No. 340 July 6, 2023 705

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE

STATE OF OREGON

Christopher HOOVER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

INDUSTRIAL SCRAP CORPORATION 

and Alan Mayer,

Defendants-Respondents.

Lane County Circuit Court

19CV45731; A176742

R. Curtis Conover, Judge.

On respondents’ petition for reconsideration filed April 17, 

2023, appellant’s response to petition for reconsideration 

filed May 8, 2023, and respondents’ reply to appellant’s 

response to petition for reconsideration filed May 17, 2023. 

Opinion filed March 22, 2023. 324 Or App 666, 527 P3d 1076 

(2023).

Charles W. Woodward, IV, and London & Paris, LLP, for 

petition.

Michael Owens, Robert Meyer, and Meyer Employment 

Law, for response.

Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and 

Kamins, Judge.

EGAN, J.

Reconsideration allowed; disposition modified; supplemental judgment vacated and remanded; otherwise 

affirmed.
706 Hoover v. Industrial Scrap Corp.
Cite as 326 Or App 705 (2023) 707

EGAN, J.

Plaintiff appealed from a supplemental judgment 

awarding him costs and attorney fees, assigning error to the 

trial court’s award of a fee that was significantly less than 

the amount requested and to the denial of an enhanced 

prevailing party fee. We concluded that the trial court did 

not abuse its discretion in rejecting the enhanced prevailing party fee but that the record was insufficient to allow 

us to review the trial court’s significant reduction of the 

requested attorney fee. We therefore reversed the supplemental judgment in part and remanded the supplemental 

judgment for reconsideration. Hoover v. Industrial Scrap 

Corp., 324 Or App 666, 527 P3d 1076 (2023). We designated 

plaintiff as the prevailing party and awarded plaintiff his 

costs on appeal.

Defendant has filed a petition for reconsideration, 

contending that it is the prevailing party, because, although 

the case is remanded for reconsideration of the attorney fee 

award, we rejected several of plaintiff’s assignments of error. 

Defendant contends that our opinion did not substantially 

modify the judgment below and asks that we designate it as 

the prevailing party, remove the award of costs, and simply 

remand the supplemental judgment, without reversal.

We reject defendant’s contentions. It is correct that 

plaintiff did not prevail on all of his assignments of error. 

And it may be that on remand, the trial court will more fully 

explain why it so significantly reduced plaintiff’s fee request 

and that the attorney fee award will be unchanged. But as 

plaintiff correctly points out, a party need not prevail on all 

assignments of error in order to be a prevailing party. And, 

although plaintiff may not ultimately recover more attorney fees, currently, plaintiff is the prevailing party on his 

assignment of error relating to attorney fees and is entitled 

to costs.

However, because it is possible that the trial court 

will enter the same attorney fee award on remand, we modify the disposition to show that the supplemental judgment 

is vacated rather than reversed. See Moreau v. Samalin, 

295 Or App 534, 543, 435 P3d 794 (2019) (vacating and 
708 Hoover v. Industrial Scrap Corp.

remanding supplemental judgment containing attorney fee 

award where trial court provided insufficient explanation).

Reconsideration allowed; disposition modified; 

supplemental judgment vacated and remanded; otherwise 

affirmed.