Background
Dan Martin Construction, an LLC, was developing a residential subdivision (Sierra Heights) in Klamath County and sought municipal approvals for phase 1 and later phase 2. The City of Klamath Falls serves as the water provider for the area. Martin Construction alleged that at the time phase 1 was approved, the city failed to disclose that an expensive water pump station upgrade would be required for future phases—an obligation allegedly set forth in the city’s 2010 Water Master Plan. The plan reportedly stated the subdivision would contain 96 approved lots and that the pump station would need upgrading as homes were added, with the city committing to allocate $200,000 for the upgrade.
When Martin Construction sought approvals for phase 2, the city allegedly refused to allocate the promised funds and instead required the contractor to complete the pump upgrade before proceeding. Martin Construction then sued the city for injunctive relief, breach of contract, quasi-contract, promissory estoppel, constructive ongoing fraud, and tortious interference with contract. The city responded with both a special motion to strike under Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute (ORS 31.150) and a motion for summary judgment.
The trial court granted both motions, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and awarded the city attorney fees under ORS 31.152(3). Martin Construction appealed on four grounds.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court held that all of Martin Construction’s claims arose out of the city’s 2010 Water Master Plan, a public document made in connection with an issue of public interest. The court found that Martin Construction pleaded and litigated its claims by expressly tying them to the plan—whether by characterizing the pump upgrade requirement as originating from the plan or by alleging the city made promises or offers within it. The plan itself addresses matters of clear public interest, including water planning and infrastructure to ensure fire safety and adequate water delivery.
Under ORS 31.150(2)(a)(C), once the city established a prima facie case that the claims arose from a public document in connection with public interest, Martin Construction bore the burden to establish a probability of prevailing by presenting substantial evidence supporting a prima facie case. The court found that Martin Construction failed this burden. The contractor submitted only an unauthenticated, undated email concerning pump upgrade negotiations and presented no other evidence in response to the city’s motions. Without sufficient evidence, Martin Construction could not overcome the anti-SLAPP defense.
The court rejected Martin Construction’s argument that combining the anti-SLAPP motion with summary judgment prejudiced its rights. Both procedures are independently authorized by statute, and any discovery prejudice resulted from Martin Construction’s failure to timely request discovery relief under the procedural rules, not from the city’s combined motions.
Key Takeaways
- Public documents addressing matters of public interest—such as water master plans concerning infrastructure and fire safety—fall within Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute even if the underlying dispute involves contract or tort claims.
- A defendant may file a combined anti-SLAPP special motion to strike and a motion for summary judgment without statutory prohibition, provided the defendant makes the required prima facie showings.
- A plaintiff opposing an anti-SLAPP motion must submit substantial evidence, not merely pleadings or argument, to establish a probability of prevailing; unauthenticated documents and conclusory allegations are insufficient.
- Failure to timely request discovery or a continuance in opposition to summary judgment cannot be attributed to prejudice from the court’s consideration of combined motions.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Oregon’s strong anti-SLAPP protections for government entities making policy documents and communications on matters of public concern. Contractors, developers, and other private parties suing municipalities for contract disputes or tort claims may find their claims barred if the claims arise from or reference public planning documents, infrastructure master plans, or policy statements. The ruling establishes that the nature of the public document (here, a water master plan) and the public interest it addresses—not the nature of the underlying legal claims—determine whether the anti-SLAPP statute applies.
The decision also highlights the critical importance of procedural diligence when responding to anti-SLAPP and summary judgment motions combined. Parties opposing such motions must timely request discovery or seek continuances, as courts will not excuse procedural failures on grounds of prejudice after the fact. For construction and development disputes involving municipal water services or infrastructure, parties should anticipate anti-SLAPP exposure when challenging government infrastructure plans or policy documents.