United States District Court, D. Vermont
OPINION AND ORDER, (DOCS. 37, 38)
John
M. Conroy United States Magistrate Judge
On July
9, 2018, this Court dismissed the Complaint in this matter
for failure to state a claim plausibly alleging defamation
(Doc. 35 at 46), and, on the same day, entered judgment
against Plaintiff Soojung Jang, Ph.D. (Doc. 36.) Dr. Jang now
moves to alter or amend the judgment (Doc. 37), and, if the
judgment is altered or amended, Dr. Jang moves for leave to
amend her Complaint in order “to set forth all the
remaining elements for a claim of
defamation.”[1] (Doc. 38 at 1.) Defendants Trustees of St.
Johnsbury Academy (the Academy) and Kingdom Development
Company, Inc. (KDC) jointly oppose both motions. (Docs. 40,
41.) Concluding that Dr. Jang has failed to provide an
adequate basis for vacating the judgment and that, in any
case, amendment would be futile, Dr. Jang's Motion to
Alter or Amend the Judgment (Doc. 37) and her Motion for
Leave to Amend the Complaint (Doc. 38) are DENIED.
Factual
and Procedural Background
The
brief summary that follows contains only the facts and
procedural background necessary to resolve the motions
presently before the Court. A comprehensive account of the
factual and procedural background giving rise to Dr.
Jang's suit may be found in this Court's previous
Opinion and Order. (See generally Doc. 35.)
In late
October 2017, the Academy and KDC successfully opened the St.
Johnsbury Academy-Jeju (SJA-Jeju) on Jeju Island in the
Republic of Korea. (Doc. 8 at 7.) In establishing SJA-Jeju,
the Academy and KDC entered into a confidential Cooperative
Venture Agreement (CVA) with the Jeju Free International City
Development Center, a corporation owned by the Republic of
Korea, and Haewul, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Jeju Free International City Development Center. (Doc. 8 at
4; see Doc. 8-2 at 1-2, § d; id. at 1,
§ a.)
Dr.
Jang was a member of the Establishment and Operation of
International Schools Subcommittee (the Establishment
Subcommittee), a subcommittee formed by the Jeju Provincial
Office of Education to review and approve the SJA-Jeju
project. (Doc. 1 at 3, ¶ 23.) Dr. Jang is also a member
of Jeju Solidarity for Participatory Self Government and
Environmental Preservation (Jeju Solidarity), a community
organization focused on ensuring that students on Jeju
receive a proper education. (Id. at 2, ¶¶
9, 11, 12-13.) In her role on the Establishment Subcommittee,
Dr. Jang asserted in her original Complaint that she was
authorized to investigate the relationship between the
entities founding SJA-Jeju and, in particular, to ascertain
the Academy and KDC's role in the governance and
financing of SJA-Jeju. (Id. at 3, ¶ 23; see
also Doc. 15 at 2.) Specifically, as she stated in her
original Complaint, her investigations included seeking
“clarification of [the Academy and KDC's]
relationship, their control of [S]A-Jeju], and liability for
any losses on behalf of [Jeju Solidarity]” (Doc. 1 at
3, ¶ 24), requesting “records concerning the
viability of the CVA, as member of POE” (id.
¶ 25), and pursuing “records and
information.” (Id. at 4, ¶ 27.) Dr.
Jang's investigation also led her to contact Attorney
Debra Wilson, the Chief Counsel of the National Association
of Independent Schools in the United States. (See
Doc. 8-4.) Attorney Wilson corresponded with Dr. Jang
regarding the specific business structure of the Academy and
KDC and their relationship to SJA-Jeju; eventually, Attorney
Wilson offered to reach out to the Academy and KDC on behalf
of Dr. Jang. (Id. at 6.) After contacting the
Academy and KDC, Attorney Wilson concluded that Dr.
Jang's claims had no merit, at least according to the
Academy and KDC. (Doc. 1-1 at 2, § a; Doc. 8-1 at 4,
¶ 10.) Ultimately, Attorney Wilson's findings were
presented to the Establishment Subcommittee, who voted to
reconfirm the CVA despite Dr. Jang's objections. (Doc.
1-1 at 2, § e.)
Subsequently,
on July 12, 2016, Attorney Bruce Palmer, as counsel for the
Academy and KDC, sent a letter (the Letter) to the Governor
of Education for Jeju Island, and copied the Establishment
Subcommittee on which Dr. Jang sat. (See
generally Doc. 1-1.) The Letter detailed Dr.
Jang's investigatory efforts in the Republic of Korea and
the United States and characterized her investigation as an
attempt to undermine the establishment of SJA-Jeju.
(Id.) In particular, Attorney Palmer expressed a
“deep concern[] about unauthorized and disruptive
actions and false statements by Dr. Soonjung Jang.”
(Id. at 1.) Given these purported concerns, Attorney
Palmer asked the Governor of Education to remove Dr. Jang
from the subcommittee or, at the least, to censure and
disqualify Dr. Jang from “any further participation in
or consideration of the approval of [S]A-Jeju].”
(Id.)
As a
basis for this recusal request, Attorney Palmer alleged that
Dr. Jang, at every turn, “challenged the legality and
legitimacy of [the Academy's] and KDC's efforts to
participate in this project”; that Dr. Jang
“attacked the validity of the Cooperative Venture
Agreement”; that Dr. Jang “knowingly defamed [the
Academy] and KDC in the process, alleging without any factual
basis that each seeks through the CVA and other contracts to
avoid paying taxes”; that Dr. Jang accused the
Academy's headmaster and KDC's CEO of
“illegally entering into the agreements without actual
authority”; and that Dr. Jang repeatedly questioned the
quality of the Academy. (Id.) According to the
Letter, these actions and statements by Dr. Jang amounted to
“an unjustified, concerted campaign of mistruth about
[the Academy] and KDC . . . in a transparent effort to
scuttle [S]A-Jeju].” (Id. at 2.)
Finally,
counsel highlighted Dr. Jang's investigatory efforts,
including Dr. Jang's contact with Attorney Wilson and
Attorney Wilson's subsequent independent review and
approval of the CVA[2] (id. at 2, §§ a, c);
Dr. Jang's attempts to refute Attorney Wilson's
analysis (id. § d); and, the Establishment
Subcommittee's subsequent vote reapproving the CVA.
(Id. § e.) In sum, counsel concluded that
“[t]he campaign by Dr. Jang to impugn SJA and the
integrity of its officials demonstrates her deep bias and
disregard for traditional customs and laws” and
“merit[s] disqualification to serve on the
[Establishment Subcommittee] responsible to review and
approve the project.” (Id. at 3.)
On
August 31, 2017, Dr. Jang filed the Complaint in this case,
attaching the Letter to her Complaint, and alleged that the
Letter is “libelous and defamatory in that it
maliciously claimed that the statements of [Dr. Jang] were
unauthorized, disruptive and false.” (Doc. 1 at 4,
¶ 30.) As noted above, on July 9, 2018, this Court
dismissed Dr. Jang's Complaint for failure to state a
defamation claim. (Doc. 35 at 46.) In dismissing the
Complaint, this Court concluded that Dr. Jang failed to state
a defamation claim for two reasons. First, Dr. Jang failed to
adequately plead the elements of common law defamation under
Vermont law;[3]specifically, Dr. Jang's Complaint did
not contain sufficient factual allegations for this Court to
reasonably infer either that the allegedly defamatory Letter
contained a substantially false statement or that, in
publishing the Letter, the Academy and KDC acted with the
common law malice necessary to overcome their privileged
communication. (Id. at 50-51, 56.) Second, Dr. Jang
failed to plead credible facts justifying an inference that
the Academy and KDC acted with “some negligence, or
greater fault, in publishing” the Letter to the
Governor and the Establishment Subcommittee.[4] (Id. at
60.) For these reasons, on July 9, 2018, this Court dismissed
Dr. Jang's Complaint for failure to state a claim
plausibly alleging defamation, and, on the same day, entered
judgment against Dr. Jang. (Doc. 36.)
Subsequently,
on July 16, 2018, Dr. Jang filed her Motion and Memorandum to
Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc. 37), and her Motion for Leave
to Amend her Complaint. (Doc. 38.) In her first postjudgment
motion, Dr. Jang seeks “to alter or amend the judgment
dismissing her defamation complaint, to allow plaintiff leave
to amend her complaint for defamation with more specificity
pursuant [to] Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 and 60(b)(6).” (Doc. 37
at 1.) As a basis for invoking Rule 59 and Rule 60(b)(6), Dr.
Jang states that “leave to alter and amend the judgment
should be granted, since [her] motion to amend her defamation
complaint would not be futile.” (Id.) In the
second postjudgment motion-the Motion for Leave to Amend her
Complaint-Dr. Jang states that she “has now amended the
complaint to allege that the facts asserted by [the Academy
and KDC] . . . were substantially false statements of fact
with actual malice, and made without privilege, since the
letter was not in response to any request.” (Doc. 38 at
1.) As support for this contention, Dr. Jang has appended a
redlined Amended Complaint (Doc. 38-1), as well as a document
entitled “False Statements, ” which purportedly
sets forth the false statements made in the Letter by counsel
for the Academy and KDC. (Doc. 38-3.)
The
Academy and KDC oppose both motions. (Docs. 40, 41.) In their
joint memorandum opposing Dr. Jang's Motion to Alter or
Amend the Judgment, the Academy and KDC argue that Dr. Jang
has advanced no cognizable argument for vacating the judgment
under the standards set forth under either Rule 59 or Rule
60(b)(6). (Doc. 40 at 1.) Similarly, the Academy and KDC
jointly oppose Dr. Jang's attempt to amend her original
complaint, asserting that Dr. Jang's proposed Amended
Complaint fails to adequately plead defamation. (Doc. 41 at
2.)
Analysis
As set
forth below, the Court concludes that Dr. Jang does not
identify a valid basis for vacating or setting aside the
judgment under either Rule 59 or Rule 60(b)(6) and that, in
any case, amendment would be futile under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a).
Accordingly, Dr. Jang's Motion and Memorandum to Alter or
Amend ...