N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C EC IL F. SM ITH,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. EVR AZ, INC ., A De la

ware C orporation, De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 17-35485 D.C . No. 3:17-c v-00086-SI
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 M ic ha e l H. Sim on, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

y 11, 2018 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d C HR ISTEN, C i rc uit Judge s, a nd B LOC K, ** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED
JUN 04 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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 Fre de ric B loc k, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa t ion.On Ja nua ry 7, 2013, C e c il F. Sm ith steppe d in a de e p pothole at Te rm ina l 6 of the Port of Portla

nd (the Port) a

nd wa s se riously

injure d. 1 Sm ith c onsulte d

an attorne y who re que ste d doc um e n ts from the Port re lating to the le a se and m a i nte na

nc e a gre e m e nts of Te rm ina l 6. In De c e m be r, 2013, the Port provide d

Sm ith a c opy of the le a se a gre e m e nt be twe e n the Port a nd IC TSI Ore gon, Inc . (IC TSI). In Ja n ua ry , 2015, Sm i th file d a

n a c tion a ga inst IC TSI (IC TSI suit), a

nd IC TSI m ove d for sum m a ry judgm e nt on the grounds tha t Sm ith’ s
c la im wa s ba rre d by Ore gon’ s two-y e ar statute of lim ita tions. Se e Or. R e v. Stat. § 12.110(1). Sm ith m a inta ins tha t he only disc ove re d

during ora l a

rgum e nts in the IC TSI suit tha

t EVR AZ INC
. , NA (EVR

AZ) m ight be re sponsiblefor m a inta ining the s la b y ard. 2 On De c e m

be r 20, 2016, Smi th c om

m e nc e d the pre se nt la

wsuit a ga inst EVR AZ in sta te c o urt, a lle ging ne glige nc e . EVR AZ tim e ly re m ove d

the a c tion to fe de ra l c o urt unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1332 a nd sought sum

m ary judgm e nt, c la im ing Ore gon’ s two-y e ar statute of lim ita tions ha d run. Se e O r. R e v . Stat. § 12.110(1). The distric t c ourt gra

nte d the m otion, a

nd Sm ith file d a

tim e ly notic e of a

ppe a l.

1 As the pa

rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c ts, we do not re c ount the m in de ta il he re .

2 The distric t c ourt gra nte d IC T SI’ s m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt, a

nd Sm i th’ s a ppe a l of this ruling is pe

nding. Se e Smith v

. IC TSI Ore gon, Inc

. , Ninth C irc uit C a se No. 16-35242.
2Fe de ra l c o urts in a dive rsity a c tion m ust a pply the substa

ntive la w of the sta te whe re the fe de ra l c ourt is loc a te d. Se e K w an v . SanMe dic a Int’l , 854 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th C ir. 2017). Ore gon’ s sta tute of lim ita

tions for a

pe rsona l injury
a c tion provide s tha

t “ [a ] n a c tion for . . . a

ny injury to the pe rson . . . sha ll be
c om m e n c e d within two ye ars[.] ” Or. R e v . Stat. § 12.110(1). Sm ith fa ils to ra ise a

m a t e ria l issue of fa c t re ga rding a pplic a tion of Ore gon’ s disc ove ry rule . Unde r the disc ove ry rule , “ the notic e of c la im pe riod doe s not
c om m e n c e to run . . . until a

pla intiff knows or, in the e xe rc i se of re a sona

ble c are should know, tha

t he or she ha s be e n injure d and tha t the re is a

substa ntia l possibility

tha t the injury

wa s c a use d by an ide ntifie d

pe rson’ s tortious c onduc t.” J ohnson v . Multnomah C

t y . De p’t of C mty . J ustic e , 178 P.3d 210, 214 (Or. 2008) (e n ba nc ). “ A n injury

is ‘ disc ove re d’ whe n

a pla intiff knows, or should ha v e known, of a

substa ntia l possibility

tha t thre e e le m e nts e xist: (1) ha rm ; (2)
c a usation; a nd (3) tortious c onduc t.” Dic k son v . TriMe t , 412 P.3d 1188, 1191 (Or. App. 2018). It is undispute d tha

t Sm ith im m e diat e ly kne w he wa s se riously

injure d whe n he ste ppe d into thesla

b y ard pothole
. Sm ith unde rstood a t the tim e of injury

tha t the Port owne d Te rm ina l 6 a nd tha t IC TSI le a se d

Te rm i na l 6 from

the Port. Also, notwithsta

nding Sm ith’ s c la im

tha t he only disc ove re d EVR

AZ’ s possible

3tortfe a sor role during theIC TSI suit’ s ora l a rgum e nts, he be lie v e d

at the tim e of injury tha t EVR A Z ha d s om e form

of suble a se a g re e m e nt with IC TSI whic h
a llowe d it to use

the sla b y ard to m ove its ste e l sla bs. Sm ith “ kne w or should ha ve known tha

t [he ] ha d be e n wronge d by the posse s sor of the [sla

b y ard] at the tim e of the fa ll, e ve n though [he ] did not know who[] the posse ssor wa s.” Ge h rk e v . C rafc o, Inc

. , 923 P.2d 1333, 1336 (Or. App. 1996). Ac c ordingly , Sm ith’ s be lie f tha t EVR AZ ha d a suble a se whic h

a llowe d it to use the y ard to m ove its sla bs should ha

v e give n him

aware ne ss of a “ substa

ntia l possibility

” tha t EVR AZ posse sse d the sla

b y a rd, a nd the re fore tha

t e a c h of the thre e e le m e nts (ha

rm , c a usation, tortious c onduc t) e xiste d a s to EVR AZ. Dic k son , 412 P.3d a

t 1191. Furthe rm ore , the “ disc ove ry rule doe s not prote c t those who sle e p on the ir rights.” Gaston v . Parsons , 864 P.2d 1319, 1324 (Or. 1994); se e also C olev . Sunny side Mark e tplac e , LLC , 160 P.3d 1, 7 (Or. App. 2007) (“ [W ] he the r fa c ts a re

‘ i nhe re ntly

disc ove ra

b le ’ pe rta ins to ‘ whe the r the pla intiff in a ne glige nc e a c tion ha s e xe rc ise d due dilige n c e to disc ove r the re quisitefa c ts.’ ” ) (c i ting Ge hrk e , 923 P.2d at 1336). B e c a

use Sm i th’ s c om

pla int wa s not file d until a lm ost four y e ars from the date of injury , this c ourt is not persua d e d tha t he “ e xe rc ise d due dilige nc e

4to disc ove r the re quisitefa c t s.” 3 C ole , 160 P.3d a

t 7 (c iting Ge hrk

e , 923 P.2d a

t 1336). Ac c ordingly , the c ourt c onc lude s a s a m a tte r of la

w tha t any ra tiona l juror would find tha

t Sm ith kne w or should ha ve known of a substa

ntia l possibility

tha t EVR AZ wa s a re sponsiblepa

rty m ore tha n two y e ars be fore he file d suit. Se e J ohnson v . Multnomah C

t y . De p’t of C mty . J ustic e , 152 P.3d 927, 931 (Or. App. 2007), aff’d

178 P.3d 210 (Or. 2008) (en ba nc ). AFFIRM E D.

3 W hile not dispositive , the c ourt note s tha t Sm ith wa ive d initia l disc losure s from

EVR AZ, a nd, a t the tim e of ora l argum e nts, still did not posse ss a c opy of a ny suble a se a gre e m e nt be twe e n EVR AZ a nd IC TSI or the Port. Se e Ora l Argum e n t at 3:12–4:23.
5