Ride PDX v. Tee & B, LLC ( 2023 )

739
On respondents’ petition for reconsideration filed November 16, 2022;
reconsideration allowed, former opinion (322 Or App 165, 519 P3d 870) modified
and adhered to as modified January 25, 2023
RIDE PDX, LLC,
an Oregon limited liability company;
and Andrea Fenton, an individual,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
TEE & B, LLC,
an Oregon limited liability company,
dba Growler Guys; and
Tom Wise and Sue Wise, individuals,
Defendants-Respondents.
Multnomah County Circuit Court
18CV06420; A171923
524 P3d 571
Defendants petition for reconsideration in Ride PDX v. Tee & B, LLC, 322
Or App 165, 519 P3d 870 (2022), contending that the court made several factual
errors in determining that there was a material question of fact precluding sum-
mary judgment in defendants’ favor on plaintiffs’ intentional interference with
economic relations claim. Held: The court allowed reconsideration and modified
its prior opinion to correct one factual error, but otherwise adhered to its opinion.
Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.
Stephen K. Bushong, Judge.
J. Kurt Kraemer argued the cause for appellants. Also on
the briefs were Katie Jo Johnson and McEwen Gisvold LLP.
Brian R. Talcott argued the cause for respondents. Also
on the brief was Dunn Carney Allen Higgins & Tongue LLP.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and
Powers, Judge.
SHORR, J.
Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and
adhered to as modified.
740 Ride PDX v. Tee & B, LLC
SHORR, J.
Defendants petition for reconsideration of our deci-
sion in Ride PDX v. Tee & B, LLC, 322 Or App 165, 519 P3d
870 (2022), claiming that we made four factual errors when
holding that there was a material question of fact preclud-
ing summary judgment in defendants’ favor on plaintiffs’
intentional interference with economic relations claim. As
a result, defendants assert, there is no factual basis for the
holding, and we should instead affirm the grant of summary
judgment in their favor. Although we adhere to our disposi-
tion of the case, we allow reconsideration to address one of
the factual errors identified by defendants and modify our
prior opinion as described below.
Defendants contend, among other things, that we
made a factual error when we stated that “defendants told
Riva that the noise from Ride PDX negatively affected their
employees.” We agree with defendants that the record does
not support that the statement was made to Riva and before
Riva brought its ejectment action against plaintiffs. Hence,
we modify our opinion to delete the last two sentences of
the first full paragraph at 322 Or App at 180. With respect
to the other claimed factual errors, we conclude that evi-
dence in the record supports the opinion as written and we
decline to reconsider those aspects of our decision. We fur-
ther conclude—based on that evidence—that there remains
a question of material fact as to whether defendants made
misrepresentations to Riva regarding the noise disturbance
coming from Ride PDX as an improper means of interfering
with the economic relationship between plaintiffs and Riva.
We therefore adhere to our disposition of the case.
Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified
and adhered to as modified.