ENTRY FORM

CALENDAR STATUS: Active
SC Number:
S060584
CA Number:
A143752
Case Title:
Portland General Electric Company v. Ebasco Services, Inc.
Date:
04/29/2013
Time:
09:00 AM
Location:
Supreme Court Case 1
Attorneys:
Brian R. Talcott on behalf of Portland General Electric Company
David M. Axelrade on behalf of Lexington Insurance Company
Comments:
Statement of Issues:
Portland General Electric Company v. Ebasco Services, Inc. (S060584) (A143752) (appeal from Clackamas County Circuit Court; opinion reported at 248 Or App 91, 273 P3d 165 (2012)).

Plaintiff Portland General Electric Company (PGE) seeks review of a Court of Appeals decision that reversed and remanded a trial court order denying a motion filed by defendant Lexington Insurance Company (Lexington) to set aside a default judgment entered against it in plaintiff's favor, on the basis that the trial court had lacked jurisdiction to enter the default judgment.

On review, the issues are:

(1) Does a judgment awarding monetary damages violate ORCP 67 C if the complaint does not state the specific amount of monetary damages being sought?

(2) If so, is the judgment the result of a procedural error, making the judgment voidable through direct appeal, or instead the result of a jurisdictional error, making the judgment void and subject to attack in any court at any time?

(3) Does a default judgment violate due process notice requirements if the complaint does not state the specific amount of monetary damages sought, but contains other information from which a defendant reasonably may apprehend the claims asserted against it?

(4) If a complaint fails to satisfy ORCP 67 C or due process by failing to state the specific amount of monetary damages sought, should a default judgment entered on the basis of such a complaint be vacated in its entirety, or instead be vacated only on the issue of damages and not also on the issue of liability?

The foregoing summary of a Supreme Court case that is scheduled for oral argument has been prepared for the benefit of the public. Parties and practitioners should rely on neither the factual summary set out above, nor the statement of issues to be decided, as delineating the questions that the Supreme Court ultimately may consider on review. See generally Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating:


Last Revised: 04/05/2013