Zane Hardin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

Ruth Hardin, personal representative for Zane Hardin, appeals the district court’s judgment in favor of Wal-Mart on Hardin’s fourteen claims. In this diversity case, Hardin alleges age and disability discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12900-12996, in addition to various other state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Reviewing the district court’s decisions de novo, Castle v. Eurofresh, Inc., 731 F.3d 901, 905-06 (9th Cir.2013), we affirm.

1. As an initial matter, we dismiss Hardin’s claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress for lack of standing. See Berkley v. Dowds, 152 Cal.App.4th 518 , 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 304, 314 (2007); see also Martin v. Cal. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 560 F.3d 1042, 1050-51 (9th Cir.2009) (“[Ujnder California law, the ' Estate’s tort claims for emotional distress did not survive the death of [the plaintiff].”). Sullivan v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 15 Cal.4th 288 , 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 74 , 935 P.2d 781 (1997), is inapplicable because Hardin was not awarded judgment in his favor on these claims while he was alive. See 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 74 ,…