Claudia Dossat v. Hoffmann-Laroche, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

Hoffman-La Roche Inc. and Roche Laboratories Inc. (collectively, “Roche”) appeal the district court’s denial of its motions for judgment as a matter of law with respect to Randy Dossat’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“intentional infliction claim”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review de novo the denial of Roche’s motions for judgment as a matter of law. Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc., 658 F.3d 936, 941 (9th Cir.2011). We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and legal history of the case, we need not recount it here.

I

. The district court correctly concluded that issues of material fact precluded it from granting Roche’s Rule 50(a) motions for judgment on Dossat’s intentional infliction claim. The district court’s decision to submit the intentional infliction claim to the jury was therefore proper. Furthermore, “while a district court is permitted to enter judgment as a matter of law [under Rule 50(a) ] when it concludes that the evidence is legally insufficient, it is not required to do so.” Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394, 405 , 126 S.Ct. 980 ,…