Or. State Univ. v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty.

*1182 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.

*1183 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 *35 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. Sutherland alternatively contends, if the Clause does require compliance with the provision, he can amend the complaint to plead facts showing compliance. 2

We agree the superior court should have sustained Oregon State's demurrer because the Oregon Tort Claims Act's claims notice provision is entitled to…