OTLA Trial Lawyer Fall 2020

56 Trial Lawyer • Fall 2020 remanded. The Court of Appeals rea- soned that an attorney has a lien on an underlying action under ORS 87.445 before a judgment is entered and does not need to give notice in order to claim that lien. However, when an action ceases and a judgment is entered, the judgment is the exclusive statement of the rights and obligations of the parties subject to the judgment. When a judg- ment for attorney fees lists only the attorney’s client as the judgment creditor, the attorney must file notice to enforce a claim of lien against the judgment debtor, who otherwise only owes the judgment to the attorney’s client. Unless the attorney alters the terms of the judg- ment and files the lien, the client has an equal right to receive the sum of the judgment, including attorney fees, and satisfy it. Here, because the attorney had not filed a notice of claim of the lien prior to the defendant paying the Sheets Continued from p 55 judgment in full to the attorney’s client, the attorney could not enforce a lien against the defendant. The existence of adequate statutory remedies precludes a common law wrongful discharge claim, regardless of whether the legislature evidenced an intent to abrogate the common law claim when enacting the statutory rem- edy. Margarita Vergara v. Komal Patel , 305 Or App 288 (2020); Ortega, J. The plaintiff was represented by Kate Suis- man. The plaintiff, a hotel housekeeper, brought statutory employment claims under OR 654.062(5) and ORS 659A.199 and a common law wrongful discharge claim against the defendants. The plaintiff was exposed to syringes, blood, drugs, vomit and toilet facilities while working. She complained multiple times to her supervisor and hotel man- agement, requesting adequate gloves to safely protect herself and others. Her supervisor and hotel manager insisted she work without gloves, she refused and was subsequently fired. The plaintiff filed her original com- plaint against Patel, an individual, doing business as University Inn & Suites. The body of the complaint did not otherwise refer to the individual but instead focused on the defendant being a business entity and the plaintiff ’s employer. Thereafter, the defense counsel informed the plain- tiff that Patel had been incorrectly sued and certain business entities should have been sued instead, both of which were dba University Inn & Suites and for which Patel was their registered agent. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming the businesses. However, she filed the complaint after the limitations period had run on the statutory claims. The trial court granted summary judg- ment to the defendants because the statutory claims were time-barred and the wrongful discharge was unavailable