Background
Healthy Decisions, LLC engaged DeWayne Lumpkin to facilitate conversion of a property from a bank/bookstore into a community gathering space featuring a shipping business, florist, and lounge. Plaintiff believed Lumpkin was a licensed and insured construction contractor. Lumpkin was not licensed. Due to Lumpkin’s involvement, plaintiff was denied a liquor license and could not open the business.
Plaintiff brought contract, tort, and statutory claims against Lumpkin. The UTPA claim alleged misrepresentation of contractor licensure status. Lumpkin moved to dismiss the UTPA claim, arguing that the statute applies only to “consumer transactions” and cannot be asserted by a business. The trial court agreed and dismissed the UTPA claim while allowing the other claims to proceed.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal. The court rejected the trial court’s conclusion that the UTPA is limited to consumer transactions. Citing Providence Health & Services-Oregon v. Mancuso, the court held that a plaintiff is not barred from bringing a UTPA action simply because it is a corporation rather than a consumer.
The court rejected defendant’s argument that the UTPA claim was unpreserved, noting that plaintiff had opposed the motion to dismiss and that parties are not typically required to file a motion for reconsideration after losing a motion on the merits to preserve an appeal. The court also rejected reliance on a federal district court decision that had not addressed the controlling Oregon appellate precedent.
The case was reversed and remanded for trial court evaluation of whether jury findings on non-UTPA claims might require dismissal of the UTPA claim, an issue defendant was free to raise.
Key Takeaways
- The UTPA extends to business-to-business transactions, not just consumer transactions.
- A business entity is not barred from asserting UTPA claims based on its corporate status.
- Defendants cannot rely on federal district court decisions that ignore controlling state appellate precedent.
Why It Matters
This decision significantly expands the reach of Oregon’s UTPA beyond consumer protection to commercial disputes. Businesses can now pursue UTPA remedies against contractors, vendors, and other commercial partners for misrepresentation and unfair trade practices. The holding prevents the UTPA from being limited by the plaintiff’s status as a corporation or business entity rather than an individual consumer.
The decision also reaffirms that state appellate precedent controls over federal district court decisions interpreting state law, and clarifies that preservation rules do not require unsuccessful parties to file motions for reconsideration in order to preserve appellate review.