Dr. James M. Murphy, proceeding pro se, sued Colonel Richard William Wedan in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The underlying allegations in Murphy's Second Amended Complaint concerned events that occurred in 2015. Murphy filed his lawsuit in August 2021, six years after the alleged incidents. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wedan, ruling that Murphy's claims were time-barred under Washington state law. Murphy appealed, arguing that the statute of limitations should be tolled under the discovery rule until he received a report in 2020, and that the defendant had waived the defense. The case was decided by a three-judge panel without oral argument.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. The court first addressed the statute of limitations, noting that Washington law imposes a three-year limit on personal injury actions under Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.080(2). Since the alleged conduct occurred in 2015 and the suit was filed in 2021, the claims were facially time-barred. The court then addressed Murphy's contention that the defendant waived the affirmative defense. The court held that the defense was properly preserved because Wedan included it in his answers to both the First and Second Amended Complaints, satisfying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c)(1). The court rejected Murphy's argument that a prior motion to dismiss waived the defense, citing authority that arguments made in passing without citation are deemed waived. Regarding the discovery rule, the court found that Murphy knew or should have known of the allegations by 2015 or 2016. The court determined that the Moushon Report, which Murphy claimed triggered the discovery rule, was not sufficient to create a genuine dispute of fact regarding when he should have known of the claims. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of Murphy's Rule 72 motion as moot due to his prior consent to magistrate jurisdiction and declined to consider his fraudulent concealment argument because it was raised for the first time on appeal.
The decision affirms the dismissal of Murphy's personal injury claims, leaving him without a judicial remedy for the alleged 2015 conduct. The ruling reinforces that the statute of limitations is a strict bar in Washington personal injury cases unless the discovery rule is convincingly applied to facts showing the plaintiff could not have known of the injury earlier. It also clarifies that defendants do not waive statute of limitations defenses by omitting them from initial motions to dismiss if they are properly raised in the answer. The case is remanded with instructions to close the matter, and no further discovery is permitted on the limitations issue.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download