While Candy and her wife, Cookie, are jogging in the park, an ice cream truck owned and operated by Sprinkles negligently careens off the road and hits Candy. Cookie is not hit herself but suffers severe emotional distress from seeing Candy seriously injured. She wants to sue Sprinkles, planning to allege a right to damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED). Unfortunately, she learns that the state law does not recognize a right to relief for NIED unless the plaintiff also suffered direct physical injury from the defendant's negligence; that is, she was hit by the car too (or maybe flying debris, since a large number of frozen ice cream sandwiches were thrown from the truck). Cookie smartly words her complaint more generally. She maintains her claim for NIED but in it she alleges only that Sprinkles negligently drove his auto in the park on the day in question and that Sprinkles's negligence proximately caused personal injuries to her, for which she claims damages. Since state law doesn't recognize a right to relief for NIED without direct physical injury, could Sprinkles obtain judgment on a motion for summary judgment? Explain using IRAC.