3is "not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Id. at 1950; seealso McAdams v. McCord, 584 F.3d 1111, 1113 (8th Cir. 2009).
The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has a number of "essential elements."Crow v. Crawford & Co., 259 S.W.3d 104, 119 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008). Those elements are: "(1) thedefendant’s conduct must be outrageous or extreme; (2) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (3) there must be extreme emotional distress that results in bodily harm; (4) caused bythe defendant’s conduct; and (5) the conduct must be intended solely to cause extreme emotionaldistress to the victim." Id. Importantly, "[i]t is for the court to determine, in the first instance,whether the defendant’s conduct may be reasonably regarded as so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery." St. Anthony’s Med. Ctr. v. H.S.H., 974 S.W.2d 606, 611 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).With respect to the first element, the conduct must be "so outrageous in character, and soextreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious,and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239, 249 (Mo. banc 1997). Here, Defendant Richie’s alleged actionable conduct is asking his readers: "If you knowthis (S.C.) girl please fill me in because now it is game on." Defendant Richie did not request falseinformation, rumors, or speculation about the Plaintiff. If anything, it appears he sought informationfrom those with personal knowledge about the Plaintiff. Compl. at ¶ 25 ("If you know this ‘S.C.’girl please fill me in . . . .") (emphasis supplied). Nor is Defendant Richie’s statement an insult, an indignity, or a threat. And even if it were,intentional infliction of emotional distress "does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats,annoyances, petty oppressions or other trivialities." Viehweg v. Vic Tanny Int’l of Missouri, Inc.,
Case 4:11-cv-00392-DW Document 34 Filed 09/22/11 Page 3 of 5