Opinion ID: 2162360
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Paul Dhaliwal's testimony.

Text: Paul Dhaliwal, a client of Goyal, testified that he met a woman named Janet David at a restaurant on K Street, N.W. Learning that Ms. David was looking for a job, he passed her name on to Goyal.
At the conclusion of the evidence, and after disposing of several collateral matters, [8] the trial judge permitted the case to go to the jury on Homan's claim for compensatory damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury returned a verdict in Homan's favor. The judge then issued a 15-page memorandum opinion in which she entered JNOV in Goyal's favor. In her opinion, the judge noted that to establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff must show (1) extreme and outrageous conduct on the part of the defendant, which (2) intentionally or recklessly (3) causes the plaintiff severe emotional distress. See, e.g., Waldon v. Covington, 415 A.2d 1070, 1076 (D.C.1980) (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 46 (1965)) (hereinafter RESTATEMENT). [9] The judge concluded, as a matter of law, that Homan had failed to satisfy his burden with respect to any of these three elements. Homan filed a timely notice of appeal.