Court Opinion

ID: 9845818
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:28:50.427323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:22.802392
License: Public Domain

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
I agree that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Carl Bailey’s motion to amend, and that Missouri courts are not likely to extend the cause of *312action for intentional infliction of emotional distress to the facts of this case. As Bayer CropScience has not argued that Bailey suffered “exaggerated and unreasonable emotional distress,” ante, at 311 (internal quotation omitted), and there appears to be no evidence in the record on this question, I do not rely on Bailey’s reaction to the alleged events in reaching my conclusion.