Court Opinion

ID: 9900414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 22:12:34.668882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:05.262195
License: Public Domain

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; sup-
plemental 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 prevail-
ing 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 supple-
mental 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 attor-
ney 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 mod-
ify 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.