Michelle Hahn v. Steven Strasser

Good Law
484 F. App'x 155
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 13, 201211-35247, 11-35326California749 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

In this diversity breach-of-contract action, Gerald and Michelle Hahn appeal the district court’s dismissal of their suit against Steven and Jane Doe Strasser as time-barred. Gerald Hahn (“Hahn”) contends Steven Strasser (“Strasser”) agreed to pay him one-half of a contingent commission fee upon resale of a certain piece of commercial real estate (the “Property”), which occurred in 2004. Hahn did not learn of the sale until 2010, at which time he commenced this action. Because we conclude Washington’s six-year statute of limitations applies to this action, and the Hahns’ suit is therefore timely, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Washington has a three-year statute (Wash. Rev.Code § 4.16.080), and a six-year statute of limitations ( Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.040 ). An oral agreement or one that requires a resort to parol evidence to establish essential elements of a contract is governed by the three-year statute. Cahn v. Foster & Marshall, Inc., 38 Wash.App. 838 , 658 P.2d 42, 43 (1982). The essential elements of a contract are “the subject matter of the contract, the parties, the promise, the terms and conditions, and (in some but not all jurisdictions) the…

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.