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. IC TSI OR EGON, INC ., An Ore gon C orporation, De fe nda

n t-Appe l le e . No. 16-35242 D.C . No. 3:15-c v-00035-B R
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 Anna J. B rown, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

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 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 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 Sm ith steppe d in a de e p potholeat Te rm ina l 6 of the Port of Portla

nd (the Port), a

nd wa s se riously

injure d. At tha

t tim e , Te rm ina l 6
wa s le a se d to IC TSI Ore gon, Inc . (IC TSI)
. Sm ith c onsulte d

an attorne y , who re que ste d a nd re c e ive d doc um e nts re lating to the le a se and m a i nte na

nc e of the sla

b y ard. Sm ith re c e i ve d the le a se a g re e m e nt be twe e n the Port a

nd IC T SI in De c e m

b e r, 2013. Exa c tly

two y e ars from

the date of the injury , Sm ith file d this a c tion a ga i nst IC TSI
. The c om pla int wa s da

te d Ja nua ry 7, 2015, whic h wa s the la s t da y Sm ith c ould file the c om pla i nt unde r Ore gon’ s sta

tute of lim ita

t ions, a nd Sm ith’ s c o unse l pa i d the filing fe e s on tha t date . Se e Or. R e v. Stat. § 12.110(1). On Ja n ua ry 13, 2015, the

Offic e of the C le rk of C ourt notifie d Sm ith’ s c ounse l tha t it did not re c e ive the c om pla int. Tha

t sa m e da y , Sm ith’ s c ounse l re file d the c om p la int, whic h wa s e nte re d in the distric t c ourt doc ke t. IC TSI m ove d for sum

m a ry judgm e nt, a

rguing tha

t Sm i th’ s suit wa s untim e l y . The distric t c ourt gra nte d the m otion a

nd dismisse d the c om

pla int with pre j udic e . Sm ith the re a fte r tim e ly file d this a

ppe a l
. Fe 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 ate 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
2provide s tha t “ [a ] n a c tion for . . . a

ny injury to the pe rson . . . shall be c om m e nc e d within two y e ars[.] ” Or. R e v. Stat. § 12.110(1). Unde r the Fe de ra l R

ule s of C ivil Proc e dure , “ [a ] c ivil a c tion is c om m e nc e d by filing a c om pla int with the

c ourt.” Fe d
. R . C iv
. P. 3. A c om pla int is file d whe n it ha s be e n “ de live re d to the c le rk,” and m ay be e vide nc e d , for e xam ple , by e ntry on the doc ke t. Se e Riordan v . State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. C

o . , 589 F.3d 999, 1004 (9th C ir. 2009). Sm ith fa ile d to ra ise a

m ate ria l issue of fa c t re ga rding his the ory

tha t the
c om pla i nt wa s file d on Ja

nua ry 7, 2015
. Sm ith provide d a re c e ipt of his filing fe e pa ym e nt, whic h doe s not re fle c t suc c e ssful submission of the c om pla int. Sm ith
a lso a c knowle dge d tha

t the C le rk of C ourt inform e d Sm ith tha

t the C le rk wa s not in re c e ipt of thec o m

pla int on Ja

nua ry 7, 2015. B e c a

use Sm ith fa ile d to ra ise a
m ate ria l que stion of fa c t to support his a sse rtion tha t the c o m pla int wa s tim e ly file d , sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of IC TSI on this issue wa s a ppropria te . S e e K ing
v . C ounty of Los Ange le

s , 885 F.3d 548, 556 (9th C ir. 2018) (a rtic ulating sum

m a ry judgm e nt sta

nda rd). Sm ith a lso fa ile d to ra ise a m ate ria l issue of fa c t

re ga rding a pplic ation of Ore gon’ s disc ove ry

rule . “ [U] nde r [Ore gon R e vise d Statute s § 12.110(1)] , the lim ita tions pe riod be gins to run from the e a rlie r of two possible

e ve nts: (1) the
3date of the pla intiff's a c tua l disc ove ry of injury ; or (2) the date whe n a pe rson
e xe rc ising re a sona

ble c are should ha

ve disc ove re d the injury , inc luding le arning fa c t s tha t a n inquiry would ha ve disc lose d. . . .” Htaik

e v . Se in , 344 P.3d 527, 534 (Or. App. 2015) (c ita

t i on, e m pha se s, a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). “ An injury is disc ove re d whe n a

pla intiff knows, or should ha ve 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) (c ita t ion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). It is undispute d tha

t Sm ith wa s a

ware tha t IC TSI wa s the le sse e of Te rm ina l 6 whe n he ste ppe d into thepothole , a nd tha t his injury

m i ght ha ve be e n the re sult of ne glige nc e . Se e Htaik

e , 344 P.3d a

t 534 (“ [A] c o urt m

ust c onside r the fa c ts from the pe rspe c tive of a

re a sona ble pe rson in thec irc um s ta nc e s of the pla intiff. . . [inc luding] the re lationship be twe e n the pa rtie s a nd the nature of the ha

rm suffe re d. . . .” ) (c ita tions a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). That Sm ith did not know the full e xte nt of the le ga l re lat ionship be t we e n IC TSI and othe r pote ntia l de fe nda nts a t the tim e of his injury

is im m ate ria l . “ [I] f a pla i ntiff knows tha

t he or she ha s suffe re d som e ha rm and knows tha

t it is the
re sult of tortious c onduc t, a n a rgum e nt tha

t the pla intiff did not know the full
e xte nt of the ha

rm or tha t those fa c ts ha d

le ga l signific anc e will be of no a va il. . . .”
4Doe1 v . Lak e Osw e go Sc h. Dist. , 297 P.3d 1287, 1297 (Or. 2013). As a m atte r of la w, Sm i th ha d suffic i e nt inform ation tha t he should ha

ve be e n aware of a substa ntia l like lihood of the

e xiste nc e of a l l thre e e le m e n ts of his ne g lige nc e c la im on the date of his injury , the re by satisfy ing the disc ove ry

rule
. Se e id
. AFFIRM E D.

5