Cannon

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

The majority’s disposition is correct, except with respect to its ruling regarding Appellants’ notice to various city and county public entity defendants. Under the Oregon Tort Claims Act (OTCA), Or.Rev. Stat. § 30.275(2)(b), notice must be given to public bodies within a statutorily required notice period of 180 days. Because Appellants did not provide notice to the public entity defendants within the 180-day notice period, I must dissent from this portion of the disposition.

The majority acknowledges that the OTCA requires that notice be provided no later than 180 days after the alleged loss or injury. However, the majority adopted Appellants’ unfounded argument that a wholly unrelated procedural statute could be imported into the OTCA in order to extend the OTCA notice period from 180 days up to 240 days. The majority is wrong for several reasons. First, “[t]he purpose of the notice requirement of [the OTCA] is to allow the public body an opportunity to investigate a matter promptly and to settle all meritorious claims without litigation.” Flug v. Univ. of Oregon, 170 Or.App. 660 , 13 P.3d 544, 551 (2000), aff'd, 335 Or. 540 , 73…

MEMORANDUM *

Appellants Philip Scott Cannon, Mathias Cannon, and Philip Scott Cannon, on behalf of his minor child, QC, appeal the district court’s orders granting the State Appellees’ and the Morrow Estate’s motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and the County and City Appellees’ motion for summary judgment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and now affirm in part and reverse in part.

First, Appellants argue that the district court erred in ruling Claims 4, 13, and 14 for negligence are barred by Oregon’s 10-year statute of ultimate repose, which is triggered by the relevant act or omission. Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.115(1); Shasta View Irrigation Dist. v. Amoco Chems. Corp., 329 Or. 151, 162 , 986 P.2d 536 (1999). With respect to these three state claims, the district court correctly determined that all of the alleged conduct had occurred more than ten years before the filing of the complaint. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of these claims. Appellants argue for an exception based on a continuous relationship with certain Appellees, but this argument was not raised before the district court, and so we deem it waived. United States…