Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 11, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

SW Portland Law Group v. De Las Mercedes Galvez-Prado

Court of Appeals of Oregon

• Citations: 347 Or. App. 678
• Docket Number: A186904
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
• Judges: Tookey

• Disposition: Affirmed.

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Disposition

Affirmed.

Combined Opinion

678 March 11, 2026 No. 187

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF OREGON

SOUTHWEST PORTLAND LAW GROUP,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Ofelia DE LAS MERCEDES GALVEZ-PRADO,
Carely Mazie Flores Galvez, and Miguel Angel Casto,
Defendants-Appellants.
Washington County Circuit Court
24CV25056; A186904

Theodore E. Sims, Judge.
Submitted February 19, 2026.
Ofelia de las Mercedes Galvez-Prado filed the briefs pro
se.
Jeremy R. James filed the brief for respondent.
Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Lagesen, Judge, and
Kamins, Judge.
TOOKEY, P. J.
Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 347 Or App 678 (2026) 679

TOOKEY, P. J.
Defendants appeal from an order denying their
motion to set aside a default order and judgment pursuant
to ORCP 71 B. In three assignments of error, defendants
argue that the trial court erred in entering the default
judgment without proper service, that the trial court vio-
lated defendants’ constitutional due process rights without
adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, and that the
default judgment is void based on a lack of proper service.
We affirm.
Defendants’ assignments of error and arguments on
appeal—and plaintiff’s responses to them—are focused on
the merits of defendants’ motion to set aside the default order
and judgment. However, the trial court did not consider the
merits of defendants’ motion and instead denied the motion
on the procedural ground that defendants did not include
with it an answer to the complaint or a motion under ORCP
21 asserting a claim or defense. See ORCP 71 B(1) (requir-
ing some motions to set aside judgments to “be accompanied
by a pleading or motion under Rule 21 A which contains
an assertion of a claim or defense”). Defendants have not
assigned error to that ruling or otherwise argued that the
trial court erred in so ruling. Beall Transport Equipment Co.
v. Southern Pacific, 186 Or App 696, 700 n 2, 64 P3d 1193,
adh’d to as clarified on recons, 187 Or App 472, 68 P3d 259
(2003) (“[I]t is not this court’s function to speculate as to what
a party’s argument might be. Nor is it our proper function to
make or develop a party’s argument when that party has not
endeavored to do so itself.”). In addition, defendants did not
respond to plaintiff’s argument before the trial court that
the court could deny defendants’ motion based on defendants’
failure to attach a responsive pleading. That would render
any claim that the court erred in that regard unpreserved,
even if defendants had raised it to us. See ORAP 5.45(1) (“No
matter claimed as error will be considered on appeal unless
the claim of error was preserved in the lower court and is
assigned as error in the opening brief in accordance with
this rule, provided that the appellate court may, in its discre-
tion, consider a plain error.”). We therefore affirm.
Affirmed.