MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN J. McCONNELL, JR., United States District Judge.

Jane Doe, a senior at Brown University, was caught cheating on a take-home exam and admitted as much in a letter to the University's Academic Code Committee. Applying the Academic Code, Brown conducted a hearing and imposed a punishment that was harsher than Jane Doe likely expected, because this turned out to be her second incident of plagiarism in her four years on campus. Despite this history of academic dishonesty, the University permitted Jane Doe to graduate on time with a Brown University degree. Rather than move on from this sad history in her academic career, Jane Doe brought suit alleging various contract and tort claims against the University and its employees about the process and discipline that Brown administered. This Court finds that Brown did not breach its contract with Jane Doe, and that Jane Doe has established no other actionable claims against the University or its employees. The Court therefore grants summary judgment for the Defendants.

FACTS

The facts relevant to resolving this legal matter are not in dispute.

Brown University's Academic Code is contained in a document entitled "Academic & Student Conduct Codes," which Brown provided to Jane Doe when she accepted the University's offer of admission. ECF No. 1-1; ECF No. 1 at 5-6 ¶ 28. The Academic Code is a concise portion of that document, which lists academic offenses, procedures for Academic Code hearings, and penalties for violating the Code.1 ECF No. 1-1 at 2.

The introductory section of the Academic Code, entitled "Basic Policy," states:

ECF No. 1-1 at 6-7.

The section labeled "Offenses Against the Academic Code" contains the following relevant provisions:

ECF No. 1-1 at 7-8.

Next, the Academic Code explains the "Procedures for Academic Code Hearings":

Id. at 9-13.

Finally, the Code also lists the "Penalties for Violating the Academic Code":

Id. at 13-17.

Jane Doe2 was accused of violating the Academic Code based on her answers to a take-home midterm exam for Public Health Policy 320, a course taught by Professor Melissa A. Clark. ECF No. 1 at 8, 10 ¶¶ 39, 52. After Jane Doe submitted her exam, Professor Clark's teaching assistant alerted the professor to significant similarities between Jane Doe's and another student's — T.L.'s3 — exam.4 Professor Clark then met with Jane Doe and T.L. independently to discuss their exams. Id. at 10 ¶ 52. During her meeting, Jane Doe admitted to collaborating with others on the exam. Id. Professor Clark then wrote letters reporting potential Academic Code violations by Jane Doe and T.L. to the Case Administrator of the Academic Code, Deputy Dean Christopher Dennis. Id. at 11 ¶ 53; ECF No. 35-2 at 5, 7. In accordance with the Academic Code, ECF No. 1-1 at 10, Professor Clark attached the two students' exams to her letters, with "sentences that are identical or nearly identical... highlighted in yellow." ECF No. 35-2 at 5, 7, 11-23. Professor Clark also informed Dean Dennis that "[i]n the week prior to the posting of the exam as well as at the beginning of each class period on November 4, 6, and 11, students were reminded that the exam should be completed independently. The importance of independent work on all assignments was also discussed at the beginning of the semester." Id. at 5, 7.

As part of his screening process to determine whether a more formal hearing was warranted, Dean Dennis met with Jane Doe and T.L. independently. ECF No. 1 at 11 ¶ 54; ECF No. 35-2 at 9. In her meeting with Dean Dennis, Jane Doe again admitted to collaborating with other students on the exam. ECF No. 1 at 11 ¶ 54.

At the completion of his screening, Dean Dennis informed Jane Doe that her case would be forwarded to the Standing Committee on the Academic Code for a hearing. Id. at 11 ¶ 57. Jane Doe then submitted a statement to the Committee, in which she stated:

ECF No. 35-2 at 25.

Next, the three-person Committee held separate hearings for T.L. and Jane Doe, with Jane Doe's hearing preceding T.L.'s. Id. at 30. Dean Dennis was present at Jane Doe's hearing. Id. at 29. The Committee began by explaining the charges and the evidence to Jane Doe, specifically focusing her attention on exam question # 4. ECF No 35-2 at 31-32. The Committee explained, "We need to know why, almost word for word, your answer to that question is the same as T.L.'s." Id. at 32.

In response, Jane Doe explained that she initially put off the exam, because she was working on other assignments. Id. at 33. She was then "asked by a group of people" if she "wanted to collaborate on the exam." Id. Seeing "a bunch of students also working in groups and bouncing ideas off of one another," she acquiesced to collaborating with a group of "like, five people." Id. at 33, 38. She described this decision as "my mistake in the assumption of being able to collaborate with one another." Id. at 33.

She explained that it was not her practice to work with others on exams. For the mid-term, however, Jane Doe said she "knew to independently write [her] own... but my assumption was that it was okay to [ask other students] what do you think for this question? And that's what I did, [] with a group of four or five people, worked on this assignment [together]." Id. She stated that she "knew to complete [the exam] independently, in terms of your own words, but I didn't think it was a problem to bounce ideas off of one another of how to write the — or what answers to give for each question." Id. at 50-51.

Jane Doe explained that for question # 4:

Id. at 34-35.

When asked about collaboration on other assignments, Jane Doe explained that "the nature of the class was that it was okay to ... bounce these ideas off of one another, but to write it on your own." Id. at 36. When asked whether there was a policy on collaboration, Jane Doe replied, "No, I mean, I know from the exam, that — I mean, [Prof. Clark] said — I don't remember what she said in class. I'm sorry, I have been to every class, but I can't remember that far back, but I don't really know what the policy was on it." Id. at 36.

After listening to Jane Doe's explanations and rationalizations, the Committee told her that "what we're going to wrestle with, is why your answers and T.L.'s answers overlap so much, almost word for word ... and there is no overlap with the others." Id. at 38. To this, she explained:

Id. at 38-39.

When pressed to explain why Jane Doe came up with the exact same sentences as T.L., she explained, "I wasn't coming up with the same sentences. It was she was spraying out these ideas for the intervention process, and like, what — like, this is what we should do for this; this is how — like, that's how there was similarities in the sentences and the structures." Id. at 42. Jane Doe admitted that out of the five people in her group, only she and T.L.'s answers were identical. Id. at 44. She admitted that T.L. "would come up saying her — like, how she was going to say it and then, like write it down, and I was in the process of also writing it down." Id. at 47. She also admitted that T.L. and "one of the other girls" were leading the meeting when they were working on the exam. Id. at 48.

At the end of the hearing, Jane Doe made a final statement:

Id. at 48-49.

Later the same day, the Committee held T.L.'s hearing. Id. at 59-79. The Committee found that T.L. violated the Academic Code "by sharing information about the midterm exam," and penalized her by assigning her a loss of credit in the exercise and by placing a permanent entry in her internal academic record about the violation. Id. at 80. The Committee stated it will notify her parents, and that the violation can be mentioned in an institutional letter of support. Id. at 80-81.

The Committee found that Jane Doe also violated the Academic Code "by making unauthorized use of the work of another in taking the midterm exam." Id. at 85. After determining that Jane Doe violated the Academic Code, but before deciding on the appropriate discipline, the Committee was informed by Dean Dennis that Jane Doe had a prior Academic Code violation while at Brown. Id. at 85, 110-115.5

In December 2012, in her junior year, Jane Doe was found to have plagiarized papers in two history courses, including one paper where "she simply copied whole paragraphs from www.sparknotes.com." Id. at 110. During the investigation into this incident, Jane Doe submitted a statement acknowledging and apologizing for the violations, and explaining that she "plagiarized sentences out of a lack of confidence in [her] own work." Id. at 111. The Committee found that Jane Doe violated the Academic Code, and penalized her with: 1) a permanent entry in her academic folder; 2) parental notification; 3) a transcript notation of a violation of the Academic Code; 4) a "Directed No Credit" for the two courses; and 4) a requirement that any letter of institutional support she might request would include a reference to her Academic Code violation. Id. at 112-13.6 Jane Doe unsuccessfully appealed that decision. ECF No. 35-2 at 114.

Taking into account her plagiarism offense from the year before, the Committee recommended that her penalty for the 2013 violation include: 1) suspension for a semester; 2) a permanent record entry in her internal academic folder; 3) parental notification; and 4) the "withholding of an institutional letter for support for graduate or professional school or employment." Id. at 85. Jane Doe would also lose her university privileges during her suspension. Id. at 86. The Committee also recommended that the notation of her previous Academic Code violation be restored to her transcript. Id. at 86. Dean Dennis summarized the Committee's findings and sanctions in a letter to Jane Doe. Id. at 92-93.7

Jane Doe appealed the Committee's decision by letter to Margaret Klawunn, Brown's Vice President for Campus Life and Student Services, who was then serving as the interim Dean of the College. ECF No. 15-4 at 2-9; ECF No. 15-1 at 9. Vice President Klawunn upheld the Committee's decision and sanction — except for the Committee's recommendation to reinstate the transcript notation from Jane Doe's previous violation — and fully explained the reasons for her decision in a letter to Jane Doe. ECF 15-5 at 2-3.

Jane Doe subsequently explored her academic options with Associate Dean of the Curriculum Kathleen McSharry. ECF No. 29-2 at 14. Dean McSharry referred Jane Doe to Rhode Island College (RIC) as an alternative educational institution and advised that she could still have sufficient credits to timely graduate from Brown, provided she satisfied certain requirements. Jane Doe enrolled at RIC, and obtained all of the necessary course credits that allowed her to graduate on time and obtain her degree from Brown University.

PROCEDURE

Jane Doe filed a thirteen-count complaint (ECF No. 1) against Brown University, Professor Melissa A. Clark, Vice President Margaret Klawunn, and Dean Christopher M. Dennis. She asserted eight counts against Brown: breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, unreasonable publicity to one's private life, negligent infliction of emotional distress,8 and intentional infliction of emotional distress; two counts each against Professor Clark and Dean Dennis for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress; and one count against Vice President Klawunn for tortious interference with a contract.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, (ECF No. 15) to which Jane Doe objected. ECF No. 22. After reviewing the papers, the Court converted the motion into a motion for summary judgment.

Each party submitted further briefing and submissions. ECF Nos. 29 and 35. At the request of the parties, (ECF No. 36 and 37), the Court held oral argument on May 24, 2016.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the summary judgment process. It provides:

In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, a court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in her favor. Wilson v. Moulison N. Corp., 639 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir.2011). "To defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must establish a trial-worthy issue by presenting enough competent evidence to enable a finding favorable to the nonmoving party." LeBlanc v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 6 F.3d 836, 842 (1st Cir.1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). This evidence "cannot be conjectural or problematic; it must have substance in the sense that it limns differing versions of the truth which a fact finder must resolve at an ensuing trial." Mack v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 871 F.2d 179, 181 (1st Cir.1989).

ANALYSIS

Despite the thirteen separate causes of action set forth in the Complaint,9 Jane Doe's lynchpin allegation is that Brown breached its contract with her by implementing an improper disciplinary procedure and imposing an improper discipline. As a student at a private university challenging the administration's academic dishonesty finding, her suit faces an uphill battle. The relationship between "a student and private university [] is essentially contractual in nature," but presents "unique qualities" that require courts to "construe [the contract] in a manner that leaves the school administration broad discretion to meet its educational and doctrinal responsibilities." Gorman v. St. Raphael Academy, 853 A.2d 28, 34 (R.I.2004).10 The school administration has "broad discretion to meets its educational and doctrinal responsibilities." Id. "A voluntary association [including private educational institutions] may, without direction or interference by the courts, ... adopt ... rules and regulations which will control as to all questions of discipline ... and its right to interpret and administer the same is as sacred as the right to make them." Id. (quoting Edwards v. Indiana State Teachers Ass'n, 749 N.E.2d 1220, 1225 (Ind.Ct.App.2001)). "Private schools must have considerable latitude to formulate and enforce their own rules to accomplish their academic and educational objectives. These rules and regulations generally are binding...." Id. at 39. "Courts have long recognized that matters of academic judgment are generally better left to the educational institutions than to the judiciary and have accorded great deference where such matters are at issue." Mangla v. Brown Univ., 135 F.3d 80, 84 (1st Cir.1998). "Plainly, [judges] may not override [the faculty's professional judgment] unless it is such a substantial departure from accepted academic norms as to demonstrate that the person or committee responsible did not actually exercise professional judgment." Regents of Univ. of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214, 225, 106 S.Ct. 507, 88 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985). The parties agree that the contract at issue is Brown's Academic Code.

Jane Doe has not raised a single disputed issue of material fact, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to her, that would permit a finding that Brown breached this contract. The Defendants are entitled to judgment on all counts.

Contract Claims

Jane Doe admitted facts that establish an Academic Code violation11 because:

There is no factual dispute that Jane Doe violated Brown's Academic Code and that she admitted to facts that establish the violation prior to and at the hearing. The Court now turns to Jane Doe's complaints about the process she received.

Procedural Deficiencies Alleged

From allegation to punishment, the undisputed evidence shows that the process of Jane Doe's cheating inquiry adhered to the procedures set out in Brown's Academic Code. Her arguments to the contrary fail as a matter of law. Starting in her Complaint and multiplying in her subsequent briefs, Jane Doe mustered a multitude of supposed contractual violations. None of them has any basis in fact or law. The Court addresses these in turn:

First, Jane Doe complains that Brown did not provide her with copies of the work in question and other relevant documents prior to her hearing. ECF No. 1 at 26-28. Her assertion evidences a misreading of the Academic Code. According to the Academic Code, the person alleging the violation (in this case Professor Clark) must provide the relevant materials to the University's Case Administrator responsible for determining if the school should convene a hearing. ECF No. 1-1 at 10. Professor Clark did so. ECF No. 35-2 at 5-23. There is no obligation on the part of the University to provide this information to the accused student.12

Second, Jane Doe complains that she did not receive adequate notice of the allegations against her or the potential consequences prior to her hearing. Id. at 26, 28-29. No reasonable fact-finder could agree with her on this issue. Prior to the hearing, she met separately with Professor Clark and Dean Dennis, and was afforded an opportunity to prepare a statement to the Committee. In the statement, she displayed a complete understanding of the cheating allegations about her entire midterm exam. ECF No. 35-2 at 25. At the hearing, she exhibited a complete understanding of the severity of potential consequences, including expulsion. She stated, "I do take full responsibility on that, but I'd really like to continue my academic career here, as I only have one semester left ***** [a]nd I just really would like to continue my term here at Brown, as I'm almost done, and I have one semester left." ECF No. 35-2 at 48-49. Jane Doe has not raised a genuine dispute of material fact on this issue.

Third, Jane Doe complains that Brown did not permit her to consult with a faculty advisor in preparation for the hearing. ECF No. 1 at 26, 29-30. However, Jane Doe never requested to consult with an advisor, and nothing in the Academic Code obligates Brown proactively to assign her an advisor. Jane Doe admits that she previously received a copy of the Academic Code, which sets forth the procedural rights to which each Brown student is entitled in an academic dishonesty hearing. ECF No. 29-2 at 4 ¶ 9. That Code contains no requirement that Brown separately notify accused students of the right to an advisor prior to a hearing, and no such requirement can be written into the Code by the Court. Simply put, Brown spells out all of the process afforded to students accused of an Academic Code violation in the Academic Code itself, and the responsibility to avail oneself of those provisions rests with the student.

Fourth, Jane Doe complains that Brown did not afford her the right to dispute the evidence against her, to present witnesses in support of her case, or to examine the witnesses against her. ECF No. 1 at 26-27. Again, no reasonable fact-finder could find for Jane Doe on this claim. The most damaging evidence against Jane Doe was her answer to question # 4, which was nearly identical to T.L.'s answer. See Appendix. Faced with this quandary (of her own making), Jane Doe submitted a letter to the Committee admitting that she collaborated on the exam and that she appropriated another student's ideas for question # 4 (all without any attribution), and pleading for understanding and mercy. ECF No. 35-2 at 25. She took the same tack at the hearing. Id. at 29-54. Having chosen to fall on her sword, she cannot now complain about getting cut.

Brown did not breach its contractual obligations by holding the hearing in the way that it did. Jane Doe was given a full opportunity to dispute the evidence against her. She chose to admit to appropriating T.L.'s ideas in answering question # 4, and to apologize for her conduct. She also chose not to present any witnesses in support of her claim, which was consistent with her strategic approach of admitting a mistake and asking for leniency. Brown did not deny Jane Doe the opportunity to examine witnesses against her, because Professor Clark and T.L. did not appear before the Committee as witnesses against Jane Doe. Professor Clark never met with the Committee, and T.L. appeared before the Committee as part of her own disciplinary proceedings, not as a witness against Jane Doe. Jane Doe would have been free to call those two individuals as witnesses in support of her case. All the evidence that the Committee needed to rely on to make its decision was the blatant similarity between Jane Doe's and T.L.'s exam answers, and Jane Doe's own admissions. Jane Doe's claim to the contrary fails as a matter of law.

Fifth, Jane Doe complains that "Brown failed to conduct a fair and impartial investigation, or in actuality, any investigation whatsoever." ECF No. 22-1 at 40. The evidence, however, establishes otherwise. Brown adhered exactly to the investigation protocols outlined in the Academic Code, starting with a fully documented allegation of a violation by Professor Clark, leading to a thorough screening by Dean Dennis in his capacity as the Case Administrator, progressing to a fair hearing before the Standing Committee on the Academic Code, and concluding with a thoughtful consideration of Jane Doe's appeal by Vice President Klawunn. Jane Doe has raised no genuine issue of material fact about the adequacy of the investigation as contemplated by the Academic Code.

Sixth, Jane Doe complains that "the investigation and Hearing were slanted against Plaintiff as the student accused." ECF No. 22-1 at 40. Jane Doe does not identify the contractual provision in support of this complaint, and raises no material issue of fact that could lead the fact finder to side with her on this unsupported allegation.

Seventh, Jane Doe complains that Brown violated the Academic Code because it "issued a sanction that was unwarranted and disproportionate in light of the circumstance." There is no evidence to support this assertion. In fact, the evidence strongly supports the opposite. There is no question that Jane Doe violated many provisions of the Academic Code. Moreover, the evidence is overwhelming that the sanction imposed was appropriate given the blatantness of the violations and her recurring dishonesty. The Academic Code clearly lists the specific penalty that Brown imposed on Jane Doe. ECF No. 1-1 at 15. This claim fails too.

Eighth, Jane Doe complains that "Brown's unreasonable delay in providing a decision on Plaintiff's appeal effectively negated any meaningful right to appeal." ECF No. 22-1 at 40. Jane Doe submitted her appeal to Vice President Klawunn on January 13, 2014, and received a response upholding the Committee's decision and sanction on January 23, 2014. ECF No. 32_2 at 98-108. Jane Doe again failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact about how this 10-day interval between appeal and decision violated any provision of the Academic Code.

Ninth, Jane Doe complains that "Brown University's undefined, vague and inconsistent application of its `collaboration' policy amounts to arbitrary and capricious conduct sufficient to support an action for breach of contract." ECF No. 29-1 at 23. The Academic Code is clear about the University's policy on collaboration when it comes to examinations, quizzes, and tests — it is considered cheating. ECF No. 1-1 at 8. The only exception is when it "is specifically authorized by the instructor," id. and in those cases, the work "must be clearly marked as the results of collaboration" by the collaborating students. Id. at 6. If students are uncertain about whether the instructor permits collaboration, the Academic Code puts the burden on the student to "consult the instructor of the course or one of the academic deans ... so as to avoid the charge of academic dishonest." Id. at 7. In this case, Jane Doe admitted to collaborating on the final exam. She never claimed that Professor Clark "specifically authorized" the collaboration, nor did she mark her exam as the result of collaboration.

Moreover, with respect to question # 4, "collaboration" is far too generous a term for what Jane Doe did. In her letter to the Committee, she stated: "I was struggling on coming up with innovative ideas for the intervention. I used [T.L.'s] suggestions, and when she was explaining them to me, because we had the same intervention outline, the thoughts of whose were whose was blurred." ECF No. 35-2 at 25. Then, at her hearing, she admitted that T.L. was "spraying out ideas" for question # 4, and Jane Doe was writing them down, all while thinking, "like, this is so simple, like, why didn't I think of this, this idea for this intervention[?]" Id. at 34. Jane Doe's admission that the response to question # 4 originated with T.L., and the nearly identical answers that the two students produced, lead to a single conclusion — that Jane Doe was "[c]opying other students' work during an examination" — a violation separate from collaboration, and one for which the Academic Code makes no exception or justification. ECF No. 1-1 at 8. In any event, Jane Doe's allegation that the University's application of its collaboration policy violates the Academic Code raises no disputed issue of material fact.

Tenth, Jane Doe alleges that she was singled out for "exclusive punishment," in violation of the "Code's stated goal of equal treatment for all." ECF No. 29-1 at 23. Although Jane Doe does not point to where in the Code this goal is actually stated, the Court is willing to go along, but only so far. She was not singled out. T.L., who was the only other person about whom Professor Clark made a complaint to Dean Dennis, was also punished for violating the Academic Code. ECF No. 35-2 at 95-96. The difference in the two students' punishments is explained by Jane Doe's prior violation and the Committee's findings about the culpability of the two students in this case. Compare id. at 92 ("[Jane Doe] acknowledged receiving assistance from [a] classmate in the preparation of [her] exam responses") with id. at 95 ("[T.L.] acknowledged providing assistance to [a] classmate after [she] had prepared [her] exam responses"). As to the countless other students who were supposedly collaborating on Professor Clark's midterm, Jane Doe did not provide a single name of such a student to the University, despite being "urged" to do so by the Academic Code. ECF No. 1-1 at 9-10. Jane Doe has not raised a material issue of disputed fact about selective enforcement in violation of the Academic Code, and therefore fails on this claim as a matter of law.

Eleventh, Jane Doe complains that Brown violated the Academic Code because two members of the Standing Committee had heard her first plagiarism case. ECF No. 29-1 at 29. Yet Jane Doe points to no provision in the Code that would forbid members of the Committee from hearing two cases involving the same student. Furthermore, when Jane Doe raised this issue with Vice President Klawunn as part of her appeal, Vice President Klawunn investigated whether any bias might have arisen during the hearing. She reported to Jane Doe that "the two Committee members from your previous case did not remember that they had heard your previous violation from fall 2012 until they were told about the prior violation." ECF No. 15-5. Because the issue Jane Doe raises is not a violation of any contractual term, explicit or implied, no breach could have occurred.

Twelfth, Jane Doe complains that Brown violated the "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" inherent in every Rhode Island contract. ECF No. 1 at 25; see Now Courier, LLC v. Better Carrier Corp., 965 A.2d 429, 435 (R.I.2009). The purpose of this covenant is to prevent the parties from acting in ways that obstruct the achievement of contractual objectives. Ide Farm & Stable, Inc. v. Cardi, 110 R.I. 735, 297 A.2d 643, 645 (1972). "The applicable standard in determining whether one has breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is whether or not the actions in question are free from arbitrary or unreasonable conduct." Ross-Simons of Warwick, Inc. v. Baccarat, Inc., 66 F.Supp.2d 317, 329 (D.R.I.1999), aff'd, 217 F.3d 8 (1st Cir.2000). Jane Doe has pleaded no facts that would attribute bad faith or unfair dealing to Brown. The Court has concluded above that even when the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to Jane Doe, Brown's investigation into her second academic dishonesty allegation hewed exactly to the Academic Code. It therefore was not arbitrary or unreasonable. Brown is entitled to summary judgment on this claim.

Thirteenth, Jane Doe raises a cause of action for promissory estoppel based on statements made to her during recruiting, and based on the provisions in the Academic Code. This theory is misplaced. Promissory estoppel permits courts to enforce some gratuitous promises that induced acts of reliance by the promisee. See E. Providence Credit Union v. Geremia, 103 R.I. 597, 239 A.2d 725, 727 (1968). Jane Doe's Complaint alleges that the head coach of Brown's women's tennis program "advised [her] that if she decided to attend Brown, she would be academically supported by both the school and its tennis program. Moreover, [the tennis coach] assured [her] that she would be treated as a student first and an athlete second and that Brown would do everything in its power to make her experience at Brown a success." ECF No. 1 at 5. This was clearly not a promise to look the other way if Jane Doe decided to cheat, and it has no possible connection to the issues presented in this case. There is not a scintilla of evidence that Brown did not fulfill the tennis coach's promises. As to the provisions of the Code, the Court has analyzed these as the terms of an enforceable contract, not a gratuitous promise, and has concluded that Brown has abided by them. Jane Doe's claim for promissory estoppel fails as a matter of law.

In sum, Jane Doe has failed to raise a single material issue of disputed fact, viewed in the light most favorable to her, that would allow a reasonable fact finder to conclude that Brown breached the Academic Code.13

Tort Claims

Without the lynchpin contract claim, Jane Doe's remaining tort claims easily fall away.

First, her claim for negligence is a nonstarter. "To properly set forth a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must establish a legally cognizable duty owed by a defendant to a plaintiff, a breach of that duty, proximate causation between the conduct and the resulting injury, and the actual loss or damage." Willis v. Omar, 954 A.2d 126, 129 (R.I.2008) (internal citations omitted). Her complaint identifies the duty of "reasonable care in the conduct of [Brown's] investigation and [] adjudication," without a single case to support the legal cognoscibility of this duty. ECF No. 1 at 33. Furthermore, in light of Jane Doe's admissions to conduct constituting violations of the Academic Code, she cannot identify a material issue of disputed fact that would allow a fact finder to conclude that Brown's allegedly unreasonable investigation or adjudication caused her actual loss or damage. This claim fails as a matter of law.

Second, her claim for negligent misrepresentation also fails. ECF No. 1 at 34. This claim concerns the back and forth communications between Jane Doe and Brown about whether she would be able to graduate from Brown in the spring of 2014. Id. at 23-25. To establish a prima facie case of negligent misrepresentation, Jane Doe must establish the following elements:

Mallette v. Children's Friend & Serv., 661 A.2d 67, 69 (R.I.1995) (citations omitted). However, to succeed on this claim, Jane Doe must show that she relied on the alleged misrepresentations to her detriment. See Zarrella v. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co., 824 A.2d 1249, 1258 (R.I. 2003). Jane Doe does not allege a single action she took in reliance on Brown's alleged misrepresentation. She attended classes at RIC, contested Brown's position that she was ineligible for graduation, and ultimately graduated on time. Her remaining allegation that she was "prevented [] from making the necessary arrangements to fully participate in graduation week activities" is too vague to withstand summary judgment.

Third, Jane Doe alleges that Brown violated her right to be secure from unreasonable publicity given to one's private life, in violation of R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-28.1(a)(3). Her sole support for this claim is her statement that "[u]pon information and belief, Brown disclosed information about Jane Doe's academic status, academic record and eligibility for graduation to at least one other student, T.L." ECF No. 1 at 35. However, Jane Doe has not pleaded facts or submitted any evidence that support her conclusory assertion that Brown disclosed this allegedly private information to T.L. or anyone else. She does not state who disclosed the information, when or where it happened, how she knows about it, or how it caused her damages. Jane Doe's barebones assertions and the "upon information and belief" nature of her statement fail to nudge her claim over the line from possible to plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 680, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). This particular allegation fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and must be dismissed on those grounds. Fed R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Fourth, Jane Doe pleads a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress against Brown, Professor Clark, and Dean Dennis. ECF No. 1 at 36, 38-40. To succeed on this claim, Jane Doe must prove "extreme and outrageous conduct that intentionally or recklessly resulted in causing her severe emotional distress," and "physical symptomatology resulting from the alleged improper conduct." Vallinoto v. DiSandro, 688 A.2d 830, 838 (R.I.1997). Jane Doe does not claim facts that could rise to extreme and outrageous conduct, nor does she satisfy the physical symptomology requirement of the claim.

"It [is] for the Court in the first instance to determine whether the defendant[s'] alleged conduct, set out in the complaint, could reasonably be regarded as so extreme and outrageous to result in liability." Clift v. Narragansett Television L.P., 688 A.2d 805, 813 (R.I.1996). For liability to result under this cause of action, the defendants' conduct must be "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Hoffman v. Davenport-Metcalf, 851 A.2d 1083, 1090 (R.I.2004) (quoting Restatement (Second) Torts § 46 (1965)). No facts plead by Jane Doe rise to this high standard. Furthermore, the only nod to physical symptomology in any of Jane Doe's papers is the identical statement in her Complaint and Affidavit that Defendants' actions caused her "physical symptoms including insomnia." ECF No. 1 at 40; ECF No. 29 at 29-2 ¶ 17. But "unsupported conclusory assertions of physical ills contained in the plaintiff['s] complaint [are] insufficient ... to [] successfully resist[] ... [a] motion for summary judgment." Clift, 688 A.2d at 813. There is no genuine dispute as to any material fact about this claim, and the Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Fifth, and finally, Jane Doe pleads that Vice President Klawunn "intentionally interfered with the contract between Jane Doe and Brown by failing to uphold the Code and failing to timely issue a response to Jane Doe's appeal." ECF No. 1 at 41. The Court has already determined that as a matter of law, Vice President Klawunn's actions were totally consistent with the Code. Therefore, this claim also fails.14

CONCLUSION

The Court enters summary judgment for Defendants on Jane Doe's claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference with a contract. Jane Doe voluntarily withdrew her claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress, (ECF No. 22-1 at 53), and the Court dismisses her claim for unreasonable publicity of one's private life under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Defendants' Motion (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED, judgment shall enter for all the Defendants on all counts. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the "Jane Doe" Complaint (ECF No. 16) is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

APPENDIX

Jane Doe's answer to question # 4:

ECF No. 35-2 at 22. (The parties provided the Court with a more legible version of Jane Doe's answer than the one stored on ECF, which the Court used to transcribe the answer here.)

T.L's answer to question # 4:

ECF No. 35-2 at 15-16.