Or. State Univ. v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty.
16 Cal. App. 5th 1180
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017Background
- Plaintiff George A. Sutherland sued Oregon State University for negligence and negligent misrepresentation after a crane accident in California; he alleges a stack container owned by Oregon State lacked accurate weight information.
- Oregon State demurred, arguing the complaint fails because Sutherland did not (and cannot) allege compliance with Oregon Tort Claims Act (OTCA) 180-day claims-notice requirement (Or. Rev. Stat. § 30.275).
- Sutherland argued California public policy should prevent application of the OTCA notice requirement to a tort occurring in California, and alternatively sought leave to amend to plead compliance.
- The superior court overruled the demurrer, reasoning differences (e.g., Oregon's damages cap) made Oregon law contrary to California policy and would deny Sutherland a remedy.
- The Court of Appeal held the OTCA notice provision is entitled to full faith and credit in California, does not conflict with California public policy (California has similar notice statutes), and overruling the demurrer was error; but Sutherland showed a reasonable possibility of curing the pleading defect and was granted leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California must give full faith and credit to OTCA 180‑day notice rule | Sutherland: OTCA should not apply because applying it would violate California public policy and deprive him of a remedy | Oregon State: Full faith and credit requires California to apply OTCA notice rule; failure to apply would discriminatorily target Oregon law | Court: OTCA notice provision is a public act entitled to full faith and credit; it does not conflict with California policy, and refusing to apply it would show impermissible hostility |
| Whether California can apply its own law instead of OTCA under choice‑of‑law/public‑policy exception | Sutherland: California's interest in protecting its citizens permits declining to apply OTCA | Oregon State: California has similar notice statutes and cannot reject OTCA without discriminatory hostility | Court: Although California has an interest, that interest does not justify disregarding the Full Faith and Credit Clause when statutes serve similar purposes |
| Whether complaint failed to state a claim for failure to allege OTCA compliance | Oregon State: Demurrer for failure to plead compliance with OTCA notice requirement | Sutherland: He can amend to allege facts showing delayed discovery of tortious nature and timely filing within 180 days | Court: Demurrer should be sustained but with leave to amend because plaintiff showed a reasonable possibility of pleading compliance |
| Whether leave to amend is appropriate given discovery‑rule issues | Sutherland: Discovery rule delayed accrual until plaintiff learned tortious nature; thus he can plead timely notice | Oregon State: Will dispute factual assertions about discovery | Court: Discovery‑rule questions are factual; plaintiff plausibly alleged facts that could toll the 180‑day period, so amendment permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Hyatt, 538 U.S. 488 (U.S. 2003) (Full Faith and Credit Clause limits a forum state’s refusal to apply another state’s statute)
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Hyatt, 136 S. Ct. 1277 (U.S. 2016) (Reaffirming that a state may not reject another state’s statute on grounds that evince discriminatory hostility)
- Carroll v. Lanza, 349 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1955) (The state where the tort occurs has a primary interest in applying its law)
- Pac. Emplrs. Ins. Co. v. Indus. Accident Comm'n, 306 U.S. 493 (U.S. 1939) (Few matters are more appropriately the concern of the state where an injury occurs)
- Hall v. University of Nevada, 8 Cal.3d 522 (Cal. 1972) (earlier California decision referenced but predates modern Full Faith and Credit analysis)