"requires plaintiffs to set forth the facts which support a legal theory"); Hay v. Hay, 100 Nev. 196, 198, 678 P.2d 672, 674 (1984) ("Because Nevada is a notice-pleading jurisdiction, our courts liberally construe pleadings to place into issue matters which are fairly noticed to the adverse party").

Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court dismissing appellant's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim for failure to state a claim REVERSED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order. 1

, J.

Saitta

J. J.

Gibbons

cc: Hon. Douglas W. Herndon, District Judge Thomas J. Tanksley, Settlement Judge Cohen & Padda, LLP Schiff Hardin LLP Eighth District Court Clerk

'Having reviewed respondent's answering brief, we further conclude that respondents have not established that appellant's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim should have otherwise been dismissed based on claim preclusion. See Five Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 1054, 194 P.3d 709, 713 (2008) (requiring that the parties or their privies be the same for claim preclusion to apply).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) I947A 4411#9