Krela Ex Rel. Estate of Kryla v. Kryla

MEMORANDUM

Gary and Linda Erela appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their diversity action, in which they alleged claims of wrongful death, negligence under Oregon’s survivor statute, elder abuse, and professional negligence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The district court properly considered Oregon law in determining whether the Erelas had standing to bring their Oregon statutory claims. A federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction must apply state substantive law. Goldberg v. Pac. Indem. Co., 627 F.3d 752, 755 (9th Cir.2010) (citing Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 , 58 S.Ct. 817 , 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938)). Accordingly, the Erelas can raise state law claims in this diversity action only if they could have raised those claims in state court.

The district court correctly concluded that the Erelas lacked standing to bring their statutory claims for wrongful death, see Or.Rev.Stat. § 30.020, personal injury under Oregon’s survivor statute, see Or. Rev.Stat. § 30.075, and elder abuse, see Or.Rev.Stat. § 124.100, because neither Greg nor Linda Erela is a personal representative of George Eryla’s estate. The Oregon courts have held that…