Masood

MEMORANDUM *

Sohail Masood filed this action in the District Court for the Western District of Washington against his sister, Parveen Saleemi. He alleged that for some twenty-five years he provided the financial support for his mother, Mrs. Khatoon Shahood, and in 1995 purchased and rebuilt a house for her in Karachi, Pakistan. He further alleged that in 1996 or 1997, Saleemi moved in with her mother and in return for Masood providing the costs of running the household, Saleemi agreed to manage the house and make sure that Mrs. Shahood received proper care. The complaint alleges that prior to Mrs. Shahood’s death in Karachi in 2003, Saleemi misappropriated moneys intended for Mrs. Shahood and failed to provide Mrs. Shahood with necessary medical care. It further alleged that Mrs. Shahood was buried “in a non-descript graveyard in a slum on the outskirts of Karachi without recognition, customary religious observations, or respect, knowing that Mrs. Shahood’s religion forbade reburial in a proper and respectful place.”

The complaint alleged claims on behalf of Mrs. Shahood’s estate for false imprisonment, injury, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The complaint also…

dissenting in part:

I concur in Part I of the memorandum disposition, but I respectfully dissent from Part II because the intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) claim should not have been dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Sohail Masood (“Masood”) alleged a “special relationship” between himself and Parveen Saleemi (“Saleemi”): They are siblings, and Masood alleged that Saleemi acted as a fiduciary in accepting Masood’s money for the purpose of taking care of their mother. Saleemi owed Masood more of a duty to “refrain from subjecting the victim to abuse, fright, or shock than would be true in arm’s-length encounters among strangers.” Delaney v. Clifton, 180 Or.App. 119 , 41 P.3d 1099, 1106 (2002). In light of that relationship and the outrageous conduct alleged by Masood, Masood has stated an IIED claim under Oregon law. The IIED claim should have proceeded for factual *157 development, then for assessment under the usual standards for summary judgment, and if there was a genuine issue of material fact, for trial.