N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOHN DOE, 7; e t a l.,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts, v. JOSEPHINE C OUNTY,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 15-35506 D.C . Nos. 1:12-c v-02080-C L

1:13-c v-00724-C L 1:13-c v-00825-C L M EM O R ANDUM * Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Ann L. Aike n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 16, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

N NLAIN a nd R AW LINSON, C i rc u it Judge s, a nd WATTER S, ** Distric t Judge . Pla intiffs-Appe l la

nts a ppe a l from

the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision gra nting Jose phine C ounty ’ s m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt, dismissing the Pla intiffs’ fe de ra l la w c la im s a s ba

rre d by the a

pplic a ble two-y e a

r sta tute of lim ita

t ions a nd 

# F IL ED SEP 25 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Susa n P. W atte rs, Unite d

State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of M onta

na , sitting by

de signa tion.dism issing the i r state la w c la i m s a s ba

rre d by Ore gon’ s te n-y e ar stat

ute of ultim ate re pose . The fa c ts a

re known to the

pa rtie s a nd will not be

re p e at e d he re unle ss ne c e ssa ry . I The distric t c ourt did not err in c onc luding tha t the Pla intiffs’ fe d e ra l la

w c la im s, whic h we re tolle d until the Pla intiffs turne d 19, a

re ba rre d by the a pplic a ble two-y e ar sta

tute of lim ita

tions. Or. Re v . Stat. § 12.160 ; Tw oRiv e rs v . Le w is , 174 F.3d 987, 991 (9th C ir. 1999) (“ Unde r fe de ra l la w, a c la i m

a c c rue s whe n the pla i ntiff knows or ha s re a s on to know of the injury whic h is theba sis of the a c tion.” ). The Pla intiffs c onc e de tha t the y kne w the y

ha d be e n phy s ic a lly ha

rm e d by the a buse whe n it oc c urre d. The fe de ra l c la im s a c c rue d at the tim e the Pla intiffs re c o gniz e d the y ha d suffe re d som e ha

rm and kne w the ide ntity

of the tortfe a sor, e ve n if a diffe re nt kind of ha rm arose y e ars late r. W

allac e v . K

a to , 549 U.S. 384, 391 (2007). A se pa rate c la im doe s not a c c rue and the sta tute of lim ita

tions is not tolle d e v e n if the Pla i ntiffs we re not a

ware tha t the psy c hologic a l proble m s the y are suffe ring a s a dults we re c a

use d by the a buse . Id. (“ Unde r the tra ditiona l rule of a c c rua l . . . the tort c a u se of a c tion a c c rue s, a

nd the sta tute of lim ita

t ions c om m e nc e s to run, whe n the w rongful a c t

or om ission re sults in da

m a ge s. The c a

use of a c tion a c c rue s e ve n 2though thefull e xte n t of the injury is not then known or pre d ic ta ble . ” (quoting 1 C . C orm a n, Lim ita tion of Ac tions § 7.4.1, pp. 526-27 (1991))). The distric t c ourt wa s a lso c orre c t to c onc lude tha

t re a sona ble pla intiffs e xe rc ising re a sona

ble dilige n c e would ha

ve known a

bout theC ounty ’ s lia

bility , give n the fa c t tha

t Pla intiffs we re aware of the initia l ha rm c om m itte d by som e one the y kne w to be a

C ounty e m

p loy e e , inform ation a

bout this c a se ha s be e n public ly ava ila ble sinc e 1994, a

signific a nt a m ount of tim e ha s pa sse d, a nd a n othe r vic tim file d a la wsuit in 1994. Se e Bibe au v . Pac . N w . Re se a rc h Found., Inc . , 188 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th C ir. 1999). II The Pla i ntiffs’ sta

te la w c la im s a

re ba rre d by Ore g on’ s two-y e ar statute of lim ita tions for the sam e re a sons thefe de ra l c la im s a re ba rre d. Se e Rae thk

ev . Ore . He alth Sc i. Univ . , 837 P.2d 977, 979 (Or. App. 1992) (in ba n c ); Or. R e v. Stat. § 30.275(9). Thec hild a

buse e xc lusion in Or. R

e v. Stat. § 12.117 doe s not a pply to c la im s m a de pursua

nt to theOre gon Tort C la im s Ac t. DoeI v . Lak e Osw e go Sc hool Dist. , 353 Or. 321, 335-36 (2013); se e also Or. R e v. Stat. § 30.275(9). As suc h , we do not ne e d to re a c h the que stion of whe the r the sta t e la w c la im s are ba rre d by Ore gon’ s sta

tute of ultim at e re p ose , a

nd we a ffirm

the distric t

c ourt’ s dism issa l of the sta

t e la w c la im s on this alte rnative ground.

3III

The judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt is A FFIRM E D . 1

1 The m otions to file

am ic i c uria e brie fs by the Nat iona l C e nte r for Vic tim s of C rim e , the Ore gon Tria l La wy e rs Assoc iation, a

n d Le ga l Voic e are G RANT E D . 4