Migis v. AutoZone, Inc.

Full title: Michael MIGIS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly…

Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Date published: Jun 21, 2017

286 Or. App. 357 (Or. Ct. App. 2017)

396 P.3d 309

Opinion

A150540

06-21-2017

Michael MIGIS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Respondent Cross-Appellant, v. AUTOZONE, INC., a Nevada corporation, Defendant-Appellant Cross-Respondent.

Roy Pulvers, Portland, and Holland & Knight LLP for petition. A.E. Bud Bailey, J. Dana Pinney, and Bailey, Pinney & Associates, LLC, for response.

PER CURIAM.

Roy Pulvers, Portland, and Holland & Knight LLP for petition.

A.E. Bud Bailey, J. Dana Pinney, and Bailey, Pinney & Associates, LLC, for response.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.

PER CURIAMDefendant, AutoZone, Inc., petitions for reconsideration of our decision, Migis v. AutoZone, Inc. , 282 Or.App. 774, 387 P.3d 381 (2016), concerning the disposition of its appeal. Defendant argues that concepts of waiver or invited error should preclude a new trial on the off-the-clock claim penalties and compel a defense verdict on that issue as a matter of law. We allow the petition for reconsideration to state that we reject those arguments. Without further discussion, we adhere to our original decision.

Reconsideration allowed; former disposition adhered to.