Oregon State University v. Superior Court
- Proceeding
- writ
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. 37-2016-00014529-CU-PO-CTL
- Trial judge
- Eddie C. Sturgeon
- Outcome
- writ granted — Petition granted.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Judith D. McConnell (author), Judith L. Haller, Patricia D. Benke
Analysis
The trial court overruled Oregon State University's demurrer, finding that applying the Oregon Tort Claims Act's 180-day notice provision would violate California public policy. The Court of Appeal granted the writ of mandate, holding that the provision is entitled to full faith and credit and does not conflict with California law.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order overruling Oregon State University's demurrer to the first amended complaint“Consequently, we conclude the superior court erred by overruling Oregon State's demurrer.” | de novo | error | agree with court The appellate court correctly applied the de novo standard for reviewing demurrer rulings. It properly analyzed the Full Faith and Credit Clause, determining that the Oregon notice provision is a valid public act entitled to credit. The court correctly rejected the trial court's public policy exception by noting the substantial similarity between the Oregon and California government claims acts, thereby finding no conflict. The reasoning is supported by binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent (Hyatt I and II) and California case law, making the reversal legally sound. |
Authorities
- relied: Franchise Tax Bd. v. Hyatt (2003) (2003) 538 U.S. 488 — Establishes that statutes are public acts entitled to full faith and credit, but California may refuse to apply them if they conflict with a fundamental public policy of California, provided California has significant contacts.
- relied: Franchise Tax Bd. v. Hyatt (2016) (2016) 136 S.Ct. 1277 — Clarifies that a state may not decline to apply another state's law if doing so evinces a policy of discriminatory hostility toward the other state or its laws.
- relied: Green Valley Landowners Assn. v. City of Vallejo (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 425 — Establishes that the decision to overrule a demurrer is reviewed de novo.
- relied: Hall v. University of Nevada (1972) 8 Cal.3d 522 — The court distinguished this case, noting it predates the Hyatt decisions and does not discuss the Full Faith and Credit Clause, thus offering no relevant guidance.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the two-step Hyatt analysis: first establishing the statute's entitlement to credit, and then rigorously testing the public policy exception by comparing the specific statutory mechanisms of both states. It effectively neutralizes the plaintiff's argument by demonstrating that California has its own similar notice requirements, thereby removing the basis for a 'conflict' and exposing the trial court's ruling as discriminatory hostility.
The San Diego Superior Court overruled Oregon State University's demurrer to a California worker's negligence complaint, finding that applying the Oregon Tort Claims Act's 180-day claims notice requirement would violate California public policy because Oregon's act has a damages cap and would effectively deprive the plaintiff of a remedy. The Court of Appeal granted a peremptory writ of mandate, holding under Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt I and II that the Oregon claims notice provision is entitled to full faith and credit, does not conflict with California policy given California's own similar Government Claims Act provisions, and that refusing to apply it would evince discriminatory hostility; it directed the trial court to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order overruling Oregon State's demurrer on the ground that the Oregon Tort Claims Act claims notice provision need not be given full faith and credit because it conflicts with California public policy“The court overruled the demurrer. The court acknowledged California and Oregon have similar government claims notice provisions, but found the Oregon Tort Claims Act has a damages cap and California's Government Claims Act does not.” | de novo | error (law misapplied) | agree with court A state statute is a public act entitled to full faith and credit (Hyatt II), and the public-policy exception requires a genuinely conflicting policy; California's Government Claims Act imposes a functionally identical six-month notice requirement on suits against public entities, including public universities, so no conflict exists. The court also correctly applied Hyatt II's holding that a forum may not create a special rule allowing suits against a sister state's entity in circumstances where a comparable in-state entity could not be sued. The trial court's reliance on the damages cap was misplaced because the notice provision alone disposed of the complaint. |
Trial court's finding that the Oregon Tort Claims Act's damages cap rendered the Oregon scheme contrary to California public policy“we need not decide whether other provisions of the Oregon Tort Claims Act, including its damages cap (Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 30.271), are entitled to full faith and credit.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court Because failure to comply with the claims notice provision independently bars the action, the appellate court properly declined to decide whether the damages cap is entitled to full faith and credit; this is consistent with the principle that courts avoid unnecessary constitutional questions. The damages cap question would have implicated Nevada v. Hall, which the opinion did not discuss, so limiting the holding was prudent. |
Authorities
- relied: Franchise Tax Bd. v. Hyatt (Hyatt I) (2003) 538 U.S. 488 — The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel a forum state to apply a sister state's statute where the forum is competent to legislate and the statute reflects a conflicting policy, provided the forum has significant contacts with the dispute
- relied: Franchise Tax Bd. v. Hyatt (Hyatt II) (2016) 136 S.Ct. 1277 — A statute is a public act under the Clause; a forum may not apply a special rule of law evincing discriminatory hostility toward a sister state's statute, such as allowing suits against a sister-state entity under circumstances that would bar a comparable suit against the forum's own entities
- relied: Green Valley Landowners Assn. v. City of Vallejo (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 425 — A decision overruling a demurrer is reviewed de novo
- relied: Westcon Construction Corp. v. County of Sacramento (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 183 — The purposes of California's Government Claims Act notice requirement include permitting early investigation and settlement of claims
- relied: Nelson v. Superior Court (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 565 — The claims presentation requirement serves to allow public entities to investigate claims while evidence is fresh and to settle meritorious claims
- relied: Miklosy v. Regents of University of California (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876 — The Regents of the University of California have a unique constitutional status granting them virtual autonomy, functioning in some ways as an independent sovereign
- relied: Hall v. University of Nevada (1972) 8 Cal.3d 522 — Distinguished: California courts may entertain a tort suit against a sister state's university for injuries in California; the court held the case predates Hyatt and does not analyze the Full Faith and Credit Clause
- relied: Carroll v. Lanza (1955) 349 U.S. 408 — The state where a tort occurs has a legitimate concern in the consequences of the injury sufficient to apply its own law
- relied: Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Com. (1939) 306 U.S. 493 — Few matters are more appropriately the concern of the state in which an injury occurs than compensation for that injury
- missed: Nevada v. Hall (1979) 440 U.S. 410 — The Full Faith and Credit Clause did not require California to apply Nevada's statutory damages cap in a suit against the University of Nevada for a California tort because the cap was obnoxious to California's policy of full compensation; this binding decision in the same Hall litigation the court distinguished addressed the Clause directly and should have been discussed, though Hyatt I and II reaffirm and refine it in a way consistent with the result
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly frames the Hyatt I/Hyatt II analysis, shows the Oregon notice provision mirrors California's own Government Claims Act in function and purpose, addresses the UC Regents exemption, and applies Hyatt II's anti-discrimination holding; the result follows from the cited authority. It is incomplete, however, in dismissing the Hall litigation by reference only to the 1972 California Supreme Court footnote without acknowledging that the U.S. Supreme Court in Nevada v. Hall squarely addressed the Clause in that same case and upheld California's refusal to apply Nevada's damages cap, which is the trial court's central concern and which the court sidesteps by not reaching the cap question.
Opinion
Filed 9/27/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY, D071752
Petitioner, (Super. Ct. No. 37-2016-00014529-CU- PO-CTL) v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
Respondent;
GEORGE R. SUTHERLAND, Real Party in Interest.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate challenging an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County overruling a demurrer. Eddie C. Sturgeon, Judge. Petition granted.
Noonan Lance Boyer & Banach, Ethan T. Boyer; Higgs Fletcher & Mack and John Morris for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Marc D. Adelman; Dentons US and Charles A. Bird for Real Party in Interest. I
INTRODUCTION
Oregon State University (Oregon State) petitions for a peremptory writ of mandate directing the superior court to vacate an order overruling Oregon State's demurrer to George A. Sutherland's first amended complaint (complaint) and to enter a new order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend. Oregon State contends the challenged order violates the federal Constitution's full faith and credit clause (Clause) (U.S. Const., art IV, § 1) because the complaint does not and cannot allege Sutherland's compliance with the Oregon Tort Claims Act's 180-day claims notice provision. (Or. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§ 30.275, subds. (1), (2)(b).)1 Sutherland counters the Clause does not require his compliance with the provision because requiring compliance would violate California's public policy by effectively depriving him of a remedy against Oregon State.
We agree the superior court should have sustained Oregon State's demurrer without leave to amend because the Oregon Tort Claims Act's claims notice provision is entitled to full faith and credit in California. Contrary to Sutherland's assertions, the provision does not conflict with or violate California's public policy and declining to give 1 The provision states, "(1) No action arising from any act or omission of a public body or an officer, employee or agent of a public body ... shall be maintained unless notice of claim is given as required by this section. [¶] (2) Notice of claim shall be given within the following applicable period of time[:] … [¶] ... [¶] (b) ...within 180 days after the alleged loss or injury." (Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 30.275, subds. (1), (2)(b).)
2 the provision full faith and credit would evince an impermissible policy of discriminatory hostility to the provision.2 We, therefore, grant the petition.
II
BACKGROUND
Sutherland's complaint asserts causes of action for negligence and negligent misrepresentation against Oregon State.3 The complaint alleges Sutherland was severely injured when a crane he was operating tipped over. At the time, he was using the crane to load a stack container owned by Oregon State onto a vessel owned by his employer, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, a department of the University of California, San Diego. The stack container's weight was not displayed on its exterior and was not accurately recorded on the bill of lading provided by Oregon State.
Oregon State demurred to the complaint, asserting the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute claims for negligence and negligent misrepresentation against Oregon State because the complaint does not and cannot allege compliance with the 2 As application of the claims notice provision is dispositive of Sutherland's complaint against Oregon State, we need not decide whether other provisions of the Oregon Tort Claims Act, including its damages cap (Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 30.271), are entitled to full faith and credit.
3 The complaint asserts other negligence-related causes of action against other parties. Those parties and causes of action are not before us in this proceeding.
3 Oregon Tort Claims Act's claims notice provision. Oregon State argued the Clause requires such compliance.4 Sutherland opposed the demurrer, arguing Oregon State lost the benefits and protections of the Oregon Tort Claims Act when Oregon State consciously decided to engage in activities in California causing injury to a California resident. Sutherland also argued applying the Oregon Tort Claims Act, particularly its claims notice provision, would violate California's public policy of protecting the legal rights of its citizens and ensuring they are fully compensated by injuries caused by others.
Oregon State countered that applying the Oregon Tort Claims Act's claims notice provision would not undermine California's public policy because California's Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.) contains similar claims notice provisions (see Gov. Code, §§ 911.2, subd. (a), 945.4)5 and both acts share similar governmental purposes. Conversely, not applying the Oregon Tort Claims Act's claims notice provision would be hostile to and discriminate against Oregon in violation of the Clause.
4 Oregon State also argued the comity doctrine requires such compliance; however, Oregon State is not relying on the comity doctrine to support its position in this writ proceeding.
5 Government Code section 911.2, subd. (a) provides: "A claim relating to a cause of action ... for injury to person ... shall be presented ... not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action."
Government Code section 945.4 provides: "[N]o suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to presented ... until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board." 4 The court overruled the demurrer. The court acknowledged California and Oregon have similar government claims notice provisions, but found the Oregon Tort Claims Act has a damages cap and California's Government Claims Act does not. The court further found California's public policy of protecting people injured within its borders would not be promoted by applying the Oregon Tort Claims Act because applying it would only benefit Oregon's public fisc and effectively deprive Sutherland of a remedy against Oregon State.
III
DISCUSSION
We review a decision to overrule a demurrer de novo. (Green Valley Landowners Assn. v. City of Vallejo (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 425, 432.) The federal Constitution provides, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." (U.S. Const., art. IV, § 1; Franchise Tax Bd. v. Hyatt (2003) 538 U.S. 488, 494 [123 S.Ct. 1683, 155 L.Ed.2d 702] (Hyatt I).) A statute is a public act under this provision. (Franchise Tax Bd. v. Hyatt (2016) ___ U.S.
___ [136 S.Ct. 1277, 1281, 194 L.Ed.2d 431] (Hyatt II).) Consequently, the Oregon Tort Claims Act, including its claims notice provision, is entitled to full faith and credit in California.
However, the entitlement to full faith and credit is not absolute. On subject matters in which California is competent to legislate, the Clause does not require California to apply another state's statute if the other state's statute reflects a conflicting and opposing policy. (Hyatt I, supra, 538 U.S. at pp. 494, 496; Hyatt II, supra, 136 S.Ct.
5 at p. 1281.) California is undoubtedly competent to legislate on the subject matter of personal injuries to one of its citizens within its borders. (Hyatt I, at p. 494.)
Additionally, " ' "for [California's] substantive law to be selected in a constitutionally permissible manner, [California] must have a significant contact or significant aggregation of contacts, creating state interests, such that choice of its law is neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair." ' " (Hyatt I, supra, 538 U.S. at pp. 494–495.)
California has sufficient contacts to apply its substantive law in this case as Sutherland was injured while working here. (Id. at p. 495, citing Carroll v. Lanza (1955) 349 U.S.
408, 413 [75 S.Ct. 804, 99 L.Ed. 1183] ["The State where the tort occurs certainly has a concern in the problems following in the wake of the injury"]; Pac. Emplrs Ins. Co. v. Indus. Accident Comm'n (1939) 306 U.S. 493, 503 [59 S.Ct. 629, 83 L.Ed. 940] ["Few matters could be deemed more appropriately the concern of the state in which [an] injury occurs or more completely within its power"].)
Nonetheless, applying the Oregon Tort Claims Act's claim notice provision would not conflict with or violate California's public policy as California's Government Claims Act has similar claims notice provisions (Gov. Code, §§ 911.2, subd. (a), 945.4). Both acts' provisions serve similar purposes, including allowing investigation of claims while evidence is fresh and available, facilitating settlement of meritorious claims, and addressing the circumstances giving rise to the claims. (Compare Dunn v. City of Milwaukie (2015) 270 Ore. App. 478, 488 [348 P.3d 301]; Robinson v. Shipley (1983) 64 Ore. App. 794, 797 [669 P.2d 1169]; with Westcon Construction Corp. v. County of Sacramento (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 183, 200; Nelson v. Superior Court (2001) 89 6 Cal.App.4th 565, 573.) Both acts' provisions function similarly by precluding a personal injury claimant from maintaining an action against a covered public entity unless the claimant has provided notice of the claim to the public entity within six months of the claim's accrual. (Compare Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 30.275, subds. (1), (2)(b), with Gov.
Code, §§ 911.2, subd. (a), 945.4.) Lastly, both acts' provisions apply to public colleges and universities.6 (Compare Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 174.109, 174.117, subd. (1)(i), 30.260, subd. (4)(a), with Gov. Code, § 811.2.)
6 California's Government Claims Act applies to the Trustees of the California State University and to community college districts, but "does not apply to claims against the Regents of the University of California." (Gov. Code, §§ 905.6, 911.2.) The exemption for the University of California does not represent a conflicting public policy for purposes of our full faith and credit analysis. Rather, the exemption reflects the University of California's unique constitutional status, which allows it to function "in some ways as an independent sovereign." (See Miklosy v. The Regents of the University of California (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876, 890.) As the California Supreme Court has explained, " 'The California Constitution establishes the Regents [i.e., the University of California] as a "public trust ... with full powers of organization and government." (Cal. Const., art. IX, § 9, subd. (a).) [The Supreme Court has] observed that "Article IX, section 9, grants the [R]egents broad powers to organize and govern the university and limits the Legislature's power to regulate either the university or the [R]egents. This contrasts with the comprehensive power of regulation the Legislature possesses over other state agencies." [Citation.] This grant of constitutional power to the University includes the grant of quasi-judicial powers, a view that is generally accepted in [California] jurisprudence. [Citations.] [¶] The Regents may also exercise quasi- legislative powers, subject to legislative regulation. Indeed, "policies established by the Regents as matters of internal regulation may enjoy a status equivalent to that of state statutes." [Citations.] The authority granted the Regents includes "full powers of organization and government, subject only to such legislative control as may be necessary to insure compliance with the terms of the endowment of the University and the security of its funds." [Citation.] Thus, "[t]he Regents have been characterized as 'a branch of the state itself' [citation] or 'a statewide administrative agency' [citation]" [citation], and "[i]t is apparent that the Regents as a constitutionally created arm of the state have virtual autonomy in self-governance" [citation].' " (Miklosy v. Regents of University of California, supra, at pp. 889–890.) 7 Even if the Oregon Tort Claims Act's claims notice provision did conflict with or violate California's public policy, California may only decline to apply the provision on this ground as long as the decision to do so does not evince a policy of discriminatory hostility to the provision. (Hyatt II, supra, 136 S.Ct. at p. 1281.) Here, a decision declining to apply the provision would evince a policy of discriminatory hostility to the provision because the decision would create a special rule allowing a suit to proceed against Oregon State under circumstances that would preclude a comparable suit against a comparable California public entity. (Id. at p. 1282.) While California has a public policy interest in ensuring adequate recourse for injuries to its citizens, the United States Supreme Court has determined this interest is not sufficient to justify disregarding the Clause. (See id. at p. 1282.) Consequently, we conclude the superior court erred by overruling Oregon State's demurrer.7
IV
DISPOSITION
Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the superior court to vacate its order dated January 18, 2017, overruling Oregon State's demurrer to Sutherland's first amended complaint and enter a new order sustaining the demurrer without leave to 7 Footnote 4 in Hall v. University of Nevada (1972) 8 Cal.3d 522, 526 (Hall), upon which Sutherland relies, does not alter our conclusion. The Hall case predates both the Hyatt I and Hyatt II cases and does not discuss, much less apply, the Clause. It, therefore, offers no relevant guidance for this writ proceeding 8 amend. The stay issued by this court on March 2, 2017, is vacated. Oregon State is awarded its costs in this proceeding. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.493(a)(1)(A), (2).)
McCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, J.
HALLER, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- Green Valley Landowners Ass'n v. City of Vallejo A142808 · 2015-10-16
- Miklosy v. Regents of the University of California No. S139133 · 2008-07-31
- Westcon Construction Corp. v. County of Sacramento C050668 · 2007-06-06
- Tinsley v. American President Lines, Ltd. A050220 · 1992-06-11
- Hall v. University of Nevada S.F. 22942 · 1972-12-21