Max Zweizig v. Timothy C. Rote;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAX ZWEIZIG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TIMOTHY C. ROTE; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-36060
D.C. No. 3:15-cv-02401-HZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernandez, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 3, 2020
Withdrawn from Submission June 16, 2020
Resubmitted August 2, 2021
Portland, Oregon
Before: WOLLMAN,** FERNANDEZ, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Max Zweizig filed suit against Northwest Direct Teleservices, Inc., its
successors, and Timothy C. Rote in federal district court, alleging claims of
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Roger L. Wollman, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
AUG 2 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

18-36060
2
retaliation and aiding-and-abetting retaliation in violation of Oregon Revised
Statutes § 659A.030(1)(f) and (g). A jury found that Zweizig had suffered $1
million in noneconomic damages. The district court applied the $500,000
noneconomic damages cap set forth in Oregon Revised Statutes § 31.710(1) and
entered judgment against the defendants “jointly and severally in the amount of
five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00).”
Zweizig appealed, arguing that the district court erred in applying the
damages cap. We certified the damages question to the Oregon Supreme Court,
see Zweizig v. Rote, 962 F.3d 484 (9th Cir. 2020), in answer to which it
concluded, “The damages cap in ORS 31.710(1) does not apply to an award of
noneconomic damages for an unlawful employment practice claim under ORS
659A.030 in which the plaintiff does not seek damages that arise out of bodily
injury and instead seeks damages for emotional injury,” Zweizig v. Rote, 368 Or.
79, 81 (2021) (en banc). We thus reverse and remand the case to the district court
for further proceedings consistent with the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --