N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
B IB IJI INDERJIT KAUR PUR I; R ANB IR SINGH B HAI; KAM ALJIT KAUR KOHLI; KULB IR

SINGH PUR I, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. SOPURKH KAUR

KHALSA; PER

A IM KAUR KHALSA; SIRI R

A M KAUR KHALSA; KAR TAR

SINGH KHALSA; KAR AM SINGH KHALSA; UNTO INFINITY, LLC , a

n Ore g o n Lim ite d Lia bility C om pa ny ; SIR I SINGH SAHIB C ORPOR ATION, a

n Ore gon non-profit c orporation; SIR

I KARM KAUR KHALSA; LANE POW ELL PC , a n Ore g on Profe s siona l C orporation; LEW IS M . HOR OW ITZ; GUR

U DHAN SINGH KHALSA; GUR

U HAR I SINGH KHASLSA; EW TC M ANAGEM ENT, LLC ; AJEET SINGH KHALSA,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 18-35479 D.C . No. 3:10-c v-01532-M O
M EM O R ANDUM * 

# FIL ED

DEC 23 2019 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.B IB IJI INDERJIT KAUR PUR I; R ANB IR SINGH B HAI; KAM ALJIT KAUR KOHLI; KULB IR

SINGH PUR I, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. SOPURKH KAUR

KHALSA; PER

A IM KAUR KHALSA; SIRI R

A M KAUR KHALSA; SIR I KARM KAUR KHALSA; KAR TAR

SINGH KHALSA; KAR AM SINGH KHALSA; LEW IS M
. HOR OW ITZ; LANE POW ELL PC , a n Ore g on Profe s siona l C orporation; UNTO INFINITY, LLC , a

n Ore g o n Lim ite d Lia bility C om pa ny ; SIR I SINGH SAHIB C ORPOR ATION, a

n Ore gon non-profit c orporation, De fe nda

n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 18-35658 D.C . No. 3:10-c v-01532-M O

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M i c ha e l W . M osm an, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm itte d Nove m be r 8, 2019 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : GILM AN, ** PAEZ, a nd R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s.

* * The Honora

ble R ona ld Le e Gilm a

n , Unite d State s C irc uit Judgefor the U .S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Sixth C irc u it, sitting by de signa tion. 2Appe lla nts c ha l le nge the distric t c ourt’ s orde r gran ting sum m ary judgm e nt, in fa vor of Appe lle e s. Appe lla nts a lso ta ke issue with thedistric t

c ourt’ s a ward of $46,164.53 in c osts to Appe lle e s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291
and re vie w de nov o the distric t c ourt’ s sum m ary judgm e nt orde r. Se e W

e be r v . Alle rgan, Inc
. , 940 F.3d 1106, 1110 (9th C ir. 2019). Thedistric t c o urt’ s award of
c osts is re vie we d for a

buse of disc re tion. Se e Drape r v . Rosario , 836 F.3d 1072, 1087 (9th C ir. 2016). This c o urt m ay a ffirm on a ny ba sis supporte d by the re c ord. Se e Unite d State

s v . Mix on , 930 F.3d 1107, 1110 (9th C ir. 2019). 1. R a the r tha

n ve nture into the thic ke t of the m iniste ria l e xc e p tion to judic ia l re vie w of busine ss de c i sions m a de by re ligious orga

niz a tions, or the
e c c le sia stic a l a

bste ntion doc trine , we a ffirm on the a lte rna t ive ba sis tha t the c la im s
are t im e -barre d. Appe lla

nts brought c la im s for de c la ratory re lie f, fra

u d, ne glige nt
m isre pre se ntation, tortious inte rfe re nc e with prospe c tive e c onom i c a dva nta ge , a nd
c la im s unde r the fe d e ra l R a c ke te e r Influe nc e d a nd C o rrupt Orga

niz a t ions (RIC O) Ac t a nd the Ore gon RIC O sta

tute (OR IC O ). 1 De c la

ra t ory re lie f c l a im s a

re subje c t to the sta tute of lim ita

tions tha t a pplie s to the unde rly i ng c la im
. Se e Doy lev . C ity of Me dford, 351 P.3d 768, 771 (Or. C t. App. 2015). There fore , if the unde rly ing

1 Appe l la nts volunta

rily dism isse d the i r OR IC O c la im
.

3c la im s a

re ba rre d by the lim ita

tions pe riod, so is the

c la i m for de c la ratory re lie f. Se e Brook

s v . Die rk e r , 552 P.2d 533, 535 (Or. 1976). Ore gon la w provide s tha

t c la im s for fra

ud, ne glige nt m isre pre se ntation, a nd tortious interfe re nc e m

u st ge ne ra lly

be c om m e nc e d within two y e ars. Se e Or. R e v. Stat . § 12.110(1); se e also Spirit Partne rs, LP v
. Stoe l Riv e

s LLP , 157 P.3d 1194, 1201 (Or. C t. App. 2007) (fra ud a nd ne glige n t m isre p re se ntation); Butc he r v . Mc C lain , 260 P.3d 611, 614 (Or. C t. App. 2011) (tortious inte rfe re nc e ). “ The sta tute of lim ita

tions for R

IC O is four y e ars . . .” Sc ott v . Boos, 215 F.3d 940, 950 (9th C ir. 2000). Thesta

tute inc orporate s a

disc ove ry

rule , whe re by the c la im s
a c c rue “ whe n the pla i ntiff ha s disc ove re d fa c ts or , in the e xe rc ise of re a s ona ble dilige n c e , should ha

ve disc o ve re d fa c ts tha

t would a le rt a

re a sona ble pe rson to the
e xiste nc e of . . . the a lle ge d fra u d.” Murphy

v . Allstate

Ins. C o. , 284 P.3d 524, 528 (Or. C t . App. 2012). The re c ord re fle c ts tha

t Appe lla nts kne w , or should ha

ve known, of the
a lle ge d a c ts giving rise

to the i r c la im s by

2004. B ibiji c onfirm e d in he r de position that she kne w tha

t she should ha

ve oc c upie d a

boa rd se a t shortly

a fte r he r husba n d’ s de a th in 2004. K am a ljit a nd Kulbir te stifie d to simila r knowle dge . And the fam ily

obta ine d a

la wy e r in 2004 to re

p re se nt the ir inte re s ts in obtaining the boa rd positions.

4Appe lla nts prote st tha

t the y c ould not obta

in spe c i fic e vide nc e of Appe lle e s’
a c tions until the

M ultnom ah C ounty

c a s e wa s initia

te d in 2009. B ut Appe lla nts’
e xc lusion from

the boa rds, a long with the ir be lie f that Yogi B ha ja n ha d a ppointe d the m to the positions, wa s e nough to de m onstra te tha t “ ke y m a te ria l fa c ts we re not
a s the y ha d be e n re pre se nte d.” Ore gon Life & He alth Ins. Guar. Ass’n v . Inte rRe g’l Fin. Grp., Inc

. , 967 P.2d 880, 885 (OR . C t. App. 1998). There is no re a son Appe l la n ts c ould not ha

v e file d a n a c tion long be fore 2010 to obta in inte rna l gove rnan c e doc um e nts ide ntify ing boa rd a ppointm e nts. Ac c ordingly , the ir c la im s
we re prope rly

de te rm ine d to be tim e -barre d. 2. The distric t c ourt a c te d within its disc re tion in a

warding c osts to Appe l le e s. Appe lle e s’ 80-pa ge spre a dshe e t de sc ribe d the se rvic e s pe rform e d a nd
e xpe nse s inc urre d with suffic ie nt “ spe c ific ity , pa rtic ula rity , a nd c la rity .” In re Online DVD-Re n t

al Antitrust Litig. , 779 F.3d 914, 928 (9th C ir. 2015) ; se e also Sav e Our Valle

y v . Sound Transit , 335 F.3d 932, 945-46 (9th C ir. 2003) (disc ussing thepre sum

ption in fa

vor of a warding c osts). AFFIRM E D.

5