- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Civil Procedure
- Date Filed: 12-14-2016
- Case #: A156193
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Garrett, J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; & Lagesen, J.
Plaintiff sued Defendant alleging that the City violated the terms of a 1963 water-services agreement. The 1963 agreement did not contain any promise by the City to charge Plaintiff the same rates for water as it charges its residents. Even assuming the 1963 agreement continued to bind the City in some fashion, Plaintiff has not established a breach. Plaintiff’s interpretation constrained the City’s reservation of rights by assuming that “users” means the same thing as “residents.” The most natural reading of the disputed provision is that the City preserved the right to charge users of the system in exchange for the City’s promise to service and maintain the system. Under ORCP 47, a party is entitled to summary judgment if the pleadings, deposition, affidavits, declarations, and admissions on file show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Summary judgment in favor of Defendant affirmed.