AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff, appearing pro se, initiated a lawsuit against the Board of Regents of the University of California, operating as Los Alamos National Laboratories, and several individuals and unnamed co-conspirators, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) among other claims. The case, initially filed in federal court, was remanded to state court after a determination that there was no federal jurisdiction. The Plaintiff's claims were dismissed by the district court, which also granted summary judgment on the IIED claim.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the district court erred in setting aside the entry of default, denying her motion for partial reconsideration of the dismissal order, denying her motion to amend her complaint, and granting summary judgment on her IIED claim. The Plaintiff sought to modify the framing and wording of issues included in the docketing statement without changing their essence and raised concerns about the procedural handling of her case post-remand from federal court.
• Defendants: Contended that the motion to dismiss filed in federal court should still be considered effective upon remand to state court, argued against the Plaintiff's motion for partial reconsideration and amendment of her complaint, and supported the summary judgment on the IIED claim, suggesting that the Plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof required for such a claim.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in setting aside the entry of default.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Plaintiff's motion for partial reconsideration of the dismissal order.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint.
• Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the Plaintiff's IIED claim.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions to grant summary judgment on the Plaintiff's IIED claim and dismiss her remaining claims.

Reasons

• Per CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge, with concurrence from JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, and RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge:
  Entry of Default: The Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion by setting aside the clerk's entry of default, noting that default judgments are disfavored and the record indicated Defendants intended to defend the case actively.
  Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Order: The Court conducted a de novo review of the dismissal order's wording under Section 1(c) and found no error in the district court's findings regarding the exclusivity provisions of the EEOICPA and its application to the Plaintiff's claims.
  Motion to Amend Complaint: The Court agreed with the district court that the Plaintiff's attempt to add an "affirmative counter-defense" was not proper and would be futile, as the claims were barred under the exclusivity provisions of the EEOICPA.
  Summary Judgment: The Court upheld the grant of summary judgment on the IIED claim, agreeing with the district court that the Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish the requirements for an IIED claim, including demonstrating that Defendants' conduct was extreme and outrageous and caused severe mental distress.
  The Court's decision was based on the application of legal standards to the motions and claims presented, including the standard for setting aside an entry of default, the appropriateness of motions for reconsideration and to amend complaints, and the criteria for summary judgment on an IIED claim.