Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)

Citation
Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
Parent Document
Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
Effective Date
2004-01-26

Other Sections in This Document (48)

Full Text

1,186 chars
On de novo review, we readily affirm the district court. Edwards alleges substantial physical and psychological ailments brought on by Marin Park’s conduct. The conduct claimed to have inflicted the distress, however, is limited to Marin Park’s having conducted building inspections and having sent Edwards several allegedly fraudulent documents and a lease renewal offer that, although shorter than she had wanted, complied with California law. See Cal. Civil Code § 768. As the district court properly noted, one necessary element of the California emotional distress tort is “outrageous conduct by the defendant,” Pitman v. City of Oakland, 197 Cal.App.3d 1037, 1046-47, 243 Cal.Rptr. 306 (1988), ie., conduct “so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community,” Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 209, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 *1067P.2d 894 (1982). Taking all her allegations as true, the conduct Edwards describes simply is not objectively outrageous in the sense required for it to sound in intentional infliction of emotional distress. Hence we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the emotional distress claim.7 III. CONCLUSION