Oregon State University v. Superior Court
D075271A
Cal. Ct. App.Nov 8, 2017Background
- Plaintiff George Sutherland was injured in California when a crane tipped while loading an Oregon State-owned stack container; he sued Oregon State for negligence and negligent misrepresentation in San Diego Superior Court.
- Oregon State demurred, arguing the complaint fails because it does not (and cannot) allege compliance with the Oregon Tort Claims Act (OTCA) 180-day notice requirement (Or. Rev. Stat. § 30.275).
- Sutherland argued OTCA should not apply because Oregon State acted in California and applying OTCA would violate California public policy by depriving him of a remedy; he later claimed he could amend to plead compliance.
- The superior court overruled the demurrer, reasoning OTCA’s damages cap (distinct provision) would effectively deny Sutherland a remedy and thus conflict with California policy.
- The Court of Appeal held the OTCA notice provision is a public act entitled to full faith and credit; it does not conflict with California policy (California has similar notice statutes), and declining to apply it would show discriminatory hostility to Oregon.
- The Court granted writ relief: it vacated the order overruling the demurrer and directed the superior court to sustain the demurrer with leave to amend because Sutherland showed a reasonable possibility he could plead facts satisfying the 180‑day discovery/notice rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California must give full faith and credit to OTCA's 180‑day claim‑notice provision | Sutherland: OTCA should not apply because Oregon State acted in California and applying OTCA would frustrate California public policy and deprive him of a remedy | Oregon State: Full faith and credit requires California courts to respect OTCA notice rule; complaint fails without alleging compliance | Court: OTCA notice provision is entitled to full faith and credit; it does not conflict with California policy and must be applied |
| Whether California may refuse to apply OTCA notice rule on public‑policy grounds | Sutherland: Applying OTCA conflicts with California's interest in protecting injured Californians | Oregon State: California policy is not sufficiently conflicting; both states have similar notice rules | Court: California cannot refuse to apply OTCA on policy grounds here because doing so would display discriminatory hostility to Oregon law |
| Whether OTCA notice rule can be waived because OTCA has different substantive features (e.g., damages cap) | Sutherland: OTCA’s differences (damages cap) make its application unacceptable | Oregon State: Only the notice provision is before the court; differences in other OTCA provisions do not prevent full faith and credit for the notice rule | Court: Differences in other OTCA provisions do not preclude giving full faith and credit to the notice provision alone |
| Whether plaintiff should be given leave to amend after demurrer sustained | Sutherland: He can plead facts showing discovery date and timely notice (e.g., restricted access to evidence, later discovery of tortious conduct) | Oregon State: Disputes the factual assertions but will contest them on remand | Court: Grant leave to amend — plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable possibility of curing the defect by alleging facts about delayed discovery and timely filing |
Key Cases Cited
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Hyatt, 538 U.S. 488 (establishes that states must give full faith and credit to other states' statutes and that choice‑of‑law may be limited where forum has strong contacts)
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Hyatt, 136 S. Ct. 1277 (reinforces limits on refusing to apply another state's law and warns against discriminatory hostility)
- Miklosy v. Regents of Univ. of California, 44 Cal.4th 876 (discusses unique constitutional status of UC/Regents and limits of California's ability to treat comparable institutions differently)
- Centinela Freeman Emergency Med. Assocs. v. Health Net of Cal., Inc., 1 Cal.5th 994 (standard for whether amendment can cure a pleading defect after demurrer)
- Doe v. Lake Oswego Sch. Dist., 353 Ore. 321 (describes Oregon discovery rule for OTCA notice timing)
- Turner v. State, 270 Ore. App. 353 (explains discovery rule application and that discovery timing is usually a jury question)