Opinion ID: 1227333
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Mary Martin's State Law Tort Claims for Emotional Distress

Text: Mary Martin alleges a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress under California Law and argues that the alleged violations of the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and § 1983 support her claim that Defendants' conduct was outrageous. In order to establish a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, Mary must prove, among other things, extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress. Christensen v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.3d 868, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 79, 820 P.2d 181, 202 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). As discussed above, Plaintiffs' claims of discrimination under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and § 1983 fail. Consequently, this state law claim fails as well. Mary also alleges a bystander claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress under California law. In order to establish that claim, Mary must prove, among other things, that she [wa]s present at the scene of the injury producing event at the time it occur[red] and [wa]s then aware that it [wa]s causing injury to the victim. Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal.3d 644, 257 Cal.Rptr. 865, 771 P.2d 814, 829-30 (1989). Because we have held that Dorothy suffered no legally cognizable injury, Mary cannot recover on a bystander theory. Accordingly, we affirm the district court on Mary Martin's state law tort claims of emotional distress.