Michael Robert Hogan

In this bankruptcy appeal, debtor Doug Boyce challenged the bankruptcy court's dismissal of his Chapter 7 case under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(3)(A) for bad faith and under § 707(b)(3)(B) based on the totality of the circumstances. The district court affirmed, finding that Boyce had materially understated his income by omitting profit-sharing payments and rental income, failed to disclose student loan liabilities, and made unnecessary post-filing purchases financed by 401(k) loans. The court held that these misstatements, combined with Boyce's demonstrated ability to repay approximately $778 per month to creditors, supported dismissal on either ground independently. Review was for abuse of discretion on the dismissal decision and clear error on factual findings, with legal issues addressed de novo.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves plaintiffs, including individuals and environmental groups, challenging federal permits issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to Oregon Resources Corporation for chromite mining operations in Coos County, Oregon, under the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and Administrative Procedure Act; the plaintiffs alleged that the mines would harm wetlands, streams, threatened Oregon Coast Coho salmon, and local water quality due to hexavalent chromium and sedimentation. They moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stop mining operations scheduled to begin in February 2011. The court denied the motion, concluding that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. The agencies' decisions were supported by data indicating no significant formation of hexavalent chromium, adequate mitigation for sedimentation and other impacts, and evaluation of cumulative effects, while the balance of hardships did not favor the plaintiffs given the mining company's reliance on earlier approvals.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved plaintiff Jeffrey Rowe's claims against defendant Educational Credit Management Corp. (ECMC) for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Oregon Unlawful Debt Collection Practices Act, and conversion arising from collection efforts on a defaulted student loan. The district court initially dismissed the FDCPA claim, finding ECMC exempt from the statute's definition of debt collector due to its fiduciary relationship with the Department of Education, then declined jurisdiction over the state claims; after the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, the court granted summary judgment to ECMC on remand. The court reasoned that ECMC had assumed all guaranty agency responsibilities and obligations for Oregon loans from another entity, making its collection activities incidental to its bona fide fiduciary duties under the Higher Education Act rather than its principal purpose, and that it also acted as the loan holder itself. The action was dismissed in full.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involves judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of a plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The plaintiff, born in 1957 with past work as a tax preparer, alleged disability due to back, neck, and hand pain, epilepsy, and depression; an ALJ found at step four that she could perform past relevant work and was not disabled. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation after de novo review, determining that the ALJ's credibility analysis of the plaintiff's testimony was inadequate and that new evidence such as an MRI report should be considered. The court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), directing the ALJ to reevaluate the evidence and complete a new five-step sequential evaluation.

federal powerhealthcareprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Bruce Miller, a longtime employee at the Opal Springs hydroelectric plant operated by defendant Deschutes Valley Water District, alleged that his supervisor Gary Lytle retaliated against him after Miller reported multiple safety violations and concerns starting in August 2006; the alleged retaliation included reprimands, schedule changes, loss of duties and privileges, administrative leave, and eventual termination in July 2007. Miller brought claims including age discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful discharge in retaliation for safety complaints, and aiding and abetting. On defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court granted the motion as to the age discrimination, emotional distress, and aiding and abetting claims due to insufficient evidence of egregious conduct or a need for separate claims against the employer, but denied it as to the wrongful discharge claim because a reasonable factfinder could conclude the termination resulted from the safety complaints despite the time gap. The state-law claims were analyzed similarly to federal standards, and the court dismissed the individual claim against Lytle under state immunity provisions.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned a challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act to a U.S. Forest Service decision (Forest Plan Amendment #47) that restricted motorized boat use on Waldo Lake to electric motors only and prohibited floatplane landings, with plaintiff arguing that the agency lacked jurisdiction because the lake was navigable at Oregon's statehood in 1859 and thus owned by the state rather than the federal government. The court adopted the magistrate judge's findings after de novo review and partially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the APA claim, ruling that the Forest Service's reliance on an irrebuttable presumption of non-navigability was arbitrary and insufficient to establish jurisdiction, while denying the request for a judicial declaration that Oregon holds title to the lake. It granted in part the government's cross-motion, holding that ownership disputes over submerged lands are properly resolved only through a Quiet Title Act action rather than this APA proceeding. All other claims were dismissed as abandoned. The core reasoning focused on the narrow APA standard of review, the requirements for establishing navigability at statehood, and the procedural limits on adjudicating title without a proper quiet title suit.

environmentfederal powerproperty

This case involved plaintiffs challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service's 2005 listing of the Lower Columbia River Coho salmon ESU as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, seeking to invalidate the determination and enjoin its enforcement on grounds that it unlawfully distinguished hatchery from natural populations, overlooked population stability, and failed to account for existing regulatory mechanisms. The court referenced its prior ruling in the related Alsea Valley Alliance case upholding the same listing approach and addressed plaintiffs' motion to supplement the administrative record, granting it in part while denying it as to post-decision or unrelated materials. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court upheld the listing. The core reasoning was that the agency's assessment of risks to natural populations from loss of diversity, fragmentation, and isolation was reasonable and consistent with the ESA and APA, and that hatchery stocks could not be counted equivalently given uncertainties in future programs.

environment

This case concerns bankruptcy attorneys challenging the constitutionality of section 526(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, which bars advising certain clients to incur debt in contemplation of filing for bankruptcy. The court ruled that the provision violates the First Amendment on its face and granted the plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings. It reasoned that the law directly restricts the attorneys' intended speech to assisted persons, is over-inclusive in scope, and imposes a chilling effect through the threat of monetary sanctions, as shown by the record of the plaintiffs' declarations and intended advice on legitimate pre-bankruptcy planning. The court also reaffirmed the plaintiffs' standing to bring the challenge after granting reconsideration of an earlier order.

free speechbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a plaintiff suing Educational Credit Management Corporation (ECMC) for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Oregon Unlawful Debt Collection Practices Act, and conversion related to debt collection activities. The court granted ECMC's motion to dismiss the FDCPA claim, determining that ECMC, as a student loan guaranty agency, qualifies for the fiduciary obligation exception under the FDCPA and is thus not subject to its provisions. The court then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismissed the entire action.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves bankruptcy attorneys challenging provisions of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) that regulate 'debt relief agencies,' claiming violations of the First Amendment's free speech protections and the Fifth Amendment's due process clause due to vagueness. The court first addressed whether the plaintiffs qualify as debt relief agencies to establish standing, concluding they do, and then evaluated the constitutional claims on a motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing the vagueness claims while allowing some First Amendment challenges to proceed, reasoning that certain provisions impose content-based restrictions that may not withstand scrutiny and that the definitions, while not perfectly precise, do not encourage arbitrary enforcement.

free speechbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, plaintiff InTransit, a transportation broker, sued defendant Exel, a carrier, in state court for contractual indemnity and breach of a brokerage agreement after Wal-Mart withheld payment due to a delayed shipment of goods. Exel filed third-party claims against Wal-Mart and others, and Wal-Mart removed the case to federal court, raising issues under the Carmack Amendment regarding carrier liability for interstate shipments. The magistrate judge recommended remand to state court for lack of federal jurisdiction, finding that the Carmack Amendment did not apply because it imposes liability only on carriers to shippers and does not create a federal cause of action for the broker-carrier or carrier-shipper claims at issue. The district court conducted de novo review, agreed that the well-pleaded complaint did not raise a federal question under Carmack, and ordered remand. The core reasoning was that Carmack does not preempt or federalize these state-law contract indemnity disputes.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs challenging the U.S. Forest Service's issuance of a Helicopter Landing-Road Use Permit to Fruit Growers Supply Company, which allowed use of national forest roads and landing sites to haul timber from private inholdings inside the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Plaintiffs claimed the agency violated NEPA by approving the permit without a sufficient environmental analysis in its Environmental Assessment. The court adopted the magistrate judge's findings after de novo review and granted summary judgment to the Forest Service, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they could not demonstrate redressability or an injury in fact, as the timber harvest would occur regardless of the permit. The case was dismissed without addressing the merits of the NEPA claims.

environmentfederal power

The case involved plaintiffs seeking a quiet title declaration and declaratory judgment that certain trails (the Emily and Chetco routes) across U.S. Forest Service land qualified as public highways under R.S. 2477, or as easements by implication or necessity, to access their inholding property. The district court conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation, adopted them in full after finding no material errors, denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, and granted summary judgment to the federal defendants and intervenors. The core reasoning was that the undisputed evidence failed to show the routes existed as constructed roads open to public travel before the lands were reserved from entry, with trails remaining unimproved footpaths and significant portions falling within revested grant lands subject to later permitting rules. The proceeding was dismissed.

propertyfederal power

The case involved environmental plaintiffs challenging the U.S. Forest Service's Davis Fire Recovery Project, which authorized commercial salvage logging, reforestation, fuels treatments, and temporary road construction on lands burned in a 2003 Oregon wildfire, alleging violations of NEPA and the National Forest Management Act. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to halt the project during litigation. The court denied the motion, finding that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of claims concerning the range of alternatives considered, analysis of soil impacts, cumulative effects, and related issues, while weighing the balance of irreparable harm, public interest, and equities against granting relief.

environment

The case involved environmental plaintiffs challenging the U.S. Forest Service's Toolbox Fire Recovery Project, which authorized commercial salvage logging and related activities in a burned forest area, alleging violations of the National Forest Management Act and National Environmental Policy Act. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, finding they were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims regarding management indicator species viability, snag retention guidelines, and consideration of alternatives. The court reasoned that the Forest Service's use of scientific tools like DecAID and its interpretations of forest plans were reasonable and entitled to deference, while also considering the balance of harms including economic impacts from delaying the project. Crown Pacific was allowed to intervene in remedial phases.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

In Shepherd v. City of Salem, a long-term city employee sued the City of Salem after being laid off in 2002, asserting federal and state claims of age and gender discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, as well as state claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, whistleblowing, and retaliatory discharge. The defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, denying summary judgment on the state retaliatory discharge claim because disputed facts existed on causation after the plaintiff reported a contractor improperly copying plans, but granting it on the Title VII and state hostile work environment claims, the IIED claim, and one whistleblower claim due to lack of admissible evidence or preemption. The rulings turned on application of summary judgment standards to authenticated evidence and objections regarding witness knowledge.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves a University of Oregon professor who sued defendants for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress after they republished statements on their website and in a publication attributing anti-Israel views to him and sought to pressure him regarding his teaching materials and writings. The defendants removed the case from Oregon state court to federal district court and moved to dismiss for improper service of process, failure to state a claim, and to strike under Oregon's anti-SLAPP statute. The court granted the motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff's service attempts by mail and email did not satisfy Oregon Rule of Civil Procedure 7D(1)'s reasonable notice standard, rendering the claims time-barred, and that certain allegations were substantively insufficient. It also granted the anti-SLAPP motion because the plaintiff could not show a probability of prevailing on the merits. The action was dismissed in full.

procedurefree speechtorts & liability

In Jones v. Kitzhaber, a pro se plaintiff alleged that Oregon state officials and a private attorney conspired to undermine a voter-approved ballot measure (Measure 7) that would have required compensation for property owners affected by land-use regulations, claiming this deprived him of due process and property interests under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing because he was not a party to the underlying state-court challenge to the measure, suffered no particularized injury traceable to the defendants, and alleged no deprivation of an existing property right. The opinion reasoned that any claimed harm stemmed from the state court's ruling on the measure's validity rather than from the alleged conspiracy, and that the plaintiff could not establish redressability or a cognizable due-process violation.

propertycivil rightselectionsprocedure

AT&T sued the commissioners of the Oregon Public Utility Commission seeking to block enforcement of Order 00-312, which imposed a surcharge on revenues from both intrastate and interstate/international telecommunications services sold in Oregon to fund the state's universal service program. The court reviewed the order de novo and granted summary judgment to AT&T. It held that the surcharge, to the extent based on interstate revenues, conflicted with and was preempted by 47 U.S.C. § 254(f) because it burdened the federal universal service mechanism by subjecting carriers to double assessments already required under federal law.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case concerns plaintiffs' challenge to the National Marine Fisheries Service's 1998 final rule listing the Oregon Coast evolutionary significant unit of coho salmon as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The court reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment addressing the validity of the agency's listing decision, including its policies defining distinct population segments via evolutionary significant units and its treatment of hatchery populations. NMFS interpreted the ESA to require focus on natural populations for recovery, excluding hatchery fish from an ESU if they showed genetic differences, appreciable changes from artificial propagation, or uncertain ties to natural stocks. The core reasoning examined whether these interpretations complied with the statutory definitions of species, threatened status, and the mandate to rely on the best scientific data available when assessing factors like habitat, utilization, and regulatory mechanisms.

environmentfederal power