Vallo, 298 F.Supp.2d at 1233-35 (amendment to bring intentional infliction of emotional distress claim denied as futile as arises out of assault and battery); Trujillo v. United States, 2003 WL 23358261, *4-5, 313 F.Supp.2d 1146, 1152 (D.N.M.2003)(conduct underlying negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, described as “physical assault,” clearly arises out of intentional tort claims and is barred by § 2680(h)); cf. Truman v. United States, 26 F.3d 592, 595-96 (5th Cir.1994)(as no allegation that offensive contact directly or indirectly resulted from perpetrator’s actions, claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress cannot arise out of battery or assault and is not barred by § 2680(h)); Sheehan v. United States, 896 F.2d 1168, 1172-73 (9th Cir.1990)(<HOLDING>). An Order in accordance with this Memorandum
recognizing the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress recognizing torts of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress holding that act did not bar intentional infliction of emotional distress claim holding that intentional infliction of emotional distress is a personal injury tort holding claim based on conduct constituting intentional infliction of emotional distress not excluded as a matter of law from ftca by  2680h remanding for determination of whether allegations will permit proof of conduct not within definition of excluded torts so as to support claim of injury from intentional infliction of emotional distress independent of injury suffered from excluded conduct