John Doe v. Josephine County , 697 F. App'x 567 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    SEP 25 2017
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JOHN DOE, 7; et al.,                             No.   15-35506
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,             D.C. Nos.    1:12-cv-02080-CL
    1:13-cv-00724-CL
    v.                                                           1:13-cv-00825-CL
    JOSEPHINE COUNTY,
    MEMORANDUM*
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Oregon
    Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted August 16, 2017
    San Francisco, California
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and WATTERS,**
    District Judge.
    Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal from the district court’s decision granting
    Josephine County’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Plaintiffs’
    federal law claims as barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations and
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The Honorable Susan P. Watters, United States District Judge for the
    District of Montana, sitting by designation.
    dismissing their state law claims as barred by Oregon’s ten-year statute of ultimate
    repose. The facts are known to the parties and will not be repeated here unless
    necessary.
    I
    The district court did not err in concluding that the Plaintiffs’ federal law
    claims, which were tolled until the Plaintiffs turned 19, are barred by the applicable
    two-year statute of limitations. 
    Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.160
    ; TwoRivers v. Lewis, 
    174 F.3d 987
    , 991 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Under federal law, a claim accrues when the
    plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the
    action.”). The Plaintiffs concede that they knew they had been physically harmed
    by the abuse when it occurred.
    The federal claims accrued at the time the Plaintiffs recognized they had
    suffered some harm and knew the identity of the tortfeasor, even if a different kind
    of harm arose years later. Wallace v. Kato, 
    549 U.S. 384
    , 391 (2007). A separate
    claim does not accrue and the statute of limitations is not tolled even if the
    Plaintiffs were not aware that the psychological problems they are suffering as
    adults were caused by the abuse. 
    Id.
     (“Under the traditional rule of accrual . . . the
    tort cause of action accrues, and the statute of limitations commences to run, when
    the wrongful act or omission results in damages. The cause of action accrues even
    2
    though the full extent of the injury is not then known or predictable.” (quoting 1 C.
    Corman, Limitation of Actions § 7.4.1, pp. 526-27 (1991))).
    The district court was also correct to conclude that reasonable plaintiffs
    exercising reasonable diligence would have known about the County’s liability,
    given the fact that Plaintiffs were aware of the initial harm committed by someone
    they knew to be a County employee, information about this case has been publicly
    available since 1994, a significant amount of time has passed, and another victim
    filed a lawsuit in 1994. See Bibeau v. Pac. Nw. Research Found., Inc., 
    188 F.3d 1105
    , 1108 (9th Cir. 1999).
    II
    The Plaintiffs’ state law claims are barred by Oregon’s two-year statute of
    limitations for the same reasons the federal claims are barred. See Raethke v. Ore.
    Health Sci. Univ., 
    837 P.2d 977
    , 979 (Or. App. 1992) (in banc); 
    Or. Rev. Stat. § 30.275
    (9). The child abuse exclusion in 
    Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.117
     does not apply to
    claims made pursuant to the Oregon Tort Claims Act. Doe I v. Lake Oswego
    School Dist., 
    353 Or. 321
    , 335-36 (2013); see also 
    Or. Rev. Stat. § 30.275
    (9). As
    such, we do not need to reach the question of whether the state law claims are
    barred by Oregon’s statute of ultimate repose, and we affirm the district court’s
    dismissal of the state law claims on this alternative ground.
    3
    III
    The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.1
    1
    The motions to file amici curiae briefs by the National Center for Victims
    of Crime, the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association, and Legal Voice are
    GRANTED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-35506

Citation Numbers: 697 F. App'x 567

Filed Date: 9/25/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023