Oregon State University v. Superior Court
D071752A
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 8, 2017Background
- Plaintiff George Sutherland sued Oregon State University in San Diego county for negligence and negligent misrepresentation after a crane accident while loading an Oregon State-owned container.
- Oregon State demurred, arguing the complaint fails because it does not (and cannot) allege compliance with the Oregon Tort Claims Act (OTCA) 180-day claims-notice requirement (Or. Rev. Stat. § 30.275).
- Sutherland argued the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require him to comply because applying OTCA would violate California public policy and deprive him of a remedy; he later sought leave to amend to allege compliance.
- The superior court overruled the demurrer, reasoning OTCA’s damages cap (distinct from the notice rule) differed from California law and applying OTCA would harm California public policy by limiting Sutherland’s remedy.
- The Court of Appeal granted writ relief in part, holding the OTCA claims-notice provision is entitled to full faith and credit in California, does not conflict with California public policy (California has similar notice rules), and the demurrer should have been sustained but with leave to amend because Sutherland showed a reasonable possibility he could plead compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California must give full faith and credit to OTCA’s 180‑day claims‑notice rule | Full Faith & Credit need not apply because requiring OTCA compliance would violate California public policy and leave plaintiff without a remedy | OTCA is a public act entitled to full faith and credit; California has no valid policy conflict because its Government Claims Act has similar notice rules | Court: OTCA notice provision is entitled to full faith and credit; no public‑policy conflict sufficient to refuse credit |
| Whether declining to apply OTCA would be permissible under conflict/public‑policy exception | N/A (same as above) | N/A | Court: Even if a conflict existed, refusing to apply OTCA would show discriminatory hostility to Oregon in violation of Full Faith and Credit precedents |
| Whether plaintiff adequately pleaded compliance with OTCA to survive demurrer | Sutherland later asserted he could plead facts showing discovery occurred later and he filed within 180 days of discovering tortious conduct | Oregon State contended plaintiff cannot show compliance and demurrer was proper | Court: Demurrer should be sustained for failure to plead compliance, but plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable possibility of curing the defect; grant leave to amend |
| Proper remedy on writ | N/A | N/A | Court: Issue peremptory writ directing superior court to vacate order overruling demurrer and enter order sustaining demurrer with leave to amend; stay vacated; costs to Oregon State |
Key Cases Cited
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Hyatt, 538 U.S. 488 (United States) (Full Faith and Credit general principles and limits)
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Hyatt, 136 S. Ct. 1277 (United States) (clarifies limits on declining to give effect to another state's statutes)
- Miklosy v. Regents of University of California, 44 Cal.4th 876 (Cal. 2008) (University of California’s quasi‑sovereign, constitutionally established status)
- Centinela Freeman Emergency Medical Assocs. v. Health Net of California, Inc., 1 Cal.5th 994 (Cal. 2016) (standard for leave to amend—reasonable possibility of curing pleading defects)
- Carroll v. Lanza, 349 U.S. 408 (United States) (state where tort occurs has primary interest in regulating consequences of injury)