Background
After an Uber passenger assaulted driver Rhonda Bowlin, the passenger was criminally charged. Represented by attorney William F. Buchanan and his firm, the passenger nevertheless sued Bowlin for battery, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, seeking nearly $1 million. Bowlin asserted counterclaims, and the passenger later pleaded no contest to fourth-degree assault. His civil claims were ultimately dismissed with prejudice and without costs by stipulated judgment.
Bowlin then sued Buchanan and his firm for wrongful initiation of a civil proceeding. The defendants filed a special motion to strike under Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statutes. Because the parties agreed that Bowlin’s claim arose from protected activity, Bowlin had to present substantial evidence supporting a prima facie case. The circuit court concluded that she met that burden and denied the motion, prompting the defendants’ appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It first rejected the defendants’ proposed categorical rule that probable cause for any one claim in an underlying lawsuit necessarily defeats a later wrongful-initiation action. The court held that probable cause for one of several claims does not necessarily foreclose liability for other claims allegedly brought without probable cause and with malice. It left open whether closely related claims might sometimes need to be evaluated together.
Bowlin presented sufficient evidence on the three disputed elements of her claim. A jury could find from the dashcam recording and other evidence that no objectively reasonable basis existed for the passenger’s battery claim, notwithstanding the attorney’s declaration that he believed the claims were valid. The settlement correspondence also permitted an inference that the battery claim was filed primarily to pressure Bowlin into supporting a civil compromise of the passenger’s criminal case; OEC 408 did not exclude the letters because they were offered to prove improper purpose, not the validity or amount of the underlying claim. Finally, the dismissal with prejudice and without any payment by Bowlin could support a finding that the passenger dismissed because he believed his claims lacked merit.
Key Takeaways
- Probable cause for one claim in a multi-claim civil action does not categorically defeat a wrongful-initiation claim based on other allegedly groundless and malicious claims.
- An attorney’s asserted belief in a client’s claims does not establish probable cause as a matter of law; that belief must also be objectively reasonable in light of the facts known or reasonably discoverable.
- A stipulated dismissal may qualify as a favorable termination when the evidence permits an inference that the underlying plaintiff believed the dismissed claims lacked merit, even if the dismissal followed negotiations.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies an open question in Oregon by permitting courts to assess probable cause claim by claim rather than automatically insulating an entire lawsuit whenever one claim had adequate support. It also confirms that factual disputes bearing on the objective reasonableness of an attorney’s decision to sue ordinarily cannot be resolved in the attorney’s favor at the anti-SLAPP stage.
The ruling does not establish that Buchanan and his firm are liable. It holds only that Bowlin produced enough evidence to establish a prima facie case and proceed beyond the special motion to strike.