In an opinion released July 22, Judge Michael Simon of the U.S. District Court
ruled in favor of the defendants in a case that had all the earmarks of a classic
SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation).

In December the court had ruled in favor of the Mt. Hood Corridor CPO, but
the case against individuals was delayed until last month.
“The decision is an important step on the road to protecting both
environmentally sensitive lands and citizens’ right to give their opinions about
proposed land use decisions to government decision-makers,” said former

CPO Land Use Chairman Don Mench, a lead defendant in the case and a long-
time Mountain resident.

Simon’s opinion concluded the plaintiffs, local developers Kip O’Connor, Big
Mountain Excavation, and Lisa Konell, had failed to provide evidence to
substantiate any of their claims – specifically that the CPO and individuals
intentionally interfered with the developers’ business relations, as well as
violated their constitutional rights to due process.

The developer was upset about public comments submitted by the defendants
to Clackamas County’s land use permit process. Those comments highlighted
damage to the Sandy River and its sensitive salmon habitat caused by the
partially completed development activities.

In the earlier ruling, the Court threw out the business relations claim under
Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute, a law specifically designed to protect citizens
who take advantage of public involvement opportunities to provide input into
government decision-making proceedings.

The court’s July 22 ruling rejected plaintiff’s argument that Mench colluded
with Clackamas County employees to violate the developers’ constitutional
rights.

“Lawsuits like this have a chilling effect on citizens and community volunteers
who take the time to get involved and work to help protect the environment,”
said Dan Rohlf, counsel for Earthrise Law Center at Lewis and Clark Law
School, and lead attorney for the defendants. “This important ruling
demonstrates that courts will look skeptically at suits whose main purpose is
to intimidate people who care enough to speak up.”

Earthrise Law Center represented the defendants pro bono, Rohlf told The
Mountain Times.

“We were happy with the decision,” Rohlf said. “The Court saw the lack of
evidence.”