Background
Healthy Decisions, LLC hired DeWayne Lumpkin, an individual operating as a design studio, to facilitate conversion of a property into a community gathering space that would include a shipping business, florist, and lounge. Plaintiff believed Lumpkin was a licensed and insured construction contractor. Lumpkin’s involvement later caused Healthy Decisions to be denied a liquor license, preventing the business from opening.
Healthy Decisions sued for contract, tort, and statutory violations, alleging that Lumpkin had misrepresented his contractor licensure status. Lumpkin moved to dismiss the Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA) claim, arguing that the UTPA applies only to “consumer transactions” and cannot be asserted by a business. The trial court agreed and dismissed the UTPA claim while other claims proceeded to trial.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal. The court rejected the narrow interpretation that the UTPA applies only to consumer transactions. Relying on its prior decision in Providence Health & Services-Oregon v. Mancuso, 323 Or App 573 (2023), the court held that “a plaintiff is not barred from bringing a UTPA action simply because it is a corporation and not a consumer.”
The court also rejected Lumpkin’s procedural arguments that Healthy Decisions had failed to preserve its appellate challenge by not opposing the motion to dismiss or filing a motion for reconsideration. The court noted that opposing the motion is the standard means of preservation, and parties are not obligated to file a motion for reconsideration after losing a motion on the merits. The court distinguished an adverse federal court decision (Schoene v. Christensen) as unreliable because it did not acknowledge or discuss Providence Health, and noted that Oregon appellate courts are not bound by lower federal court decisions.
The case was reversed and remanded for the trial court to evaluate the UTPA claim in light of the jury’s findings on the non-UTPA claims, which may be relevant to resolving the statutory claim.
Key Takeaways
- Oregon’s UTPA is not limited to consumer-to-business transactions; businesses may bring UTPA claims against other business actors for misrepresentations and unfair trade practices.
- A party adequately preserves an issue for appeal by opposing a motion to dismiss; filing a motion for reconsideration is not a prerequisite to appealing an adverse ruling on the motion.
- Federal district court precedent that contradicts state appellate authority is not binding on state courts, particularly when the federal decision does not engage with or acknowledge the state authority.
- On remand, jury findings on contract and tort claims may inform the trial court’s analysis of the UTPA claim.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies that Oregon’s UTPA provides a statutory remedy available to business-to-business claimants, not merely to individual consumers. Contractors, suppliers, and other service providers who misrepresent their qualifications, licensing, or insurance status can now face UTPA liability when their representations are material to commercial transactions. This expands the practical scope of unfair trade practice remedies for Oregon businesses and may encourage settlement negotiations when such misrepresentations occur.
The ruling also reinforces procedural principles favorable to appellants: the opinion rejects overly technical requirements for preserving appellate issues and does not require litigants to file additional motions after losing an initial motion on the merits. This may facilitate appellate review of dismissals that rest on novel or disputed legal interpretations.