NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDI KRAJA, No. 17-16105
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01983-APG-NJK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
BELLAGIO, LLC; VINCENT ROTOLO,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Andi Kraja appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in his
employment discrimination action alleging federal and state law claims. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Davis v. City of Las
Vegas, 478 F.3d 1048, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). We reverse and remand.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The district court granted summary judgment on Kraja’s intentional
infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) claim because it concluded that Kraja
failed to establish, as a matter of law, that defendants’ conduct could be considered
extreme and outrageous. However, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to Kraja, Kraja raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
defendants’ conduct could constitute extreme and outrageous conduct with the
intention of, or reckless disregard for, causing emotional distress. See Nelson v.
City of Las Vegas, 665 P.2d 1141, 1145 (Nev. 1983) (elements of an IIED claim
under Nevada law); see also Posadas v. City of Reno, 851 P.2d 438, 444 (Nev.
1993) (discussing situations in which the question of what constitutes extreme and
outrageous conduct was a question reserved for a jury). We reverse the district
court’s summary judgment on Kraja’s IIED claim, and remand for further
proceedings on this claim only.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
2 17-16105