OTLA Trial Lawyer Fall 2021

51 Trial Lawyer • Fall 2021 cluded that ORS 12.117 applies to all chi ld abuse claims and that ORS 30.265(6)(d) does not provide public bodies with immunity. Justice Garrett, joined by Justices Balmer and Duncan, dissented. Relying on the history of ORS 12.117 from its enactment in 1989 through several sub- sequent amendments, the dissent con- cluded the Legislature intended ORS 12.117 to be a special statute of limita- tions for claims alleging child abuse. Because tort claims against state and loca l government s are gove rned exclusively by the statute of limitations in ORS 30.275(9), the dissent reasoned, the Legislature would naturally have un- derstood that ORS 12.117 would not apply to such claims, a conclusion sup- ported by the legislative history and by the court’s decisions holding that statutes of limitations other thanORS 30.275(9) are superseded in claims against public bodies. DECISIONS OF THE OREGON COURT OF APPEALS A party objecting to evidence submitted in support of a motion must file a writ- ten motion to strike that evidence, and obtain a ruling on the motion to strike, in order to preserve error for appeal. Much v. Doe , 311 Or App 652 (2021); Armstrong, J. The plaintiff was repre- sented by Joshua Lay-Perez. The plaintiff brought a wage claim against Fred Meyer and obtained a de- fault judgment after the defendant failed to appear. The defendant later moved for relief from default under ORCP 71 B(1) (a) (mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect), offering declarations of mem- bers of its legal staff explaining that, in the process of routing notice of the plaintiff’s action to the correct legal de- partment, the defendant’s staff neglected to forward a copy of the summons and complaint. The plaintiff opposed the defendant’s motion and, in a footnote in her sur-reply, she objected to the declara- See Sheets p 52