Unpublished Disposition, 932 F.2d 972 (9th Cir. 1991)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Owusu Ananeh-Firempong ("Ananeh") appeals a district court order granting summary judgment in favor of British Caledonian Airways ("BCA") on Ananeh's claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Ananeh also appeals a jury verdict in favor of BCA for negligent aircraft maintenance. We affirm.

On the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the district court granted BCA summary judgment on the ground that the facts were insufficient to establish conduct necessary to sustain such a claim. We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Mackey v. Pioneer National Bank, 867 F.2d 520, 524 (9th Cir. 1989).

Under California law, the intentional infliction of emotional distress without physical trauma can be a ground for liability only when the defendant's conduct is outrageous or has gone beyond all reasonable bounds of decency. Perati v. Atkinson, 213 Cal. App. 2d 472, 474, 28 Cal. Rptr. 898, 899 (1963). This tort is not intended to redress "mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions or other trivialities," Agarwal v. Johnson, 25 Cal. 3d 932, 946, 603 P.2d 58, 67, 160 Cal. Rptr. 141, 150 (1979). Nor is the tort intended to redress feelings of embarrassment or humiliation. Crain v. Burroughs Corp., 560 F. Supp. 849, 853 (C.D. Cal. 1983).

The district court correctly found that Ananeh failed to produce evidence sufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

If the defendant in a run-of-the-mill civil case moves for summary judgment or for directed verdict based on the lack of proof of a material fact, the judge must ask himself not whether he thinks the evidence unmistakably favors one side or the other but whether a fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the plaintiff on the evidence presented.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). BCA's agent had a legitimate excuse to ask Ananeh to move, and to inquire whether he spoke English when he did not move. Since this was an international flight on an international carrier, non-English speaking passengers were not uncommon at the Customer Service Desk. Ananeh failed to show any racial motivation for BCA's actions, and failed to prove that the agent's words were outrageous or had gone beyond the reasonable bounds of decency to constitute a tort.

Ananeh also seeks a new trial on the ground that the jury's verdict against him on the negligent aircraft maintenance claim is not supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence "is such relevant evidence as reasonable minds might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Benigni v. City of Hemet, 879 F.2d 473, 480 (9th Cir. 1988), reh'g denied, 882 F.2d 356 (1989).

There was ample evidence to support the jury's verdict dismissing Ananeh's claim. Testimony by BCA's Supervisor of Passenger Services indicated that Ananeh's assigned seat was occupied on the previous flight from London to Los Angeles, and there was no report of defects with the seat. Ananeh's story of overall clad mechanics boarding the plane, examining the seat, and declaring the "gears" not repairable was completely refuted by BCA's Station Engineer. Furthermore, a BCA engineer testified that the seat in question was incapable of extreme movement sufficient to cause a whiplash injury. A jury could easily find Ananeh's claim to be meritless.

The district court's grant of summary judgment and the jury verdict in favor of BCA are AFFIRMED.