govinfo:USCOURTS-laed-2_25-cv-01344-0

Corpus: 543,223 opinions · 3,177 judges · newest 2026-06-23 · expanding Coverage ↗

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LAUREN EJIAGA CIVIL ACTION

v. NO: 25-1344

SCHOLARSHIP AMERICA, INC SECTION: C (4)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the court is defendant Scholarship America, Inc.’s Federal Rule
12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Failure to State a Claim filed
on October 10, 2025 (Rec. Doc. 17). The motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Lauren Ejiaga, alleges fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of
the implied duty of fairness and good faith, invasion of privacy, misappropriation of
educational data, and intentional infliction of emotional distress by defendant
Scholarship America, Inc.
Ejiaga’s complaint states that she applied to multiple scholarship programs
administered by America, Inc. seeking financial support for academic pursuits.
Ejiaga was awarded thirteen such scholarships. America, Inc. then contacted Ejiaga
seeking clarification about discrepancies in her academic records. America, Inc.
asked Ejiaga to provide official transcripts and instructed that they be mailed directly
from various schools she claimed to have attended. Ejiaga obtained one transcript,
Case 2:25-cv-01344-WJC-KWR Document 31 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 9

from Benjamin Franklin High School, which she described as “a cumulative official
transcript reflecting coursework across multiple institutions.” She said the transcript
was faxed to her by the school. She printed it and mailed it to America, Inc.
America, Inc. contacted the school and learned the transcript was not issued
by the school. America, Inc. further advised Ejiaga that it contacted one of Ejiaga’s
recommenders and was “unable to validate her submitted recommendations.”
America, Inc. declared Ejiaga ineligible for current and future scholarship programs
administered by it.
Ejiaga sued America, Inc. , arguing America, Inc. failed to disclose to her
information about its investigation and disqualification. She also claims America,
Inc. engaged in “unauthorized third-party outreach” in violation of its own privacy
policy by contacting the school and Ejiaga’s recommender to verify her information.
America, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss Ejiaga’s claims pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). It submits Ejiaga was disqualified after
discovering she submitted inconsistent transcripts from seven different schools in
seven different states and listed a fake email address for a person identified as a
recommender. Prior to her disqualification, and to clear up the inconsistenci es,
America, Inc. gave Ejiaga the opportunity to provide official transcripts mailed
directly from the schools. She failed to do so.
Case 2:25-cv-01344-WJC-KWR Document 31 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 9

America, Inc. submits its privacy policy specifically authorizes collecting and
disclosing educational information from applicants and third parties for fraud
protection. Because the complaint fails to make any allegations to support her claims
for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied duty of fairness and good
faith, invasion of privacy , misappropriation of educational data, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress , America, Inc. seeks dismissal of the complaint
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
ANALYSIS
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenges the sufficiency of a plaintiff’s allegations.
A complaint, or any part of it, may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted if plaintiff fails to set forth factual allegations that would
entitle him to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Cuvillier
v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007).
To survive, a complaint must contain sufficient facts, accepted as true, to state
a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads the factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged . Id. at 678. Determining whether a complaint states a
plausible claim for relief is a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court
to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. Id. at 679.
Case 2:25-cv-01344-WJC-KWR Document 31 Filed 04/15/26 Page 3 of 9

In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court should confine itself to the
pleadings and documents attached to the complaint. Kennedy v. Chase Manhattan
Bank USA, NA, 369 F.3d 833, 839 (5 th Cir. 2004); Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean
Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498 (5th Cir. 2000). The Court may also consider documents
attached to a motion to dismiss or an opposition to that motion when the documents
are referred to in the pleadings and are central to a plaintiff’s claims. Carter v. Target
Corp, 541 Fed. Appx. 413, 416 (5th Cir. 2013). The court “may also consider matters
of which [it] may take judicial notice.” Hall v. Hodgkins, 305 F. App’x 224, 227
(5th Cir. 2008) (citing Lovelace v. Software Spectrum, Inc., 78 F.3d 1015, 1017-18
(5th Cir. 1996)).
While detailed factual allegations are not required, a complaint must offer
more than mere labels, legal conclusions, or formulaic recitations of the elements of
a cause of action. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The complaint is construed in the light most
favorable to plaintiff, accepting as true all well -pleaded factual allegations and
drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor. Lovick v. Ritemoney Ltd., 378
F.3d 433, 437 (5 th Cir. 2004). However, the court will not accept “conclusory
allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal conclusions” as true. Ferrer v.
Chevron Corp., 484 F.3d 776, 780 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Plotkin v. IP Axess Inc.,
407 F.3d 690, 696 (5 th Cir. 2005)). If factual allegations are insufficient to raise a
Case 2:25-cv-01344-WJC-KWR Document 31 Filed 04/15/26 Page 4 of 9

right to relief above the speculative level, the claim should be dismissed. Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555.
Fraud
Ejiaga purports to allege fraud under both Louisiana and Minnesota law . In
Louisiana, the elements of fraud are: (1) a misstatement or omission; (2) of material
fact; (3) made with the intent to defraud; (4) on which plaintiff relied; and (5) which
proximately caused plaintiff’s injury.1 Williams v. WMX Techs., 112 F.3d 175, 177
(5th Cir. 1997). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) imposes a heightened level of
pleading for fraud claims. Rule 9(b) provides, in relevant part: “in alleging fraud or
mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or
mistake.” Rule 9(b) requires specific allegations of the time, place, and content of
the false representations, as well as the identity of the person making the
misrepresentation and what that person obtained thereby. Tuchman v. DSC
Communications Corp., 14 F.3d 1061, 1068 (5th Cir. 1994).
Ejiaga alleges America , Inc. made false representations regarding its
investigative process. She does not specifically identify any such false statements.
America, Inc. communicated concerns to Ejiaga regarding inconsistent transcripts.

1 In Minnesota, the elements of fraud ulent misrepresentation are: (1) a false representation by a party of a past or
existing material fact susceptible of knowledge; (2) made with knowledge of the falsity of the representation or made
as of the party’s own knowledge without knowing whether it was true or false; (3) with the intent to induce another to
act in reliance thereon; (4) that the representation caused the other part to act in reliance thereon; and (5) that the other
party suffered pecuniary damage as a result of the reliance. Hoyt Props., Inc. v. Prod. Res. Grp., L.L.C., 736 N.W.2d
313, 318 (Minn. 2007)
Case 2:25-cv-01344-WJC-KWR Document 31 Filed 04/15/26 Page 5 of 9

It gave her an opportunity to resolve the inconsistencies by submitting new
transcripts, but directly from the schools. Ejiaga failed to do so. America, Inc. then
took steps to independently verify the information.
Ejiaga also alleges America, Inc. failed to disclose critical information to her
regarding her disqualification, but does not state what information was withheld.
Plaintiff fails to assert a plausible claim for fraud.
Negligent Misrepresentation
A negligent misrepresentation claim must allege: “(1) the defendant, in the
course of its business, supplied false information the plaintiff, (2) the defendant had
a legal duty to provide correct information to the plaintiff, (3) the defendant breached
its duty, which can be breached by omission as well as by affirmative
misrepresentation, and (4) the plaintiff suffered damages or pecuniary loss as a result
of its justifiable reliance upon the omission or affirmative misrepresentation.” 2 S.
Orthopaedic Specialists LLC v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. , 21-0861, 2022 WL
1405142, at *7 (E.D. La. 5/4/22). Ejiaga failed to allege any fact s suggesting
America, Inc. supplied false information to her or anyone else. The complaint fails
to state a plausible claim of negligent misrepresentation.

2 In Minnesota, a negligent misrepresentation claim differs from fraudulent misrepresentation only with respect to the
required state of mind. In a negligent misrepresentation claim, a plaintiff must show defendant supplied false
information for the guidance of others in their business transaction and in doing so failed to exercise reasonable care
or competence in obtaining or communicating the i nformation. Trooien v. Mansour, 608 F.3d 1020, 1028 (8 th Cir.
2010); citing Florenzano v. Olson, 387 N.W.2d 168, 174 (Minn. 1989).
Case 2:25-cv-01344-WJC-KWR Document 31 Filed 04/15/26 Page 6 of 9

Breach of Implied Duty of Fairness and Good Faith
To breach the duty of good faith and fair dealing there must be a contract and
a breach of that contract. Schaumburg v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 421 F.App’x
434, 439 (5th Cir. 2011). Here, plaintiff cannot show a breach of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing because there is no alleged contract that was breached. Rather,
America Inc.’s privacy policy authorizes it to disclose personal information for fraud
protection. The privacy policy provides:
We may also disclose your personal information, under the following
limited circumstances:
***
If we believe disclosure is necessary or appropriate to protect the rights,
property, or safety of Scholarship America, our partners, or others – this
includes exchanging information with other companies and
organizations for the purposes of fraud protecti on and credit risk
reduction.

America, Inc. received what it believed were inconsistent transcripts. It gave Ejiaga
an opportunity to clarify. She failed to do so . America, Inc. then took steps to
independently verify the submitted information. America Inc.’s action aligns with its
policy of allowing disclosure of personal information to prevent fraud. Because the
privacy policy was referred to in plaintiff’s complaint, attached to America, Inc.’s
motion to dismiss , and is central to the claim that America, Inc. engaged in
“unauthorized third -party outreach” in violation of that policy, the court finds it
proper to consider it. Carter, 541 Fed. Appx. at 416. Ejiaga fails to state a claim for
breach of contract or breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.
Case 2:25-cv-01344-WJC-KWR Document 31 Filed 04/15/26 Page 7 of 9

Invasion of Privacy, Misappropriation of Educational Data
Ejiaga alleges America, Inc. invaded her privacy by verify ing information
provided in her applications and contacting a referral at the referral’s university
email address, which was not provided by Ejiaga. Louisiana law recognizes an
invasion of privacy claim for unreasonable public disclosure of embarrassing private
facts. 3 Currier v. Entergy Servs., Inc., 11-2208, 2014 WL 1093687, at *10 (E.D. La.
3/14/14); Tate v. Woman’ s Hosp. Foundation, 10-0425 (La. 1/19/11), 56 So.3d 194,
197. There is no invasion of privacy when a person consents to the release of
information. Tate, 56 So.3d at 198. America, Inc.’s privacy policy authorizes the
disclosure of personal information to prevent fraud. Thus, Ejiaga consented to such
disclosure. America, Inc. acted within its privacy policy by seeking to verify the
inconsistent transcripts. T hese consented disclosures do not support a claim for
invasion of privacy.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
To recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must
show: (1) defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous; (2) plaintiff suffered
severe emotional distress; and (3) defendant desired to inflict severe emotional
distress or knew it was certain or substantially certain to result. 4 Currier, 2014 WL

3 Minnesota law also recognizes a cause of action for invasion of privacy based upon publication of private facts.
Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc., 663 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Minn. 2003).
4 In Minnesota, intentional infliction of emotional distress must be similarly extreme and outrageous. See Langeslag
v. KYMN Inc., 664 N.W.2d 860, 864-65 (Minn. 2003).
Case 2:25-cv-01344-WJC-KWR Document 31 Filed 04/15/26 Page 8 of 9

1093687, at *7. The extreme and outrageous conduct requirement is difficult to meet.
Id. The standard does not reach “mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty
oppressions, or other trivialities,” rather, the behavior must “go beyond all possible
bounds of decency[.]” Id. Ejiaga alleges no conduct by America, Inc. that meets this
standard. The complaint appears to be that America , Inc. did not accept Ejiaga’s
explanation for what they believed were inconsistent transcripts, but took steps to
verify them. That fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
CONCLUSION
The Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is GRANTED. Plaintiff is
granted LEA VE TO AMEND the complaint within twenty-one days of th e date of
this order.5
New Orleans, Louisiana this _____day of April 2026

__________________________________
WILLIAM J. CRAIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5 See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 11 (By presenting to the court a pleading . . . an attorney or unrepresented
party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable
under the circumstances: (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose such as to harass, cause unnecessary
delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted
by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing
new law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the denials of factual
contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of
information.
Case 2:25-cv-01344-WJC-KWR Document 31 Filed 04/15/26 Page 9 of 9

Passage view · GavelSight