2017 ORS 12.020¹
When action deemed begun

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, for the purpose of determining whether an action has been commenced within the time limited, an action shall be deemed commenced as to each defendant, when the complaint is filed, and the summons served on the defendant, or on a codefendant who is a joint contractor, or otherwise united in interest with the defendant.

(2) If the first publication of summons or other service of summons in an action occurs before the expiration of 60 days after the date on which the complaint in the action was filed, the action against each person of whom the court by such service has acquired jurisdiction shall be deemed to have been commenced upon the date on which the complaint in the action was filed. [Amended by 1973 c.731 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Where federal matter or federal cause of ac­tion is involved, time for commence­ment of ac­tion is not governed by this statute, but by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 2. Wells v. City of Portland, 102 FRD 796 (1984)

Substituted service under ORCP 7D was sufficient for court to acquire jurisdic­tion within period of limita­tion and mailing of the complaint was not also necessary. Korgan v. Gantenbein, 74 Or App 154, 702 P2d 427 (1985)

Limita­tions period of this sec­tion was not tolled by ORS 12.150 (Suspension of running of statute by absence or concealment) where defendant foreign corpora­tion could have been served under the long arm statute. Bancorp Leasing and Financial Corp. v. Agusta Avia­tion Corpora­tion, 813 F2d 272 (1987)

Ac­tion under federal maritime law, which is subject to federal statute of limita­tions, was commenced at time complaint was filed, and this sec­tion, which purports to make time of service time of commence­ment for limita­tions purposes, was inapplicable. Hurley v. Shinmei Kisen K.K., 98 Or App 180, 779 P2d 1041 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

With regard to commence­ment of ac­tion, specific pro­ce­dures control over general pro­ce­dures in this sec­tion. State v. 132.85 Acres, 114 Or App 339, 834 P2d 526 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Where plaintiff is indigent per­son who is incarcerated in prison facility, civil ac­tion is deemed “filed” when complaint is received by court. Stull v. Hoke, 326 Or 72, 948 P2d 722 (1997)

Sixty-day period during which service of summons allows ac­tion to be deemed commenced on date complaint was filed is not affected by federal rule es­tab­lishing longer max­i­mum time for service. Torre v. Brickey, 278 F3d 917 (9th Cir. 2002)

Service of corrected summons within 60 days after filing of complaint does not relate back unless original summons providing notice was served on proper defendant prior to running of statute of limita­tions. Smith v. American Legion Post 83, 188 Or App 139, 71 P3d 136 (2003), Sup Ct review denied

Where amended complaint does not add addi­tional parties, service of summons and copy of amended complaint within 60 days after filing of original complaint is sufficient to relate back to filing date of unserved original complaint. Kowalski v. Hereford L’Oasis, 190 Or App 236, 79 P3d 319 (2003), Sup Ct review denied

Provision that ac­tion commences upon filing if summons is served within following 60 days applies to claims under Oregon Tort Claims Act. Baker v. City of Lakeside, 343 Or 70, 164 P3d 259 (2007)

Chapter 12

Notes of Decisions

An ac­tion for per­sonal injuries caused by breach of implied warranty is clearly one for which “different limita­tion is prescribed by statute” under ORS 12.010 (Time of commencing actions) and thus is not governed by pro­vi­sions of this chapter. Redfield v. Mead, Johnson & Co., 266 Or 273, 512 P2d 776 (1973)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 12—Limitations of Actions and Suits, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors012.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 12, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano012.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.