Court Opinion

ID: 9628179
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:10:16.767601+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:58.971861
License: Public Domain

THORNTON, J.,
dissenting.
The majority concludes that defendant (North Pacific) is entitled to interpose an allegedly unenforceable covenant as a defense to plaintiff’s action for *578wrongful interference with the contractual relations between plaintiff and his new employer. I cannot agree.
In my view plaintiff, by the allegations of his reply and the affidavit of his counsel, successfully placed in issue material facts regarding North Pacific’s affirmative defense. This being the case, I am of the opinion the trial court erred in granting North Pacific’s motion for summary judgment.
Contrary to the majority, I find this situation an appropriate one for application of the clean hands doctrine. The majority states that clean hands is a "doctrine,” not a "defense,” and therefore may not be pleaded in an action at law. I do not read ORS 16.460(2), which permits the pleading of "* * * equitable matter, not inconsistent with the complaint and constituting a defense to new matter in the answer," so restrictively. (Emphasis supplied.) In my view, it would be anomalous to bar North Pacific from specifically enforcing a similar noncompetition covenant on the ground that it had engaged in unethical conduct material to the work situation of its employe, North Pacific Lumber Co. v. Oliver, 286 Or 639, 596 P2d 931 (1979), and then permit it to threaten to sue to enforce the identical covenant and then rely on it as a shield to liability for its threats. If plaintiff can show he was in a factually similar position to the defendant in Oliver, the covenant is unenforceable against him and constitutes a defense.
I further believe that entry of summary judgment for defendant was improper because an issue of fact— whether plaintiff here was in a position similar to that of defendant in created by plaintiff’s reply. Defendant in its motion for and memorandum in support of summary judgment did not demonstrate there was no issue of fact as to defendant’s alleged unethical conduct, which it was required to do although plaintiff had the burden of proof at trial. Seeborg v. General Motors Corporation., 284 Or 695, *579699, 588 P2d 1100 (1978). Plaintiffs allegations and its memorandum in opposition to summary judgment were sufficient to draw the court’s attention to the Oliver case and the fact issue created by that case. Glassner v. Northwest Lustre Craft Co., 39 Or App 175, 178-79, 591 P2d 419 (1979). Entry of summary judgment was inappropriate here. ORS 18.105(4); 39 Or App at 179.
I would reverse and remand.