where there is no duty owed to the plaintiff other than the duty arising out of the contract itself.” Int’l Minerals and Mining Corp. v. Citicorp N. Am., Inc., 136 F. Supp. 587, 596 (D.N.J. 1990). Here, Davis’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress arises entirely from her allegations that the Defendants breached the terms of her employment contract and thus that she is entitled to monetary compensation. Significantly, the duties that Davis alleges the Defendants owed her under that contract are identical to those she alleges in her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Consequently, Davis has failed to allege independent tortious conduct on the part of the Defendants. See, e.g., Jones v. W. Union Fin. Servs., 513 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 1100 (D. Minn. 2007) (<HOLDING>); Geico Cas. Co. v. Beauford, Civ. No. 05-697,
holding that act did not bar intentional infliction of emotional distress claim recognizing torts of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress holding that the plaintiffs negligent misrepresentation and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims are governed by opla holding that plaintiffs negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims are not independent of the breach of contract claim and summary judgment is warranted on these claims holding that erisa  514a preempts claims for breach of contract breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress