Arnold

Arnold v. Amtrak

Good Law
13 F. App'x 573
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 27, 2001No. 99-36232; D.C. No. CV-98-05476-FDBCalifornia2,627 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff-appellant, Alex Arnold, was twelve years old in 1987 when he was traveling unaccompanied on an Amtrak passenger train pursuant to a free pass provided to him by his step-mother, an Amtrak employee. Arnold claims that he was raped by another passenger on the train. As a result of the attack, Arnold claims he suffers severe emotional and psychological injuries. He did not discover the causal connection between the attack and his injuries until January of 1998. Soon thereafter, Arnold brought an action for negligence in federal court against Amtrak. Arnold timely appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Amtrak, which was predicated on a finding that Arnold’s claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The district court had diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a). Our jurisdiction is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Reviewing the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, Botosan v. Paul McNally Realty, 216 F.3d 827, 830 (9th Cir.2000), and viewing the facts in the record in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc), we hold that the district court erred in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.