Will Higlin v. State of Oregon, Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission; Craig Prins, an individual; and John Does 1-10, individuals

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon granted the State Defendants’ motion to dismiss claims by Will Higlin for breach of contract and a Fourteenth Amendment stigma-plus due process violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court held that the alleged oral employment agreement was subject to Oregon’s statute of frauds and that partial performance was not plausibly pleaded. It also held that the State of Oregon and the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission were not proper § 1983 defendants and that the complaint did not allege a public disclosure by Craig Prins. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend within 30 days.

Holdings

1. The alleged agreement was subject to Oregon's statute of frauds because, as pleaded, it could not be completed within one year, and Higlin did not plead the existence of a writing signed by the party to be charged.
2. Higlin did not plausibly plead partial performance sufficient to enforce the alleged oral contract because applying for retirement was not unequivocally referable to the agreement, and the complaint alleged no fraud or unjust enrichment warranting equitable enforcement.
3. Higlin failed to state a stigma-plus claim against Prins because the complaint did not allege that Prins publicly disclosed a stigmatizing statement or set in motion the public disclosures made by others.
4. The State of Oregon and OLCC could not be targeted by Higlin's § 1983 claim because no injunctive relief was sought.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Higlin plausibly pleaded an enforceable oral employment-related contract notwithstanding Oregon's statute of frauds.
2. Whether Higlin's alleged retirement filing constituted partial performance sufficient to avoid the statute of frauds.
3. Whether Higlin plausibly pleaded a Fourteenth Amendment stigma-plus claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Craig Prins.
4. Whether the State of Oregon and the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission could be defendants in the § 1983 claim absent a claim for injunctive relief.

Disposition

other