Woodroffe v. Hubbard

310 P.3d 736, 258 Or. App. 566, 2013 WL 5299378, 2013 Ore. App. LEXIS 1105

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: September 18, 2013
• Docket: 112211; A150891
• Status: Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals a limited judgment dismissing his complaint against the Oregon Department of Corrections (the state) and individual state employees. He raises a number of assignments of error, only one of which is well taken. In his second assignment of error, plaintiff argues that he properly served a summons and complaint on the state under ORCP 7, and that the trial court erred in concluding otherwise.

A detailed recitation of the facts of this case would not benefit the bench, the bar, or the public. The state concedes that plaintiff served the state in a “manner reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise [the state] of the existence and pendency of the action and to afford a reasonable opportunity to appear and defend,” ORCP 7 D(l). We agree, accept the concession of error, and reverse and remand the limited judgment insofar as it dismissed plaintiffs claims against the state.¹

Limited judgment reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings against the state; otherwise affirmed.

1 To be clear, we reverse and remand only with respect to the dismissal of plaintiff’s claims against the state, not the dismissal of claims against individual state employees.