Ernest Calhoon v. Richard Thierolf, Jr.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedOctober 23, 2024
Docket21-35950
StatusUnpublished

This text of Ernest Calhoon v. Richard Thierolf, Jr. (Ernest Calhoon v. Richard Thierolf, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ernest Calhoon v. Richard Thierolf, Jr., (9th Cir. 2024).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 23 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERNEST R. CALHOON, No. 21-35950

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00884-MC

v. MEMORANDUM * RICHARD B. THIEROLF, Jr.; JACOBSON, THIEROLF AND DICKEY P.C.; DOES, 1- 100,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 16, 2024**

Before: SILVERMAN, R. NELSON, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Ernest R. Calhoon appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his diversity action alleging various federal and state law claims

connected to the estates of his mother and maternal grandparents and the maternal

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). grandparents’ guardianship proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of the applicable statute of

limitations and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cholla Ready Mix,

Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed as time-barred Calhoon’s claims on

behalf of his mother’s and grandparents’ estates because Calhoon failed to raise

those claims within the applicable limitations period. See Or. Rev. Stat.

§§ 12.190(1) (stating that limitations period for actions brought after death is

within one year of death); 30.075(1) (stating that limitations period for personal

injury actions brought after death is within three years of death); 30.020(1) (stating

that limitations period for certain wrongful death actions is within three years of

death); see also Mathies v. Hoeck, 588 P.2d 1, 2-3 (Or. 1978) (explaining that

Oregon’s general personal injury statute, Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110(1), provides a

two-year limitations period that, in cases of fraud or deceit, “begins to run when

the plaintiff knows or should have known of the alleged fraud”).

The district court properly dismissed Calhoon’s individual claims because

Calhoon failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Ashcroft

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that to avoid dismissal, “a complaint

must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief

that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

2 21-35950 The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying further leave to

amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide

Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of

review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when

amendment would be futile).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Calhoon’s post-

judgment motion because Calhoon failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch.

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th

Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and bases for reconsideration).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in staying discovery pending

the outcome of defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior,

342 F.3d 1080, 1084, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review and

explaining that “a decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed except upon the

clearest showing that the denial of discovery results in actual and substantial

prejudice to the complaining litigant” (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted)).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

3 21-35950

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
656 F.3d 1034 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
Don Laub Debbie Jacobsen Ted Sheely California Farm Bureau Federation v. United States Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary, Department of the Interior United States Environmental Protection Agency Marianne Horinko, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Administrator of the U.S. Epa Department of the Army, (Civil Works) Joseph W. Westphal, Dr., in His Official Capacity as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) Donald Evans, in His Official Capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce United States Department of Commerce U.S. Department of Agriculture Ann M. Veneman, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Peter T. Madsen, Brigadier General, in His Official Capacity as Commander, South Pacific Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Natural Resources Conservation Service Charles Bell, in His Capacity as California State Conservationist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service National Marine Fisheries Service Rebecca Lent, Dr., Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Stephen Thompson, in His Official Capacity as Manager of California-Nevada Operations of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service United States Bureau of Reclamation Kirk C. Rodgers, in His Official Capacity as Director, Mid-Pacific Region of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Gray Davis, Governor of the State of California California Resources Agency Mary D. Nichols, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of the California Resources Agency California Environmental Protection Agency Winston Hickox, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency
342 F.3d 1080 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
Padgett v. Wright
587 F.3d 983 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
Mathies v. Hoeck
588 P.2d 1 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1978)
Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish
382 F.3d 969 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ernest Calhoon v. Richard Thierolf, Jr., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ernest-calhoon-v-richard-thierolf-jr-ca9-2024.