Hopville Farms v. Trinity Willamette Growers ( 2022 )

782
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
Submitted May 6, appeal dismissed July 13, 2022
HOPVILLE FARMS, LLC,
an Oregon limited liability company,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
TRINITY WILLAMETTE GROWERS, INC. et al.,
Defendants,
and
William D. SABOL,
individually,
Defendant-Appellant.
Polk County Circuit Court
14CV09348; A165453
Daniel Leon Harris, Senior Judge.
Elena M. Farley filed the brief for appellants.
Michael H. McGean, Martin E. Hansen, and Francis
Hansen & Martin LLP filed the brief for respondent.
Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and
Pagán, Judge.
SHORR, P. J.
Appeal dismissed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 320 Or App 782 (2022) 783
SHORR, P. J.
Defendants Trinity Willamette Growers, Inc., Arbor
Grove Nursery, Inc., and William Sabol filed an appeal from
a supplemental judgment awarding attorney fees and costs
to plaintiff Hopville Farms, LLC. That supplemental judg-
ment, however, awards fees and costs solely against defen-
dant Trinity Willamette Growers. After the appeal was filed
and the parties filed opening and answering briefs, defen-
dants’ attorney withdrew.1 As a result, the two corporate
defendants were dismissed from the appeal, but individual
defendant William Sabol was permitted to proceed pro se
or with an attorney. See ORS 9.320 (stating that an action
may be prosecuted or defended either in person or by attor-
ney, but that a party that is “not a natural person appears
by attorney in all cases”). Sabol, however, is not a judgment
debtor or person who is otherwise affected as a party to the
supplemental judgment that was appealed.2 As discussed
below, we conclude that there is no justiciable controversy
between Sabol and Hopville Farms. As a result, we dismiss
the appeal.
“For a controversy to be justiciable: (1) ‘the inter-
ests of the parties to the action are adverse’ and (2) ‘the
court’s decision in the matter will have some practical effect
on the rights of the parties to the controversy.’ ” Rains v.
Stayton Builders Mart, Inc., 359 Or 610, 624, 375 P3d 490
(2016) (quoting Brumnett v. PSRB, 315 Or 402, 405, 848 P2d
1194 (1993)). As to the supplemental judgment on appeal,
Sabol cannot meet that test. Sabol is not adverse to plain-
tiff Hopville Farms with respect to plaintiff’s supplemental
judgment that is solely against the corporate entity, defen-
dant Trinity Willamette Growers. See Multnomah Co. v.
Reed et al, 203 Or 21, 23, 278 P2d 135 (1954) (stating that
a “would-be appellant must have a substantial interest in
the subject matter of the litigation and be prejudiced by the
1
This appeal was held in abeyance for several years after one of the parties
filed for bankruptcy. The appeal was later reactivated after the bankruptcy case
was closed.
2
Indeed, Sabol was not only not adversely affected by the supplemental judg-
ment, he also was not adversely affected by the general judgment. As with the
supplemental judgment, Hopville Farms also prevailed in obtaining an award
against just Trinity Willamette Growers in the general judgment.
784 Hopville Farms v. Trinity Willamette Growers
decree or judgment which he wishes to attack”). Accordingly,
we dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.