Opinion ID: 688371
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Pendent State Tort Claim

Text: 26 The district court found that Fredericks had failed to state a claim for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress arising out of the arrest and several other alleged incidents of harassment. 4 Under Oregon law, to state a claim for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff must allege that the defendant performed acts which constituted an extraordinary transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct. See Madani v. Kendall Ford, Inc., 818 P.2d 930, 933-34 (Or. 1991); Hammond v. Central Lane Communications Ctr., 816 P.2d 593, 599 (Or. 1991); see also Rice v. Comtek Mfg. of Oregon, Inc., 766 F. Supp. 1539, 1543 (D. Or. 1990) (Oregon courts require an extremely outrageous transgression of social norms in order for a plaintiff to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress). 27 Here, none of the incidents alleged by Fredericks taken individually or as a whole constitutes extraordinary transgressions of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct. Moreover, as Fredericks observes in his reply brief, his arrest by Officer Burke is the central part of his state-law claims of intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress. Appellant's Reply Brief at 6. Given these circumstances, the district court did not err by dismissing Fredericks's state tort claims. 28 AFFIRMED.