Case Name: Michael MIGIS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Respondent Cross-Appellant, v. AUTOZONE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Defendant-Appellant Cross-Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2017-06-21
Citations: 286 Or. App. 357
Docket Number: 071113531; A150540
Parties: Michael MIGIS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Respondent Cross-Appellant, v. AUTOZONE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Defendant-Appellant Cross-Respondent.
Judges: Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 286
Pages: 357–358

Head Matter:
On appellant’s petition for reconsideration filed January 24, and respondent’s response to petition for reconsideration filed January 27,
reconsideration allowed, former disposition (282 Or App 774, 387 P3d 381 (2016)) adhered to June 21, 2017
Michael MIGIS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Respondent Cross-Appellant, v. AUTOZONE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Defendant-Appellant Cross-Respondent.
Multnomah County Circuit Court
071113531; A150540
398 P3d 360
Roy Pulvers and Holland & Knight LLP for petition.
A.E. Bud Bailey, J. Dana Pinney, and Bailey, Pinney & Associates, LLC, for response.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant, AutoZone, Inc., petitions for reconsideration of our decision, Migis v. AutoZone, Inc., 282 Or App 774, 387 P3d 381 (2016), concerning the disposition of its appeal. Defendant argues that concepts of waiver or invited error should preclude a new trial on the off-the-clock claim penalties and compel a defense verdict on that issue as a matter of law. We allow the petition for reconsideration to state that we reject those arguments. Without further discussion, we adhere to our original decision.
Reconsideration allowed; former disposition adhered to.