe e s for a

buse of disc re tion. J ohnson v . C

o lumbia Prope rtie

s Anc horage

, LP , 437 F.3d 894, 898–99 (9th C ir. 2006). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion. First, the distric t c ourt did not fai l to a c c o unt for non-c om p e nsa b le tim e ; its ruling e xplic itly

ide ntifie d a

nd de duc te d c la im s for non-c om pe nsa ble work. Se c ond, the distric t c ourt re a s ona bly found tha

t Appe lla nts’ c onduc t in pursuing
se ttle m e nt did not im

pa c t the fe e award. Or. R e v. Stat . § 20.075(1)(f). Give n the
c onte ntious a

nd le ngthy

nature of the litiga

tion, it wa s re a sona

ble to re je c t Appe l la n ts’ pa ltry

se ttle m e nt offe rs. Erw in v . Te tre ault , 964 P.2d 277, 282 (Or. App. 1998) (finding tha

t “ [a ] pla intiff with a

c ontra c tua lly -ba se d e ntitle m e nt to
3pre v a i ling pa rty attorne y fe e s should not be

pe na liz e d for a

n obje c t ive ly

re a sona ble
re je c tion of a

propose d se ttle m e nt” ); C K H Family Ltd. P’ship v . Holt Home s, Inc
. , No. 17-441, 2018 W

L 1536479, a

t *4 (D. Or. M ar. 29, 2018) (re je c t ing a rgum e nt that fe e s should bere d

uc e d ba se d on de fe nda

nt’ s “ re fusa l to e nga ge in se ttle m e nt disc ussions” give n prospe c t of suc c e ssful de fe n se ). Eve n a ssum i ng tha

t Appe lle e s fa ile d to disc lose the se ttle m e n t offe rs to the C PO m e m be rship itse lf, the distric t
c ourt did not err in re fusing to re duc e furthe r the fe e award ba se d on suc h fa ilure
. Fina lly , we de c line to re ve rse the judgm e nt on theground tha t it re fe re nc e d the “ C PO De fe nda

nts” ra the r tha

n distinguishing be

twe e n the individual de fe nda n ts who brought the fe e m otion a nd the now-de func t C PO itse l f. On the IIER c la im tha t supports the

award, the a lle gations a ga inst theC PO we re
c oe xte nsive with thea lle gations a ga inst Appe lle e s. Appe l la nts fa il to show why

an
award of fe e s for Appe lle e s would not the n sa t isfy any obliga tion to the C PO itse l f. AFFIRM E D.

4