Case Name: BUSINESS MEN'S SERVICE CO., an Oregon corporation, Appellant, v. UNION GOSPEL MINISTRIES, dba Union Gospel Ministries Thrift Store, aka Union Gospel Mission, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1993-05-12
Citations: 120 Or. App. 228
Docket Number: 92C760654; CA A76525
Parties: BUSINESS MEN’S SERVICE CO., an Oregon corporation, Appellant, v. UNION GOSPEL MINISTRIES, dba Union Gospel Ministries Thrift Store, aka Union Gospel Mission, Respondent.
Judges: Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Landau, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 120
Pages: 228–229

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted March 1,
reversed and remanded May 12, 1993
BUSINESS MEN’S SERVICE CO., an Oregon corporation, Appellant, v. UNION GOSPEL MINISTRIES, dba Union Gospel Ministries Thrift Store, aka Union Gospel Mission, Respondent.
(92C760654; CA A76525)
852 P2d 199
Jeffrey I. Hasson, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Hasson & Zimmerman, Portland.
Mark L. DeLapp, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.
Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Landau, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff appeals a judgment that dismissed its complaint on the ground that its claims are barred by claim preclusion, because the complaint alleges claims arising out of the same breach of contract that had previously been litigated to judgment. The trial court dismissed the complaint pursuant to ORCP 21A. Although the court did not further specify which subsection applied, the only relevant one is subsection (8). On a pretrial motion under ORCP 21A(8), the trial court can dismiss only if the pleading on it's face fails to state a claim. See O'Gara v. Kaufman, 81 Or App 499, 503, 726 P2d 403 (1986). Nothing on the face of the complaint mentions a former action. The trial court erred when it went outside the complaint to conclude that the claims were barred.
Reversed and remanded.
Defendant cites two California cases that held that res judicata can be grounds for a motion to dismiss: Olwell v. Hopkins, 28 Cal 2d 147, 168 P2d 972 (1946); Stafford v. Yerge, 129 Cal App 2d 165, 276 P2d 649 (1954). We decline to adopt the reasoning in those cases in the light of the express language of ORCP 21A that only motions to dismiss under ORCP 21A(l)-(7) can be supported by facts outside the complaint.