" Hougum v. Valley Memorial Homes, 1998 ND 24, ¶ 26, 574 N.W.2d 812. In G.K.T. v. T.L.T., 2011 ND 115, ¶ 17, 798 N.W.2d 872, this Court reiterated that "Muchow and its progeny repeatedly emphasize the strenuously high, 'all possible bounds of decency' standard."Hysjulien, at ¶ 40.

The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has three elements which include "(1) extreme and outrageous conduct that is (2) intentional or reckless and that causes (3) severe emotional distress." G.K.T. v. T.L.T., 2011 ND 115, ¶ 9, 798 N.W.2d 872 (citing Muchow v. Lindblad, 432 N.W.2d 918, 923-24 (N.D. 1989); Restatement of Torts 2d § 46 (1965)). The Plaintiffs fail to allege that Dr. Ragland suffered from severe emotional distress.

The district court must act as a gate-keeper and initially decide, as a matter of law, whether the conduct in question can reasonably be considered "extreme and outrageous." Hougum , at ¶ 26 ; G.K.T. v. T.L.T. , 2011 ND 115, ¶ 9, 798 N.W.2d 872. "[I]f the district court determines that reasonable people could differ, the question of whether the defendant's conduct is sufficiently extreme and outrageous is left to the trier-of-fact." G.K.T. , at ¶ 9.

” Hougum v. Valley Memorial Homes, 1998 ND 24, ¶ 26, 574 N.W.2d 812. In G.K.T. v. T.L.T., 2011 ND 115, ¶ 17, 798 N.W.2d 872, this Court reiterated that “Muchow and its progeny repeatedly emphasize the strenuously high, ‘all possible bounds of decency’ standard.” [¶ 41] Whether the alleged actions meet the threshold of extreme and outrageous conduct is a question of law to be decided by the court.

Under North Dakota law, which the parties also reference, the required elements of an IIED claim are essentially identical: “(1) extreme and outrageous conduct that is (2) intentional or reckless and that causes (3) severe emotional distress.” G.K.T. v. T.L.T., 798 N.W.2d 872, 874 (N. Dak. 2011) (quoting Muchow v. Lindblad, 435 N.W.2d 918, 923-24 (N. Dak. 1989)).