Opinion ID: 1205830
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Method of raising the sufficiency of the pleadings.

Text: The Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs' motion to dismiss was untimely and that the appropriate method of raising this issue would be a motion for relief from default under ORCP 71:    [E]ven if we were to accept plaintiffs' premise that it is a basis for relief from default that the admitted facts fail to constitute a legal claim, plaintiffs would not be assisted. They did not seek relief from default. They simply disregarded the default order and moved against the pleading. Plaintiffs' answer to the counterclaim raised the affirmative defense that defendant's `[c]omplaint and each claim thereof fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.' That answer was among the pleadings which were stricken as part of the process which culminated in the default order. We decline to permit plaintiffs to defeat the default order and the order striking their pleadings, neither of which they challenge, by raising under a different name the defense that they had advanced earlier in their stricken answer. 80 Or. App. at 173, 721 P.2d 867. We might agree with the Court of Appeals that, had judgment been entered on the default, a motion under ORCP 71 would properly have raised the issue. But ORCP 71 is not applicable, for no judgment had been given when the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss was made. [4] In any event, plaintiffs did not seek relief from default but instead filed a motion to dismiss under ORCP 21 A.(8), which provides: Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim or third party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion to dismiss:    (8) failure to state ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a claim   . ORCP 21 G.(3) provides: A defense of failure to state ultimate facts constituting a claim    may be made in any pleading permitted or ordered under Rule 13B. or by motion for judgment on the pleadings or at the trial on the merits. The objection or defense, if made at trial, shall be disposed of as provided in Rule 23B. in light of any evidence that may have been received. We disagree with the Court of Appeals' holding that the motion was untimely. That a default judgment must be supported by a pleading that states a claim suggests that even a defaulting party should be given the opportunity to assert that the complaint fails to state a claim for relief. We note that ORCP 69 B.(2) requires that notice of the application for judgment be given to a party in default who has appeared in the action, at least ten days before the hearing. [5] This suggests that the defaulting party has a right to attend the hearing. We need not here decide what is the permissible extent of participation by a defaulting party at the hearing or whether the defaulting party has a right to file a motion to dismiss. [6] Because we conclude that a default judgment must be supported by the pleadings, we hold that the trial court did not err in permitting plaintiffs to file the motion to dismiss. We turn to the merits of the motion itself.