Category Archives: Kristin Olson

Kristin Olson wins motion to compel documents in a sexual assault case

While representing a victim who was sexually assaulted during a massage at ClubSport Oregon, Kristin Olson won a motion to obtain documentation concerning the Oregon Board of Massage Therapists’ investigation into the assault on her client. This documentation was being withheld by the defendant massage therapist, who alleged that it was confidential and not subject to discovery.

In a sexual assault case against a fitness club, Kristin Olson successfully defeats a motion to strike allegations regarding a prior sexual assault victim at the same club

While representing a victim of sexual assault in a case against fitness facility ClubSport Oregon, Kristin Olson successfully defeated a motion to strike allegations regarding a prior victim of sexual assault at the same ClubSport location.  In the lawsuit brought on behalf of her client, Kristin alleged that her client was the victim of sexual assault during a massage at ClubSport.  The lawsuit also alleged that there was a prior sexual assault involving a different victim by a different masseuse at the same ClubSport location and that, therefore, ClubSport knew or should have known that a sexual assault during a massage was foreseeable and should have changed its protocol to protect future potential victims, such as Kristin’s client.  ClubSport moved to strike those allegations.  Kristin successfully defeated that motion.  Freifeld v. Leisure Sports, Inc., et al., Washington County Case No. 18CV12178 (September 10, 2018).

 

While representing a victim of sexual assault against fitness facility ClubSport Oregon, Kristin Olson successfully defeated a motion to strike allegations in the lawsuit regarding a prior victim at the same ClubSport location

Scott Brooksby and Kristin Olson recognized by Best Lawyers in America©

Scott Brooksby and Kristin Olson are listed in the 2019 edition of the Best Lawyers in America© for product liability litigation and commercial litigation, respectively.  No more than 5% of private practice lawyers nationwide are selected for this honor, which is based purely on peer review.

Best Lawyers® compiles its lists of outstanding attorneys by conducting peer-review surveys in which thousands of leading lawyers confidentially evaluate their professional peers. The current edition of The Best Lawyers in America© 2019 is based on millions of detailed evaluations of lawyers by other lawyers.

The methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area.

Kristin Olson wins a motion to dismiss in a complex commercial breach of contract case against Dave’s Killer Bread

Kristin Olson recently obtained a dismissal of all claims in a breach of contract case brought by Dave’s Killer Bread against Kristin’s client, Montana Merchandising, Inc., a Montana grain company.  Dave’s Killer Bread, Inc. v. Mont. Merch., Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-0237-YY (D. Or. July 12, 2017).

Dave’s Killer Bread filed a lawsuit against Kristin’s client in Oregon.  Kristin’s client responded by suing Dave’s in Montana.  A dispute arose regarding the most appropriate venue–Oregon or Montana–for this complex commercial litigation case.

In a Motion to Dismiss, Kristin argued that the case should be litigated in Montana and that the Oregon lawsuit should be dismissed in its entirety.  The United States District Court for the District of Oregon agreed, and dismissed the case against Kristin’s client.

Kristin Olson, Oregon commercial litigation attorney
Kristin Olson obtains a full dismissal of a lawsuit brought against her client by Dave’s Killer Bread

Noncompetition agreements and restrictive covenants

Kristin Olson published an article regarding the treatment of noncompetition agreements and restrictive covenants in various jurisdictions throughout the United States in this month’s edition of the International Association of Defense Counsel’s Business Litigation Newsletter.

Kristin is an experienced litigator who has extensive experience handling commercial litigation cases.  Kristin has litigated cases concerning noncompetition agreements and restrictive covenants, as well as trade secrets.

Clients rely on Kristin to assist them with interpretation and negotiation of noncompetition agreements in various employment contexts.

In Oregon, noncompetes in an employment context are governed by a lengthy statute, ORS 653.295, which provides that:

“(1) A noncompetition agreement entered into between an employer and employee is voidable and may not be enforced by a court of this state unless:

“(a)(A) The employer informs the employee in a written employment offer received by the employee at least two weeks before the first day of the employee’s employment that a noncompetition agreement is required as a condition of employment; or

“(B) The noncompetition agreement is entered into upon a subsequent bona fide advancement of the employee by the employer;

“(b) The employee is a person described in ORS 653.020(3);

“(c) The employer has a protectable interest. As used in this paragraph, an employer has a protectable interest when the employee:

“(A) Has access to trade secrets, as that term is defined in ORS 646.461;

“(B) Has access to competitively sensitive confidential business or professional information that otherwise would not qualify as a trade secret, including product development plans, product launch plans, marketing strategy or sales plans; or

“(C) Is employed as an on-air talent by an employer in the business of broadcasting and the employer:

“(i) In the year preceding the termination of the employee’s employment, expended resources equal to or exceeding 10 percent of the employee’s annual salary to develop, improve, train or publicly promote the employee, provided that the resources expended by the employer were expended on media that the employer does not own or control; and

“(ii) Provides the employee, for the time the employee is restricted from working, the greater of compensation equal to at least 50 percent of the employee’s annual gross base salary and commissions at the time of the employee’s termination or 50 percent of the median family income for a four-person family, as determined by the United States Census Bureau for the most recent year available at the time of the employee’s termination; and

“(d) The total amount of the employee’s annual gross salary and commissions, calculated on an annual basis, at the time of the employee’s termination exceeds the median family income for a four-person family, as determined by the United States Census Bureau for the most recent year available at the time of the employee’s termination. This paragraph does not apply to an employee described in paragraph (c)(C) of this subsection.

“(2) The term of a noncompetition agreement may not exceed 18 months from the date of the employee’s termination. The remainder of a term of a noncompetition agreement in excess of 18 months is voidable and may not be enforced by a court of this state.

“(3) Subsections (1) and (2) of this section apply only to noncompetition agreements made in the context of an employment relationship or contract and not otherwise.

“(4) Subsections (1) and (2) of this section do not apply to:

“(a) Bonus restriction agreements, which are lawful agreements that may be enforced by the courts in this state; or

“(b) A covenant not to solicit employees of the employer or solicit or transact business with customers of the employer.

“(5) Nothing in this section restricts the right of any person to protect trade secrets or other proprietary information by injunction or any other lawful means under other applicable laws.

“(6) Notwithstanding subsection (1)(b) and (d) of this section, a noncompetition agreement is enforceable for the full term of the agreement, for up to 18 months, if the employer provides the employee, for the time the employee is restricted from working, the greater of:

“(a) Compensation equal to at least 50 percent of the employee’s annual gross base salary and commissions at the time of the employee’s termination; or

“(b) Fifty percent of the median family income for a four-person family, as determined by the United States Census Bureau for the most recent year available at the time of the employee’s termination.

“(7) As used in this section:

“(a) ‘Bonus restriction agreement’ means an agreement, written or oral, express or implied, between an employer and employee under which:

“(A) Competition by the employee with the employer is limited or restrained after termination of employment, but the restraint is limited to a period of time, a geographic area and specified activities, all of which are reasonable in relation to the services described in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph;

“(B) The services performed by the employee pursuant to the agreement include substantial involvement in management of the employer’s business, personal contact with customers, knowledge of customer requirements related to the employer’s business or knowledge of trade secrets or other proprietary information of the employer; and

“(C) The penalty imposed on the employee for competition against the employer is limited to forfeiture of profit sharing or other bonus compensation that has not yet been paid to the employee.

“(b) ‘Broadcasting’ means the activity of transmitting of any one-way electronic signal by radio waves, microwaves, wires, coaxial cables, wave guides or other conduits of communications.

“(c) ‘Employee’ and ‘employer’ have the meanings given those terms in ORS 652.310.

“(d) ‘Noncompetition agreement’ means an agreement, written or oral, express or implied, between an employer and employee under which the employee agrees that the employee, either alone or as an employee of another person, will not compete with the employer in providing products, processes or services that are similar to the employer’s products, processes or services for a period of time or within a specified geographic area after termination of employment.”

Please contact Kristin should you have any questions concerning noncompetition agreements or restrictive covenants.

Lease agreements and consent provisions

Lease agreements are common.  But what if your lease agreement says that you can’t do something without the consent of the lessor?  Olson Brooksby deals frequently with airplane lease agreements.  For example, the owner of an airplane might have certain repair facilities that it likes and the lease might contain a consent provision that requires the owner to consent to the repair facility if the plane needs repairs.  This can be very frustrating for the lessee, who has to pay for the repairs.  The lessee might be concerned that the lessor wants an expensive repair facility or a facility that requires transportation of the plane to a faraway place.  How do conflicts over these provisions get resolved?

The following is from Kristin Olson and Scott Brooksby’s article published in the International Association of Defense Counsel’s Business Litigation, “Consent Provisions in Lease Agreements: Must the Lessor Act Reasonably?”

CONSENT PROVISIONS IN LEASE AGREEMENTS: MUST THE LESSOR ACT REASONABLY? 

Experienced business litigators are generally familiar with a broad range of real estate, equipment, and other forms of lease agreements, as well as litigation stemming from such agreements.  But what happens when a lease contract has a provision that requires the consent of the lessor before the lessee takes a certain action?  Does the lessee have recourse against the lessor if the lessee’s consent is, for example, withheld arbitrarily?

Equipment or airplane leases provide a useful case study.  Provisions in airplane lease agreements, for example, may require consent of the lessor.  By way of illustration, an airplane owner (the lessor) leases an airplane to an airline (the lessee) and the lease agreement includes provisions that require that the owner consent to the choice of airplane repair facility if the airplane needs repairs.  In cases where there are those types of contractual provisions, the owner might argue that the lease effectively allows it to unilaterally choose the repair facility for the airplane.  Under that hypothetical lease provision, even if the airline is allowed to initially choose the facility, the owner must consent to the airline’s choice.  This may have serious economic consequences for the airline, which may be concerned that the repair facility chosen by the owner is a slower repair facility than the one that the airline would have chosen, forcing the airline to incur loss of use damages.  The airline may also be concerned that the repairs conducted at the facility approved by the owner will be more costly—this is particularly a concern if, under the lease, the airline is required to pay for the repairs or if the airline’s pilots or mechanics damaged the plane.  The airline may also be concerned that the repair facility chosen by, or approved by, the owner is far away (a common issue with airline repair facilities)—particularly if the lease requires that the airline pay for all transport costs to the repair facility.

So what happens?  Is the airline subject to the owner’s choices?  In the hypothetical above, does the owner get to dictate where the airplane is repaired?  The answers to those questions vary depending on jurisdiction and whether the lease explicitly requires that the lessor act reasonably, as explained in further detail below.

Does the lease explicitly require that the lessor act reasonably?

A lease may explicitly provide that the lessor’s consent “may not be unreasonably withheld.”  If the lease contains this explicit provision, that is obviously helpful to the lessee.  However, it still does not resolve the issue in some jurisdictions.  Some jurisdictions require an examination of the facts and circumstances in order to determine whether the withholding of consent was “unreasonable” under the explicit terms of the lease.

For example, in Georgia, even if there is an explicit provision requiring that a lessor’s failure to consent be reasonable, there are common law tests of “fairness and commercial reasonableness” that must be applied to the lessor’s conduct.  WPD Center, LLC v. Watershed, Inc., 765 S.E.2d 531, 534 (Ga. App. 2014).  In that case, the court found that there was “a jury issue” as to whether consent was unreasonably withheld concerning a proposed sublease.  Id. at 534-35.

In some jurisdictions, courts will not require a lessor to act reasonably unless the lease explicitly requires it.                                                                                 

In New York, if there is no explicit requirement of reasonableness in the lease, the court will not impose such a requirement on the lessor.

In General Electric Capital Corp. v. Gary, 2013 WL 390959, *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), the court examined a loan agreement for the purchase of an aircraft.  The loan documents “specified that any assignment, lease or other transfer of any interest in or possession of the Aircraft or any of its parts required prior written approval by the lender.  Notably, the agreement did not require the lender to have a reasonable basis for withholding such consent”.   Id. at *4.  The court explained that, under New York law, when “’a contract negotiated at arm’s length lacks specific language preventing plaintiff from unreasonably withholding consent, the Court can not and should not rewrite the contract to include such language which neither of the parties saw fit to insert in the contract.’”  Id. (quoting Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn. of Am. v. Wometco Enters., Inc., 833 F.Supp. 344, 349 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)).

In the Second Circuit case of State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Inversiones Errazuiriz Limitada, 374 F.3d 158, 170 (2d Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1177 (2005), the court applied New York law and held that a credit agreement allowed a bank to unreasonably withhold consent on a sale of assets if the other party defaulted on its loans because it was an arms length contract that did not put explicit restrictions on the consent provisions.

Although the court in State Street acknowledged that New York law recognizes the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, it explained that the covenant must be consistent with the explicit terms of the contract before it is applied.  Id. at 169-70.  The court held that, under the terms of the agreement at issue in State Street, the bank had the right to “’withhold consent for any reason or no reason . . . .’”  Id. at 170 (quoting Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn. of Am, 833 F.Supp. at 349).  The agreement did not explicitly restrict the bank’s right to refuse to consent to a sale of assets if the other party defaulted on its loans.  Id.  The court went on to note that, even if the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing were hypothetically applied to these circumstances, “the bank’s refusal to consent to such a sale was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary” and was “made for a legitimate business purpose.”  Id.

Under South Dakota law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is generally applied to every contract. However, as long as the parties act honestly, South Dakota courts will probably broadly enforce most contractual terms that explicitly require consent.

In Taylor Equip., Inc. v. John Deere Co., 98 F.3d 1028, 1029 (8th Cir. 1996), Midcon was John Deere’s former industrial equipment dealer.  Midcon argued that John Deere breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by refusing to approve Midcon’s request to assign its dealership to a willing buyer.  Id.  at 1029-30.  As a result, Midcon had to sell its dealership to the approved buyers for a significantly lower amount of money.  Id. at 1030.  The contract between Midcon and John Deere provided that Midcon could not assign its dealership to any buyer “without the prior written consent of [Deere].”  Id. (internal quotation marks omitted.)  The court held that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing “cannot override this express term of the contract”.  Id.

Although “South Dakota law implies a covenant of good faith and fair dealing into every contract”, id. at 1031, the court explained that the definition of “good faith” is “’honesty in fact in the conduct or the transaction concerned.’”  Id. at 1032.  Additionally, under South Dakota law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing “does not affect every contract term” and “cannot ‘block use of terms that actually appear in the contract.’”  Id.

The court explained that, as long as John Deere acted honestly, it had “an unrestricted right to withhold approval” under the contract.  Id. at 1034.  The court noted that, “’[I]n commercial transactions it does not in the end promote justice to seek strained interpretations in aid of those who do not protect themselves.’”  Id.

Michigan law recognizes the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. However, Michigan courts will generally refuse to apply the covenant of good faith or reasonableness to a contract that explicitly requires prior consent.

In James v. Whirlpool Corp., 806 F. Supp. 835, 838, 840 (E.D. Mo. 1992), the court applied Michigan law to a distributorship contract between St. Louis Appliance Parts, Inc. (SLAP), an appliance part distributor, and Whirlpool, the appliance manufacturer.  SLAP argued that Whirlpool breached its covenant of good faith and fair dealing because it refused to approve the sale and proposed assignment of SLAP to Aberdeen, another distributor.  Id. at 843.  The court explained that, “Michigan common law recognizes an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that applies to the performance and enforcement of all contracts.”  Id.  However, the court also noted that, under Michigan law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing will only limit the parties’ conduct if the covenant does not contradict an explicit provision in the contract.  Id.  The court held that the contract explicitly restricted SLAP from assigning its rights under the contract without Whirlpool’s prior written consent.  Id. at 843-44.  The contract also provided that Whirlpool could terminate the contract “for a change in management or control which it found unacceptable.”  Id. at 844.  The court therefore refused to apply the covenant of good faith and fair dealing because it would “override the express terms” of the contract.  Id.

Under Minnesota law, prior consent requirements in contracts are generally upheld without restriction.

In In re Bellanca Aircraft Corp. v. Anderson-Greenwood Aviation Corp., 850 F.2d 1275 (1988), the court applied Minnesota law and held that Bellanca’s contracts with two companies to manufacture aircrafts were worthless assets because both contracts required the consent of the companies before Bellanca could assign the contracts to a different manufacturer.  Id. at 1285.  Under the contracts, “consent could be withheld for any reason whatsoever, arbitrarily or rationally.”  Id.  The court noted that the duty of good faith under the UCC did not prevent parties from negotiating provisions requiring consent that “may be reasonably or unreasonably withheld.”  Id.  Additionally, the court based its decision on the fact that that the parties did not cite to any common law supporting the idea that the UCC imposes “a duty not to withhold consent to assign unreasonably.”  Id. 

In Colorado, Alaska, Oregon, and Ohio, the courts generally apply the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, even if the contract does not explicitly state that the withholding of consent must be reasonable.

Colorado

In Larese v. Creamland Dairies, Inc., 767 F.2d 716, 717–18 (10th Cir. 1985), the court applied Colorado law and held that a franchisor may not unreasonably or arbitrarily withhold its consent to transfer rights to a franchise.  The court explained that, “the franchisor must bargain for a provision expressly granting the right to withhold consent unreasonably, to insure that the franchisee is put on notice.  Since, in this case, the contracts stated only that consent must be obtained, [the franchisor] did not have the right to withhold consent unreasonably.”  Id. at 718.

Alaska

In Alaska, “Where the lessor’s consent is required before an assignment can be made, he may withhold his consent only where he has reasonable grounds to do so.”  Hendrickson v. Freericks, 620 P.2d 205, 211 (Alaska 1980).

Oregon

In Oregon, the lessee has an objectively reasonable expectation that the lessor will consent, especially if the lessor has no objective reason to refuse its consent.  See Hampton Tree Farms, Inc. v. Jewett, 892 P.2d 683, 693 (Or. 1995) (“jury could find that [seller’s] unilateral action in discontinuing to supply logs frustrated [buyer’s] objectively reasonable expectation”).  Oregon courts recognize the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as long as it does not contradict an express contractual term.  Stevens v. Foren, 959 P.2d 1008, 1012 (Or. App. 1998).  In other words, the court will require reasonable conduct as long as the contract does not contain an explicit provision that allows the lessor to unreasonably withhold its consent.   Oregon, what is “reasonable” generally depends on the facts and circumstances.  Reasonable expectations include the right of either party to further its own legitimate business interests.  U.S. Genes v. Vial, 923 P.2d 1322, 1325 (Or. App. 1996).

Ohio

In Littlejohn v. Parrish, 839 N.E.2d 49, 50 (Ohio App. 2005), the court found that there was an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in a mortgage note, which stated that prepayment was subject to the mortgagee’s approval, but did not explicitly include a requirement that the mortgagee act reasonably.  The court noted that, under Ohio law, “there is an implied duty of good faith in almost every contract.”  Id. at 53.

Best Practices

If you are assisting parties in negotiating a contract, it is best if you include explicit provisions concerning consent.  If you represent the airplane owner in the introductory hypothetical, you may want to include a provision that states that consent is required and may be unreasonably withheld.  If you represent the airline, you obviously want to omit any consent provisions.  However, if the airplane owner requires a consent provision to do business, the airline should try to negotiate for a provision that explicitly states that consent may not be unreasonably withheld.  The airline could also try to negotiate for a specific list of agreed-to repair facilities in advance.

 

 

Kristin Olson admitted to the Washington State Bar

Kristin_0862_bw

Kristin Olson has been admitted to practice in Washington State.  Olson Brooksby looks forward to filing and defending lawsuits in the state of Washington.

After graduating from law school in 2002, Kristin clerked for the Oregon Court of Appeals for two years.  She started practicing at Bullivant Houser Bailey in 2004, and continued until she co-founded Olson Brooksby with Scott Brooksby in 2012.

Kristin will continue to practice civil litigation in Washington, with an emphasis on personal injury and business litigation.  She has tried cases throughout the state of Oregon, and looks forward to trying cases in the courts of Washington.

Kristin has experience with:

–  A wide variety of personal injury matters, including catastrophic injury, wrongful death, trucking accidents, product liability, elder abuse, sex abuse, and nursing home negligence.

– Professional liability cases, including medical malpractice and home inspector negligence.

– Business and commercial litigation, including breach of contract, defamation, timber trespass, noncompete agreements, trade secrets, intellectual property, and fraud cases.

Kristin has started her Washington practice by filing a plaintiff’s personal injury case in Clark County.  Kristin represented an injured person in an automobile accident involving a torn rotator cuff.  She was able to negotiate a settlement with the at-fault driver’s insurance company for the full amount of the at-fault driver’s policy limits within days of filing the lawsuit.

Kristin Olson Accepted Into International Association of Defense Counsel

Kristin_0862_linkedin

Kristin Olson has been accepted into the International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC). IADC is an invitation-only organization for peer-reviewed civil defense attorneys who have been in good standing with the Bar for at least eight years and who have high professional credentials.

Nominees must be sponsored by two current IADC members and pass a rigorous application and peer-review process  After that, the Membership Committee may make a nomination and then the nominees must be approved by the IADC’s Board of Directors.

Although it is an international organization, IADC only has approximately 2,500 members.

IADC has been serving a distinguished membership of corporate defense attorneys for more than 90 years  In a corporate environment that with each passing day becomes less local and more international, the IADC is able to provide an international perspective benefiting corporate defense attorneys and their clients.

Kristin Olson is a shareholder with Olson Brooksby.  She is an experienced trial attorney who practices personal injury, professional malpractice, and business and commercial litigation.  Kristin defends lawsuits on behalf of individuals and companies.  She is admitted to practice in Oregon and Washington.

Kristin has experience with:

–  A wide variety of personal injury matters, including catastrophic injury, wrongful death, trucking accidents, product liability, elder abuse, sex abuse, and nursing home negligence.

– Professional liability cases, including medical malpractice and home inspector negligence.

– Business and commercial litigation, including breach of contract, defamation, timber trespass, noncompete agreements, trade secrets, intellectual property, and fraud cases.