John D. Ostrander, OSB No. 87394, john@eoplaw.com 

William A. Drew, OSB No. 95253, bill@eoplaw.com 

ELLIOTT, OSTRANDER & PRESTON, P.C. 

707 SW Washington Street, Suite 1500 

Portland, Oregon 97205 

Telephone: (503) 224-7112 

Facsimile: (503) 224-7819 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

DOUG GREISEN, an individual, 

Case No. 3:14-cv-01399-SI 

PLAINTIFF, 

v. 

JON HANKEN, an individual, JOHN 

DOES 1-5, and CITY OF SCAPPOOSE, 

an Oregon municipality, 

DEFENDANTS. 

INTRODUCTION 

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE 

BRIEF REGARDING TORT 

CLAIMS NOTICE 

At its core, tort claim notice simply tells a public agency that someone thinks they may 

have a reason to file a lawsuit against it. It is not a formal complaint. Here, tort claim notice was 

provided to the City of Scappoose on multiple occasions, and Defendants were not at all 

surprised by Mr. Greisen's lawsuit. 

DISCUSSION 

As the Court knows, ORS 30.275 sets forth the requirements for tort claim notice. It 

requires "a statement that a claim for damages is or will be asserted against the public body." 

Page 1 - SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE BRIEF 

REGARDING TORT CLAIMS NOTICE 

ELLIOTT, 

OSTRANDER& 

PRESTON, P.C. 

UNION BANK TOWER 

707 SW WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 1500 

PORTLAND, OR 97205 

TELEPHONE (503) 224-7112 

FACSIMILE (503) 224-7819 

ema1l: attomeys@eoplaw.com 

Case 3:14-cv-01399-SI Document 41 Filed 11/11/15 Page 1 of 5
ORS 30.275(4)(a). It also requires "a description of the time, place and circumstances giving 

rise to the claim, so far as known to the claimant." ORS 30.275(4)(b). Finally, the statute 

requires that the notice set forth the claimant's contact information. In Flug v. University of 

Oregon, 335 Or 540, 553 (2003), the Oregon Supreme Court made clear that "the notice need 

convey only an intent to assert some claim." (Emphasis in original). The "plaintiff need convey 

an intent to assert a claim only in general terms," and that the notice does not need to "predict 

expressly the specific claims that will or may be asserted." !d. 

Here, Plaintiffs December 16, 2013 letter to Defendant City Attorney Ron Guerra 

(Fujioka Dec., Ex. 2, p. 12 (Otterman, Dep., Ex. 4) states, in part: 

"As you know, since August, Chief Greisen has been savagely and wrongly attacked in 

public and in the press as a public menace, a harasser of subordinates, and worst of all, 

a thief Throughout, the City's administration has not once made a public statement 

suggesting restraint pending review of the actual facts. Not once has the City's 

administration done anything to temper the press. Rather, and shockingly to the contrary, 

the City, by and through its Mayor, its City Manager and I or others, has maliciously 

leaked falsehoods and unfavorable half-truths. These have had unalleviated sting 

because Chief Greisen has dutifully adhered to your request that he refrain from any 

substantive public comment. By their on-going failure to take prompt remedial steps, the 

Mayor and (apparently) the City Attorney has ratified the City's wrongdoing; although 

the doings of the Mayor and others have been kept secret, concerted misdeeds sink to the 

level of a Constitutional tort. 

It is one thing to be publically criticized for wrongful acts - or even for acts that are 

questionable. But, it is quite another to be defamed and castigated on charges that are 

self-evidently false and motivated by purely selfish personal political motives. As you 

know, upon the honest third-party scrutiny of the City Council, the public menace 

charges arising out of the PIT maneuver investigation were summarily dismissed as 

unfounded in the extreme. Although we obviously have not seen the official reports 

(which disturbingly have been completed for many weeks now), just based on the 

questions that were asked, I am confident that upon honest scrutiny, Chief Greisen will be 

cleared of any harassment charge. Similarly, with regard to the alleged misappropriation 

of charity money, even the investigator admitted that nothing indicated that there was any 

money missing from the police station, and she forthrightly acknowledged that there was 

"no fraud." 

As the Chief of Police, Chief Greisen has a thick skin. Also, armed with the conviction 

that each and every one of the negative accusations is categorically false, Chief Greisen 

Page 2 - SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE BRIEF 

REGARDING TORT CLAIMS NOTICE 

ELLIOTT, 

OSTRANDER& 

PRESTON, P.C. 

UNION BANK TOWER 

707 SW WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 1500 

PORTLAND, OR 97205 

TELEPHONE (503) 224-7112 

FACSIMILE (503) 224-7819 

ema1l: anomeys@eoplaw com 

Case 3:14-cv-01399-SI Document 41 Filed 11/11/15 Page 2 of 5
has duly soldiered on. However, the excessively prolonged exile from his position, 

coupled with the gratuitous public banning of Chief Greisen from city property has a vile 

and corrosive effect on ChiefGreisen, his reputation and his standing in the community. 

* * * 

"Alternatively, we recognize the possibility that the City may lack the courage to expose 

and remedy these injustices, and avoid putting its house in proper order. To that end, 

through weakness, the City may also seek a politically accommodating "solution" (i.e., 

wait until the interim City Manager is in place, and have him fire ChiefGreisen on the 

grounds that there were some questions, and now after six months, there is a loss of 

confidence; or simply "it is time for a change''). This course of action may falsely 

appear "easy", as the City may have calculated that public outcry will be muted after the 

(unjust) delay. But, be fair warned that if the City wrongly takes that approach, Chief 

Greisen will be prepared to vigorously enforce all of his remedies, including those under 

42 US. C.§ 1983. The City by and though its various agents cannot conspire under 

color of governmental authority to defame and destroy a public official, who has, in fact, 

satisfactorily performed his job in good faith." (Emphasis added). 

One month later, Plaintiffs January 16, 2014letter to Defendant City Attorney Ron Guerra, 

Fujioka Dec., Ex. 3, p. 15 (Otterman, Dep., Ex. 5), incorporates the earlier warning and notice. 

Defendants seek to characterize the December 16, 2013 and January 16, 2014letters as 

"negotiation letters", but nowhere do they reference FRE 408, or otherwise indicate that they are 

simply invitations to negotiate. Rather, the January 16, 2014 letter further states: 

"You have provided no confirmation that you have put in place a litigation hold as 

originally requested on September 9, 2013, and as expanded on December 16, 2013 to 

cover the Mayor, the City Attorney, and the interim City Manager." 

Fujioka Dec., Ex. 3, at p. 16 (Otterman, Dep., Ex. 5). Mr. Greisen's request for a "litigation 

hold" provides context making clear that a lawsuit was forthcoming. 

The December 16, 2013 and January 16, 2014letters describe the time, place and 

circumstances giving rise to Mr. Greisen's claims. The letters state that a claim will be asserted 

against the public body and they include contact information. If there was any doubt, the notices 

attached to the Declaration of John Ostrander (attached to the Motion to Supplement the 

Summary Judgment Record) make clear that due notice was given. In sum, Defendants were 

Page 3 - SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE BRIEF 

REGARDING TORT CLAIMS NOTICE 

ELLIOTT, 

OSTRANDER& 

PRESTON, P.C. 

UNION BANK TOWER 

707 SW WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 1500 

PORTLAND, OR 97205 

TELEPHONE (503) 224-7112 

FACSIMILE (503 ) 224-7819 

email: attomeys@eoplaw com 

Case 3:14-cv-01399-SI Document 41 Filed 11/11/15 Page 3 of 5
entirely unsurprised by Mr. Greisen's lawsuit. To say otherwise venerates argument over known 

fact. In his deposition, City Manager Otterman acknowledged receiving and reading both letters. 

Fujioka Dec., Ex. 3, pp. 5-7. 

Defendants also assert that Mr. Greisen's Amended Complaint fails to plead tort claim 

notice. However, the Amended Complaint specifically alleges, and even quotes from, the 

December 16, 2013 and January 16, 2014letters. Amended Complaint,~~ 26, 28-29. 

Consequently, Defendants' argument as to the adequacy of the pleadings is misplaced. 

CONCLUSION 

For the above stated reasons, Defendants' argument based on tort claim notice is 

misplaced. 

DATED this 11 1

h day ofNovember, 2015. 

ELLIOTT, OSTRANDER & PRESTON, P. C. 

By: /s/ John. D. Ostrander 

John D. Ostrander, OSB #87394, john@eoplaw.com 

(503) 224-7112 

(503) 224-7819 fax 

Page 4 - SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE BRIEF 

REGARDING TORT CLAIMS NOTICE 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff 

ELLIOTT, 

OSTRANDER& 

PRESTON, P.C. 

UNION BANK TOWER 

707 SW WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 1500 

PORTLAND, OR 97205 

TELEPHONE (503) 224-7112 

FACSIMILE (503) 224-7819 

email: attorneys@eoplaw.com 

Case 3:14-cv-01399-SI Document 41 Filed 11/11/15 Page 4 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that I served the foregoing SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE BRIEF 

REGARDING TORT CLAIMS NOTICE on the following party on November 11, 

2015, by emailing a true and correct copy thereof, addressed to said party at the address 

shown below: 

Karen M Vickers 

Mersereau Shannon LLP 

1 SW Columbia St Ste 1600 

Portland OR 97258 

kvickers@mershanlaw.com 

ELLIOTT, OSTRANDER & PRESTON, P.C. 

By ' 

John . Ostrander, OSB No. 87394 

Of A!. ' omeys for Plaintiff 

UNION BANK TOWER 

Page 1 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

ELLIOTT, 

OSTRANDER& 

PRESTON, P.C. 

707 SW WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 1500 

PORTLAND, OR 97205 

TELEPHONE: (503) 224-7112 

FACSIMILE: (503) 224-7819 

EMAIL: attorneys@eoplaw com 

Case 3:14-cv-01399-SI Document 41 Filed 11/11/15 Page 5 of 5