(CN) - The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against a mother who claimed her daughter was emotionally abused in 2019 at a now-closed Arizona boarding school for girls.
A three-judge panel threw out all of Kimberly Sweidy's pending claims in a decision published on Friday.
Kimberly Sweidy had sued Spring Ridge Academy in 2021 for intent to inflict emotional abuse, fraud, breach of contract and negligence.
A jury sided with Sweidy on the fraud claims in 2024, and Spring Ridge Academy was ordered to pay more than $2.5 million in damages. But a lower court granted summary judgment dismissing the remaining claims, prompting Sweidy to appeal.
On Friday, the circuit judges affirmed the lower court's ruling, denying Sweidy's challenge based on a lack of evidence.
"The district court did not err by granting summary judgment on Sweidy's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress," the judges wrote in a per curiam order. "Here, Sweidy's intention to inflict emotional distress claim fails because she offers no evidence of severe emotional distress."
"Moreover, Sweidy's own arguments defeat her claim," the judges continued. "According to Sweidy, defendants' alleged conduct 'inherently' causes severe emotional distress in all parents, so she 'was not required to show proof of [her distress]' and 'certainly not at the summary judgment stage.' But proof of severe emotional distress is necessary to establish the third element of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim."
Described as a boarding school for troubled girls, the Mayer, Arizona-based academy shut its doors in 2023.
In her initial complaint, Sweidy said that the school misrepresented its treatment as sophisticated and evidence-based care but instead subjected its students to public shaming, isolation and food deprivation and encouraged violence, among other issues.
Sweidy removed her daughter after six weeks. She told the panel earlier this month that while enrolled at the school, her daughter was prevented from contacting her. She also said her daughter was singled out and subjected to ritualized shaming disguised as treatment.
Even so, the judges said the school's conduct wasn't extreme or outrageous enough for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. In Arizona, such claims require extreme or outrageous conduct, intent to cause emotional distress and severe distress as a result of the conduct, the judges noted in their decision.
Sweidy also appealed the lower court's summary judgement for breach of contract. But the judges threw that claim out too, finding that Sweidy was relying on allegations made in her complaint rather than hard evidence.
"This is insufficient," they wrote. "The appeals court also rejected those claims, finding that Sweidy didn't present specific evidence to support them."
On a negligence claim, the panel found Sweidy's arguments relied on general promises, did not identify any clear violations and did not show how the misconduct caused her damages. Additionally, the evidence showed that her ex-husband - not Sweidy - was responsible for paying for their daughter's enrollment.
"Accordingly, we affirm the summary judgment dismissal of Sweidy's claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence per se, and conversion," the judges wrote.
Thursday's decision was written by Circuit Judge Michael Hawkins and Circuit Judge Johnnie Rawlinson, both Bill Clinton appointees, and Circuit Judge Milan Smith, a George W. Bush appointee. The case remains ongoing in lower court.
Source: Courthouse News Service
