A Hypothetical

X is a law student at school Y. A member of School Y's faculty told students at orientation that they should "perfect the art of mooching." School Y offers free lunch to its students on Wednesday. This lunch is funded in part through student's tuition money. The lunch is served on the basketball court, where there is no shade of any kind. A line of students and faculty forms. Due to the time required to prepare the burgers, the wait for food is very long. Because of the promise of free lunch and the amount of time X had already spent waiting, she feels compelled to remain in line. As a result of waiting in the sun, X gets sun stroke.
Does X have a cause of action against Y for false imprisonment?

Rule: The confinement requirement of false imprisonment can be met if the defendant holds the plaintiff's property, thus compelling plaintiff to remain.

Issue: Does X have a property interest in the free lunch? If so, did Y withholding the lunch from X constitute the confinement element required for false imprisonment?