Emekekwue v. Offor

Filing 68

MEMORANDUM re Dft's Mtns for Summary Judgment 51 and Mtn in Limine 57 and pltf's First MOTION in Limine 59 (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 06/12/14. (ma)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BERTRAM EMEKEKWUE,
Plaintiff
v.
CHINWE OFFOR,
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. 1:11-cv-01747

Judge Sylvia H. Rambo

MEMORANDUM
Presently before the court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 56. For the reasons that follow, the motion
will be granted, and judgment will be entered in favor of Defendant.
I.

Background
A.

Procedural Background

Invoking the court’s diversity jurisdiction,1 Plaintiff, Bertram
Emekekwue (“Plaintiff”), brought this action in response to statements made by
Defendant, Chinwe Offor (“Defendant”), in a July 19, 2011 email. (Doc. 52, ¶¶ 1314.) The email regarded the Obosi Community Association of New York Inc.’s2
(“OCA”) consideration of whether to provide financial benefits to Plaintiff’s children
following the death of his ex-wife, Vanessa Emekekwue. (Doc. 52, Ex. H, ¶¶ 12Plaintiff is a resident of Pennsylvania (Doc. 8, ¶ 4), and Defendant is a resident of New
York (id. at ¶ 5). The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. (Id. at ¶ 1.)
1

According to the OCA website, the “[OCA] was established in 1994 for the purpose of
providing educational opportunities to boys and girls of Obosi, as well as improving the standard of
living at Obosi. OCA’s sources of funds are donations from individuals and corporations. OCA is a
charitable organization with IRS tax exempt status. Its membership covers [the] New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut[,] and Pennsylvania areas.” Obosi Community Association of New York Area, Inc.,
http://obosinynj.org/ (last visited May 21, 2014).
2

13.) Plaintiff’s original complaint brought claims of libel, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and punitive damages.
(Doc. 1.) On December 7, 2011, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and brief in
support, wherein she argued for dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint based on lack of
personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), as well as for
failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). (Docs. 5 & 6.)
Prior to the court’s disposition of Defendant’s motion to dismiss,
Plaintiff filed, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), an
amended complaint on December 16, 2011. (Doc. 8.) In response, Defendant filed
an amended motion to dismiss on December 31, 2011. (Doc. 12.) Defendant’s
amended motion to dismiss and brief in support thereof contained arguments for
dismissal based solely on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6). Defendant did not re-raise, incorporate by reference, or otherwise mention
the Rule 12(b)(2) personal jurisdiction argument in either the amended motion to
dismiss or brief in support. On May 15, 2012, the court granted Defendant’s motion
to dismiss pertaining to Plaintiff’s claims for intentional infliction of emotional
distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and punitive damages on the basis
of Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim, but denied the motion as it pertained to
Plaintiff’s defamation claim. (Doc. 17.) Noting that Defendant did not re-raise the
personal jurisdiction argument, the court only addressed the arguments presented in
the amended motion to dismiss. (Id. at p. 4, n.4.)
Following the issuance of the court’s memorandum and order granting
in part and denying in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Defendant filed an answer
to the amended complaint on June 1, 2012. (Doc. 18.) On July 24, 2012, Defendant
2

filed a motion for summary judgment, raising the sole issue of personal jurisdiction.
(Doc. 22.) In a memorandum and order dated October 24, 2012, the court denied
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Defendant’s failure to
renew the personal jurisdiction argument in her amended motion to dismiss waived
any such defense pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(g) and 12(h). (Doc.
27.)
Following discovery, Defendant filed the instant motion for summary
judgment on February 28, 2014. (Doc. 51.) The motion was accompanied by
Defendant’s statement of material facts (Doc. 52), brief in support (Doc. 53), and
exhibits (Doc. 52, attachments 1-10). Defendant argues that she is entitled to
summary judgment because Plaintiff failed to produce sufficient material facts to
support the elements of a defamation claim and because her statements were
conditionally privileged, truthful, and/or constituted non-actionable expressions of
opinion. On March 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion for
summary judgment (Doc. 54), brief in support thereof (Doc. 54-2), and response to
Defendant’s statement of facts (Doc. 52). Defendant filed a reply brief on April 4,
2014. (Doc. 56.) The motion for summary judgment is therefore fully briefed and
ripe for disposition.
B.

Factual Background

Plaintiff and his wife, Vanessa Emekekwue (“Vanessa”) were married
and had three children. Throughout their marriage, the couple was closely involved
with the OCA. In addition to regularly attending OCA meetings and events, Plaintiff

3

was a secretary of the organization3 and Vanessa was a member of the scholarship
committee. (B. Emekekwue Dep. at p. 36; see Doc. 54-14, p. 2 of 2.) In the spring
of 2010, the couple divorced (Doc. 52, ¶ 3; Doc. 55, ¶ 3), and Plaintiff soon
remarried (see Doc. 54-8, p. 2 of 2).
At some point during Plaintiff and Vanessa’s marriage, Vanessa became
ill and was being treated for cancer at Johns Hopkins Hospital. However, following
their divorce, Plaintiff’s employer terminated Vanessa’s health insurance, ultimately
resulting in her inability to continue receiving medical care at Johns Hopkins. (See
Doc. 54, p. 4; B. Emekekwue Dep. at pp. 59-60.) She was referred to the Penn State
Hershey Medical Center where she continued her treatment, but succumbed to her
illness in 2011.
Upon the death of an OCA member, the OCA’s Constitution and
Bylaws (the “OCA Constitution”) (see Doc. 54-7) provides for the distribution of a
death benefit in the amount of $200.00 per child (see id. at p. 14 of 15). However, as
Plaintiff admits, whether divorce operates to severe one’s death benefits under the
OCA Constitution is a “grey area.” (See Doc. 54-2, p. 3 of 11; B. Emekekwue Dep.
at pp. 55-56.) Due to this ambiguity, the president of the OCA, Anthony Obiajulu
(“Mr. Obiajulu”) sent an email to OCA executive members to inquire whether it was
appropriate to pay death benefits to Vanessa’s children given that the Emekekwues
divorced in the year prior to Vanessa’s death.4 (Doc. 54-8; see Doc. 54-5, ¶ 6.) Mr.
Obiajulu wrote, in pertinent part, as follows:
Plaintiff was also a member and secretary of the Obosi Development Association, USA
Inc. (“ODA”), the national Obosi organization. (B. Emekekwue Dep. at p. 36.)
3

It is undisputed that Plaintiff paid annual family dues in the amount of $100 in 2011.
(Doc. 54-5, ¶ 5; C. Offor Dep. at pp. 46-47.)
4

4

I make this proposal for your thoughtful consideration and
response.
A fair interpretation of OCA bylaws is that a family
membership has two components or requirements, namely,
payment of family membership dues AND currently
married husband and wife status. Children that are
minors[, i.e.,] under 21, are deemed to be member’s
children, with no independent standing or obligations or
rights. . . .
Bertram Emekekwue was married to Vanessa for years
during which they had three children; during this period,
Betram paid family membership dues. Then Vanessa
divorced Bertram . . . and Bertram officially notified OCA.
Subsequently, Bertram became engaged and later married.
Before their divorce Bertram and Vanessa informed OCA
that she had been diagnosed with cancer; and last week she
succumbed to cancer and died; on the date of Vanessa’s
death, Bertram had remarried.
Based on [the] above interpretation, Bertram would not be
entitled to receive bereavement payment from OCA for the
death of Vanessa because he no longer was husband to
Vanessa on the date of her death.
Now, that having been said, and regardless of what views
one holds of Bertram, positive or negative, my concern is
that in good conscience we do what is right and fair,
specifically, with regard to the three children Vanessa had
with Bertram during their marriage and membership of
OCA. Simply put, the children of our current member
(Bertram) and our former late member (Vanessa) have lost
their mother, Vanessa – who while a member and still alive
was a regular and familiar presence at OCA meetings and
events. Therefore, just as a member who loses a relative
receives a $200 condolence payment, I propose that OCA
make a condolence payment of $200 to each of the three
children who have lost their mother.
I need the yes or no vote of each exec member on this
proposal asap. Even if the majority approves my proposal,
I think it would still be appropriate to submit it for
ratification to the general membership at our next meeting
(with proper procedure to safeguard the sensitivity of the
matter) both because of the novelty of the case and the
amount of money involved.
5

(Doc. 54-8.)5
The treasurer of the OCA forwarded Mr. Obiajulu’s email to Defendant
(C. Offor Dep. at p. 27), and, in response, Defendant authored the email at issue in
this case and sent it to both executive and non-executive members of the OCA6 (Doc.
54-5, ¶ 16; B. Emekewue Dep. at pp. 71-72). Defendant asserts that she was
uniquely qualified to offer her opinions with regard to whether Vanessa’s children
should receive death benefits because, as past president of the OCA, she was
intimately familiar with the constitution, bylaws, and operating procedures of the
organization. (Doc. 53, p. 18; see C. Offor Dep. at pp. 56-57; Doc. 52-4, ¶ 8.) The
challenged email follows in its entirety:

The court notes that the email contained in the record is the second publication of the
substance of this email. By way of explanation, during her deposition, Defendant explained the
discrepancy between the time stamps contained in her email, i.e., the email at issue in this case (time
stamped July 19, 2011 at 5:38 p.m.) (see Doc. 54-6), which was sent in response to Mr. Obiajulu’s email
(time stamped July 19, 2011 at 8:08 p.m.) (see Doc. 54-8). Specifically, Defendant explained that Mr.
Obiajulu’s email was circulated previously and that the email in exhibit (Doc. 54-8) was Mr. Obiajulu’s
follow up email requesting opinions from members who had not yet responded to his first request. ©.
Offor Dep. at pp. 80-81; see Doc. 54-8 (“PS: I thank those who have voted on the proposal and ask those
that have not to do so, and I would announce the result.”).)
5

Defendant’s email was addressed to the entire OCA membership body through the
organization’s official group email list rather than to just the executive board. (Doc. 56, p. 8 n.2.)
Plaintiff repeatedly alleges that, following Defendant’s initial publication to OCA members, the email
was circulated worldwide to non-members of the OCA. (See Doc. 8, ¶¶ 6, 11-12; Doc. 55, ¶¶ 16, 18;
Doc. 54-2, pp. 1, 6, 8.) However, the only factual support cited by Plaintiff for this alleged worldwide
distribution is Plaintiff’s own deposition testimony that actually undermines his claim. When asked by
Defense counsel “of whom do you have knowledge that the email was forwarded to other than the
people located in the original mailing list,” Plaintiff responded that the email was forwarded to his
brother and sister, but then explained that he was the one who actually forwarded it to them. (B.
Emekekwue Dep. at pp. 74-75.) Such facts do not support expanding the scope of the recipients in this
case and thus the court will only consider the original recipients of the email, i.e., OCA members, for
purposes of its analysis. See 42 Pa. Con. Stat. § 8343(2) (requiring proof of publication by the
defendant); Williams v. Univ. of the Sciences in Phila., 2004 WL 2399735, Civ. No. 02-cv-7085, *5
(E.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2004) (stating that the burden of proving publication is on the plaintiff).
6

6

Obosi dalu nnu,
It has come to my attention that our President is seeking
opinions on whether we can disregard our constitution and
give money to late Vanessa Emekewue’s children which in
effect means we are giving money to Mr[.] Bertram
Emekekwue since these children are all minors.
Our constitution allows us to give money to a spouse or
even children of an active member.
However, Mr[.] Bertram Emekekwue is an ex-spouse and
does not qualify for any money under our constitution.
Also at the time of Vanessa’s death, she had never
indicated any interest in continuing her membership despite
their divorce nor was she a financial member hence her
children do not also get any money officially from the
organization (OCA). I truly do not understand why this
deserves a discussion. The constitution is very clear on this
issue.
However, Vanessa actively participated in OCA and was
much loved by us all. I suggest if it’s possible for all of us
to personally donate to a fund that will be given to her
very, very dear children when they are ready for college or
18 [years] of age.
I implore our very learned President who also happens to
be a lawyer to remember that he should guard our
constitution jealously. He was instrumental in the drafting
of that constitution and our constitution should be our
guideline and highly respected as obtains in other civilized
organizations.
In conclusion, let’s call a spade a spade. Mr[.] Bertram
Emekekwue took away Vanessa’s medical insurance which
would have enabled her to continue her medical treatment
at Johns Hopkins University where they were familiar with
her cancer. She had no choice but to go to the State
hospital in Pennsylvania. He was very proud of this and
had no problems informing all and sundry how she would
soon die. It’s pathetic that he wants to gain financially
from her death. Please stop begging OCA and ODA to pay
for your ex-wife’s death. ENOUGH ALREADY.
Thanks.
Chinwe Offor (onwelego)
7

(Doc. 54-6.)
Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s email was libelous in that it contained
a series of false statements and harmed Plaintiff’s reputation. Specifically, Plaintiff
claims that Defendant falsely stated (1) that Plaintiff sought death benefits from the
OCA (Doc. 54-2, p. 1); (2) that Plaintiff was responsible for Vanessa’s death because
he cancelled her health insurance policy (id. at pp. 1-2); (3) that Plaintiff bragged
about Vanessa’s imminent death (id. at p. 2); and (4) that Plaintiff wanted to gain
financially from his ex-wife’s death (id.). Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of the
email, he was impeached from his position as secretary of the OCA and ODA and
ostracized from the Obosi community. (Id. at pp. 7-8.)
In her motion for summary judgment, Defendant offers factual support
for her affirmative defenses of truth, opinion, and conditional privilege, and
addresses the absence of material evidence to support Plaintiff’s cause of action for
libel. More specifically, Defendant offers evidence demonstrating, inter alia, (1) that
Plaintiff requested death benefits from both the ODA and OCA (see Doc. 52-6, ¶ 8;
Doc. 52-5, ¶ 8; see also C. Offor Dep. at pp. 62-64); (2) that Vanessa did not
continue her membership with the OCA following the Emekekwue’s divorce (K.
Offor Dep. at p. 16; C. Offor Dep. at pp. 24-25); (3) that Plaintiff discussed the
circumstances of his divorce with fellow OCA members (see Doc. 52-4, ¶¶ 5-6; Doc.
52-5, ¶¶ 6-7); (4) that Plaintiff told several OCA members that he had “cancelled”
Vanessa’s medical insurance (see Doc. 52-6, ¶ 6; Doc. 52-5, ¶¶ 6-7; K. Offor Dep. at
p. 18); (5) that Plaintiff stated that Vanessa “can die for all I care” and called her a
“villain” (see Doc. 52-5, ¶ 6; 52-4, ¶ 5); (6) that OCA members did not change their
opinion of Plaintiff due to Defendant’s email (see K. Offor Dep. at pp. 10-11; Doc.
8

52-4, ¶ 4; Doc. 52-5; ¶ 5; Doc. 52-6, ¶ 5); and (7) that Plaintiff’s inappropriate
behavior and failure to carry out his duties as secretary of the OCA and ODA led to
his impeachment and removal from the executive office.7 (Doc. 53, p. 16; see Doc.
52-9; Doc. 52-5, ¶ 10; Doc. 52-6, ¶ 10).
In response, Plaintiff adamantly argues that Defendant’s statements
were false, taking exception with literally every statement contained in the email.
(See B. Emekekwue Dep. at pp. 44-45 (“Everything [Defendant] wrote about me in
the email are [sic] not true.”); Doc. 54-2.) However, Plaintiff fails to support his
position with virtually any evidence beyond his own uncorroborated statements and
fails to set out specific material facts to support the required elements of his libel
claim. Thus, after a thorough review of the record taken as a whole, the court finds
that the statements contained in the email forming the basis of Plaintiff’s libel claim

7

In a letter notifying Plaintiff of his impeachment, Mr. Obiajulu wrote as follows:

During the [December 17, 2011 meeting of the OCA,] a motion was moved and
properly seconded to impeach and remove you as the OCA secretary. . . . The
reasons for the motion to impeach you include as follows: (1) written threat and
intimidation of all Obosi indigenes and non-indigenes including OCA members
through an email you authored and sent on November 27, 2011; (2) on
November 24, 2011 you notified OCA members that you were forwarding an
unapproved and un-adopted minute of OCA general meeting held on October
29, 2011 to individuals, entities and agencies not affiliated with OCA and
without the prior consent of OCA; (3) on November 24, 2011 you notified OCA
members that you were forwarding an unapproved OCA document(s) without
the prior consent of OCA; (4) on November 24, 2011 you distributed
disparaging communications detrimental to the integrity and reputation of OCA
and OCA members to individuals, entities and agencies not affiliated with OCA,
and on (5) December 11, 2011 you resigned as Secretary of national body
[ODA] upon overwhelming vote by ODA executives to impeach and remove
you as ODA Secretary thus rendering you unfit to continue as the OCA
Secretary.
(Doc. 52-10, p. 1.) Significantly, the impeachment letter does not mention Defendant’s email or any of
the issues addressed therein.
9

were not capable of a defamatory meaning. Moreover, the court concludes that the
statements were either substantially true or constituted non-actionable opinion, or
were otherwise privileged. Therefore, the court will grant Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment.
II.

Legal Standard
Summary judgment will be granted “if the movant shows that there is

no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [that] the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is “material” if it “might
affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law . . . .” Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A factual dispute is “genuine” if the evidence
would permit a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.
The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating that there is
no genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323
(1986). The nonmoving party must then “make a showing sufficient to establish the
existence of [every] element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party
will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Id. at 322. For a factual dispute to be genuine,
the nonmoving party must establish more than “[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of
evidence in support of [its] position,” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
252 (1986), and may not “rely merely upon bare assertions, conclusory allegations or
suspicions” to support its claims. Fireman’s Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J. v. DuFresne,
676 F.2d 965, 969 (3d Cir. 1982). Rather, the nonmoving party must present specific
facts that would enable a reasonable jury to find in its favor. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ.

10

P. 56(e). “If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative,
summary judgment may be granted.” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249-50.
“[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the
nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Celotex, 477
U.S. at 323. In this situation, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. Id. Notably, “[s]elf serving testimony does not create genuine issues of
material fact, especially where that very testimony suggests that corroborating
evidence should be readily available.” Brooks v. Kerry, Civ. No. 10-0646, 2014 WL
1285948, *8, — F. Supp. 2d — (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2014) (quoting Fields v. Office of
Johnson, 520 F. Supp. 2d 101, 105 (D.D.C. 2007)). As the district court in Brooks
explained:
“Evaluating whether evidence offered at summary
judgment is sufficient to send a case to the jury,” . . . “is as
much art as science.” Estate of Parsons v. Palestinian
Auth., 651 F.3d 118, 123 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Particularly in a
case . . . where the non-moving party relies almost entirely
upon [his] own generally uncorroborated statements in
depositions, declarations, and interrogatory responses to
create a genuine issue of material fact, the Court must
carefully assess whether the plaintiff’s evidence is “merely
colorable,” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505,
or whether “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury
could return a verdict for the nonmoving party,” id. at 248,
106 S.Ct. 2505. The Court must review the record “taken
as a whole.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.,
530 U.S. 133, 150-51, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105
(2000) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith
Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89
L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)). On the one hand, the Court must
accept all of the non-movant’s evidence as true and give
[him] the benefit of all justifiable inferences. See id. at
255, 106 S.Ct. 2505. The Court may not make credibility
determinations or weight the evidence, Reeves, 530 U.S. at
150, 120 S.Ct. 2097, as “[c]redibility determinations, the
weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate
inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a
judge.” Id. (quoting Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255, 106
11

S.Ct. 2505). On the other hand, a non-movant’s allegations
that are “generalized, conclusory and uncorroborated by
any evidence other than the [non-movant’s] own deposition
testimony” are “insufficient to establish a triable issue of
fact” – at least where the nature of the purported factual
dispute reasonably suggests that corroborating evidence
should be available. See Akridge v. Gallaudet Univ., 729
F. Supp. 2d 172, 183 (D.D.C. 2010); see also GE v.
Jackson, 595 F. Supp. 2d 8, 36 (D.D.C. 2009) (observing
that when a “declaration is self-serving and
uncorroborated” it is “of little value at the summary
judgment stage”).
Brooks, 2014 WL 1285948 at *8.
III.

Discussion
At issue in this case is the viability of Plaintiff’s claim for libel.

Defendant argues that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Plaintiff
cannot establish all of the necessary elements to establish such a claim and because
her statements were privileged, substantially true, and/or constituted non-actionable
expressions of opinion. Plaintiff responds that Defendant’s email was defamatory
and resulted in significant harm to his reputation.
A.

Defamation

To succeed on his claim for libel, Plaintiff must establish that the
challenged publication was defamatory. Thomas Merton Cntr. v. Rockwell Intern.
Corp., 442 A.2d 213, 215 (Pa. 1981); see Joseph v. Scranton Times L.P., 959 A.2d
322, 334 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008) (“Defamation, of which libel, slander, and invasion of
privacy are methods, is the tort of detracting from a person’s reputation, or injuring a
person’s character, fame, or reputation, by false and malicious statements.”) In
Pennsylvania, the burden of proof for a common law defamation action is set forth
by statute:
12

(a)

Burden of plaintiff. – In an action for
defamation, the plaintiff has the burden of
proving, when the issue is properly raised:
(1)

The defamatory character of the
communication.

(2)

Its publication by the defendant.

(3)

Its application to the plaintiff.

(4)

The understanding by the recipient of
its defamatory meaning.

(5)

The understanding by the recipient of it
as intended to be applied to the plaintiff.

(6)

Special harm resulting to the plaintiff
from its publication.

(7)

Abuse of a conditionally privileged
occasion.

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343(a); Porter v. Joy Realty, Inc., 872 A.2d 846, 849 (Pa.
Super. Ct. 2005). The court finds that Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence
sufficient to establish the defamatory character of the communication.8
Whether the challenged communication is capable of bearing the
defamatory meaning ascribed to it by the plaintiff is a question for the court. Smith
v. IMG Worldwide, Inc., 437 F. Supp. 2d 297, 307 (E.D. Pa. 2006); Tucker v.

In addition, the court finds that Plaintiff failed to establish the understanding by the
recipients of the communication’s defamatory meaning, special harm resulting from the
communication’s publication, and abuse of a conditionally privileged occasion. As for the remaining
elements, Defendant does not dispute that the email was published, intended to apply to Plaintiff, and
understood by the recipients as intended to apply to Plaintiff. (Doc. 53, p. 10.) Because failure to
succeed on one element is fatal to the claim, the court will only specifically address the defamatory
character of the communication. Moreover, the court is confident that its discussion pertaining to the
defamatory character of the communication, which also inherently addresses the understanding by the
recipients and special harm resulting from its publication, is sufficient. The court will discuss
conditional privilege in a later section of this memorandum.
8

13

Philadelphia Daily News, 848 A.2d 113, 123-24 (Pa. 2004). To determine whether a
communication is capable of a defamatory meaning, the court must consider whether
it “tends to harm an individual’s reputation so as to lower him in the estimation of
the community or [to] deter third persons from associating or dealing with him.”
U.S. Healthcare v. Blue Cross of Greater Phila., 898 F.2d 914, 923 (3d Cir. 1990)
(citing Birl v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 167 A.2d 472, 476 (Pa. 1960)). In reaching its
conclusion, the court must view the statements in context and determine whether the
communication seems “to blacken a person’s reputation or expose him to public
hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to injure him in his business or profession.” Baker v.
Lafayette Coll., 532 A.2d 399, 402 (Pa. 1987) (internal citations omitted); Green v.
Minzer, 692 A.2d 169, 172 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997). In this regard, the court should
“determine the effect the [communication] is fairly calculated to produce, the
impression it would naturally engender, in the minds of the average persons among
whom it is intended to circulate.” Baker, 532 A.2d at 402; Thomas Merton Ctr. v.
Rockwell Int’l Corp., 442 A.2d 213, 216 (Pa. 1981). It therefore follows that, in
doing so, the court must consider the nature of the audience receiving the remarks.
Baker, 532 A.2d at 402.
Moreover, certain types of communications, while undoubtably
offensive or distasteful, do not rise to the level of defamation because the law does
not extend to mere insult. See Beverly Enters., Inc. v. Trump, 182 F.3d 183, 187 (3d
Cir. 1999); Kryeski v. Schott Glass Tech., Inc., 626 A.2d 595, 600-601 (Pa. Super.
Ct. 1993). For example, expressions of opinion, without more, are not actionable.
Id. Likewise, “[s]tatements which are merely annoying or embarrassing or [are] no
more than rhetorical hyperbole or a vigorous epithet are not defamatory.” Beverly
14

Enters., 182 F.3d at 187 (quoting Kryeski, 626 A.2d at 601). Rather, the plaintiff
“must have suffered the kind of harm which has grievously fractured his standing in
the community . . . .” Tucker, 848 A.2d at 124.
Applying these well established legal principles to the present case, the
court finds that the challenged email was incapable of a defamatory meaning. In this
case, the entire controversy centers on the interpretation of Defendant’s email,
particularly the last paragraph of the email. In evaluating the nature of this
communication, the court first notes that Defendant sent the email to OCA members
during an internal deliberation concerning whether to pay death benefits to Plaintiff’s
children. As highlighted by both Plaintiff and Defendant, the OCA is comprised of a
tight-knit group of members who are generally aware of other members’ life
circumstances and situations. (See Doc. 53, p. 12; Doc. 54-2, p. 6.) Thus, the court
must determine the impression the email would naturally engender in the minds of
these intended recipients given the nature of their community.
When viewed in this context, Plaintiff has not met his burden in
establishing the defamatory character of the email. Significantly, Plaintiff has failed
to set forth legally sufficient evidence showing that his reputation or standing in the
community suffered in any way as a result of the email. Notably absent here is a
statement from a single member of the community, aside from Plaintiff and his
current wife, demonstrating that Defendant’s email grievously fractured Plaintiff’s
reputation in the community or even affected his reputation at all, despite the fact
that such corroborating evidence should be readily available. Instead, the only OCA
recipients on record in this dispute testified that the email did not change their
opinion of Plaintiff, cause them to think less of him, or deter them from associating
15

with him.9 (Doc. 52-4, ¶ 4; Doc. 52-5, ¶ 5; Doc. 52-6, ¶ 5.) Moreover, Plaintiff
failed to rebut Defendant’s claim that Plaintiff’s own actions, rather than the
statements made by Defendant, led to his removal from office and alleged
ostracization from the Obosi community. (See Doc. 53, p. 16; Doc. 52-9; Doc. 5210.) Indeed, Plaintiff neglected to address the allegations detailed in the
impeachment letters or to attack their validity, and thus, Defendant’s position that it
was Plaintiff’s own hostile, inappropriate, and abusive behavior which led to his
ousting stands unrefuted.10 Consequently, Plaintiff’s conclusory and generalized
allegations that his reputation was harmed as a result of Defendant’s email are not
enough to establish a triable issue of fact. See Akridge, 729 F. Supp. at 183.
Furthermore, Plaintiff’s proposed defamatory construction of the email
must be rejected because it is not supported by the record and requires unreasonable
inferences. See Thomas Merton, 442 A.2d at 216-17 (finding that the subject
statements were not defamatory as a matter of law because the plaintiff’s
construction was based on an unreasonable inference). Plaintiff has consistently
taken the position that Defendant “indirectly call[ed] Plaintiff a murderer and

Plaintiff urges the court to discredit the declarations submitted by Defendant in support of
her motion for summary judgment. (See, e.g., Doc. 54-2, p. 4.) As stated, the court cannot weigh
credibility at the motion for summary judgment stage. However, on a record such as the one present
here, where Plaintiff’s unsupported allegation of what is properly characterized as perjury is the only
bases on which he urges the court to discredit these declarations, the court will consider the declarations.
9

In his answer to Defendant’s statement of material facts, Plaintiff states that he was
impeached in retaliation for filing this lawsuit and that he was never reprimanded for failing to properly
execute his duties as secretary or for any inappropriate behavior. (See Doc. 55, ¶ 23.) In support of his
claim, Plaintiff cites to an appreciation plaque that he received for his work as secretary from 20082011. This evidence, without more, falls far short from attacking the validity of the accusations
contained in the impeachment letters (see Doc. 52-10; Doc. 52-9) and the declarations submitted by
Defendant in support of her motion (see Doc. 52-5, ¶ 10; Doc. 52-6, ¶ 10).
10

16

extortionist . . . .”11 (Doc. 54-2, p. 10.) Arguably, if the last paragraph of the email
constituted the entire record, the innuendo urged by Plaintiff might be more
reasonable. However, “words which standing alone may reasonably be understood
as defamatory may be so explained or qualified by their context as to make such an
interpretation unreasonable.” Thomas Merton, 442 A.2d at 465 (quoting
Restatement (Second) of Torts s 559 (1977)). Such is the case here. The OCA
members were aware that Vanessa died from cancer despite receiving treatment at
Johns Hopkins and later Hershey Medical Center. (See, e.g., Doc. 54-8.) Indeed,
Defendant’s email specifically stated that Vanessa received ongoing treatment
despite the change in her medical insurance. (See Doc. 54-6.) In addition, while
Defendant wrote that Plaintiff was “begging [the] OCA and ODA to pay [him] for
[Vanessa’s] death” (id.), such a statement does not insinuate that Plaintiff attempted
to “extort” money from the OCA or ODA. The words “beg” and “extort” have
vastly different meanings. “Extort” is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary of
American English as “to obtain by force or threat,” whereas “beg” is defined as “to
ask for money, or to ask someone to do something in an urgent way.” Cambridge
Dictionaries Online, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/. Interpreting Defendant’s email
as alleging that Plaintiff attempted to do something illicit is unreasonable and

11

In his amended complaint, Plaintiff averred as follows:

The statements contained in the e-mail were false in that Plaintiff was not the
cause of his ex-wife’s death and he did not extort nor attempt to extort the
members of the OCA’s Members [sic] for monetary compensation as insinuated
and deduced from the Defendant’s e-mail, which was intended to cause harm
and ill thoughts of Plaintiff, by Defendant calling “a spade a spade.”
(Doc. 8, ¶ 7.) Plaintiff also made similar statements in his opposition to the motion to dismiss (see Doc.
14, pp. 3-4) and answers to Defendant’s statement of undisputed facts (see Doc. 55, ¶ 13).
17

contradicted by the plain meaning of Defendant’s use of the word “beg.” Further,
Plaintiff’s interpretation of Defendant’s statement as insinuating that he was
attempting to extort the organizations is contradicted by Defendant’s suggestion that
the OCA collect voluntary contributions to go toward a fund for Plaintiff’s children.
Ultimately, the email cannot be rendered libelous “by an innuendo which puts an
unfair and forced construction on the interpretation of the publication. An innuendo
must be warranted, justified and supported by the publication.” Thomas Merton, 442
A.2d at 217 (internal citations omitted). Because it is “unfair and forced” to infer
from the email that Defendant implied Plaintiff was a murder and extortionist, the
court concludes that Defendant’s statements were not defamatory.
Finally, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s use of the phrase, “let’s call a
spade a spade” clearly illustrates the defamatory character of the email. (See, e.g.,
Doc. 55, ¶ 13 (“Defendant’s email was intended to cause harm and ill thoughts of
Plaintiff (which it did), by Defendant stating ‘let’s call a spade a spade.’”).) The
definition of this idiom, as provided by Plaintiff and taken from the Cambridge
Idioms Dictionary, Second Edition, reads as follows: “to tell the truth about
something, even if it is not polite or pleasant.” (Doc. 54-2, p. 5.) To tell the truth
about something or someone, even if it offensive or distasteful, is not defamatory as
a matter of law. Thus, Defendant’s use of this idiom to indicate that she was going
to tell the truth does not rise to the level of defamation, even if her statements
thereafter were distasteful or offensive to Plaintiff. See Beverly, 182 F.3d at 187.
For all these reasons, the court finds that the statements contained in
Defendant’s email are incapable of a defamatory meaning and, therefore, no basis
exists to proceed to trial. See Mzamane v. Winfrey, 693 F. Supp. 2d 442, 480 (E.D.
18

Pa. 2010) (stating that the court acts as a gatekeeper to determine whether the
statements are incapable of a defamatory meaning in deciding whether any basis
exists to proceed to trial). Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment
will be granted on the basis of Plaintiff’s failure to produce sufficient evidence to
support his claim.
B.

Affirmative Defenses

Assuming, arguendo, that Plaintiff had met his burden of establishing a
prima facie case of libel, Defendant is still entitled to summary judgment on the
affirmative defenses of truth, opinion, and conditional privilege.
1.

Truth and Opinion

Plaintiff’s position that all of the statements contained in Defendant’s
email are false (see, e.g., B. Emekekwue Dep. at pp. 44-45; Doc. 54-2) is not
factually supportable. Rather, the vast majority of the email contains statements of
fact that, at a minimum, are substantially true, and the remainder of the email offers
Defendant’s opinions based on disclosed facts. Thus, Defendant’s statements are not
actionable.
Pennsylvania law provides that truth is an absolute and complete
defense to a defamation claim. Pacitti v. Durr, 310 F. App’x 526, 528 (3d Cir. 2009)
(citing Bobb v. Kraybill, 511 A.2d 1379, 1380 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986)). The burden is
on the defendant to prove the truth of the defamatory communication. 42 Pa. Con.
Stat. § 8343(b)(1). The defendant can meet this burden if she proves the statements
to be substantially true. Tucker v. Merck & Co., Inc., 102 F. App’x 247, 253 (3d Cir.
2004) (citing Chicarella v. Passant, 494 A.2d 1109, 1115 n.5 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1985)).
“Pennsylvania has determined proof of substantial truth must go to the ‘gist’ or
19

‘sting’ of the alleged defamatory matter.” Keeshan v. The Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc.,
Civ. No. 00-529, 2001 WL 310601, *15 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2001) (quoting Gilbert v.
Bionetics Corp., Civ. No. 98-2668, 2000 WL 807015, *3 (E.D. Pa. June 6, 2000)).
“The test is whether the [alleged] libel as published would have a different effect on
the mind of the reader from that which the pleaded truth would have produced.”
Dunlap v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 448 A.2d 6, 15 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1982)
(internal quotations omitted). Thus, “[m]inor inaccuracies do not amount to falsity
so long as ‘the substance, the gist, the sting, of the libelous charge be justified.’”
Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 517 (1991) (quoting Heuer v.
Kee, 59 P.2d 1063, 1064 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1936)).
In response to the subject matter of the email, i.e., whether to provide
death benefits to his children, Plaintiff argues that he never requested nor was given
death benefits following Vanessa’s death. (See B. Emekekwue Dep. at p. 48; Doc.
55, ¶¶ 10-12.) Rather, Plaintiff maintains that Mr. Obiajulu, upon his own initiative,
sent an email to the OCA executive members to inquire whether it would be
appropriate to provide death benefits to the children. (See Doc. 54-2, pp. 1-2; Doc.
55, ¶ 12.) However, contrary to Plaintiff’s uncorroborated assertion, John Uyamadu,
the financial secretary of the OCA and vice president of the ODA, stated in his
declaration that Plaintiff “made repeated requests to the ODA for benefits on behalf
of himself and his children” (Doc. 52-5, ¶ 8), and Emeka Ubakanma, the treasurer of
the OCA and a member of the ODA, stated that Plaintiff “made repeated requests to
the ODA and OCA for death benefits on behalf of himself and his children . . . .”
(Doc. 52-6, ¶ 7.) Thus, the substance of Defendant’s statements were true.

20

Moreover, even if Mr. Obiajulu made the requests on Plaintiff’s behalf, requests
were still made, and, therefore, Defendant’s statements were substantially true.
In addition to objecting to the subject matter of Defendant’s email,
Plaintiff also takes exception with each paragraph contained therein. Plaintiff’s
objections regarding the first paragraph of the email are less than clear (see Doc. 542, p. 3), but again seem to pertain to the allegedly false premise that Plaintiff was
seeking money from the OCA. (B. Emekekwue Dep. at p. 48 (“[I]t is not true
because nobody is giving me money. This was a conclusive paragraph that in effects
[sic] the money was given to Bertram Emekekwue. It is not true.”).) In the first
paragraph, Defendant explains the circumstances under which she is offering her
opinion and frames the issue. (See Doc. 54-6 (“It has come to my attention that our
President is seeking opinions on whether we can disregard our constitution and give
money to late Vanessa Emekekwue’s children which in effect means we are giving
money to Bertram Emekekwue since these children are all minors.”).) The facts as
stated, that Vanessa is deceased, that her children are minors, and that Plaintiff would
have control of any funds paid to the children, are not disputed.
Next, Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s interpretation of the constitution,
as provided in the next few paragraphs. However, Defendant’s interpretation is
merely her opinion. As Plaintiff readily admits, whether the OCA should pay death
benefits to Vanessa’s children given the Emekekwue’s divorce fell into a “grey
area” in the constitution. (See Doc. 54-2, p. 3.) Therefore, Defendant’s interpretation
of that “grey area” cannot be false.
The crux of Plaintiff’s libel claim focuses on the final paragraph of
Defendant’s email. First, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s statement that he “took
21

away Vanessa’s medical insurance” (Doc. 54-6) is blatantly false, explaining that
Vanessa’s health insurance was terminated by his employer following the couple’s
divorce. (Doc. 54-2, p. 4.) While Plaintiff’s statement may have inferred that
Plaintiff deliberately cancelled Vanessa’s insurance, the statement is substantially
true. The Emekekwue’s divorce did, in fact, result in Vanessa’s insurance being
taken away, even if Plaintiff did not elect to cancel it. Moreover, according to two
OCA members, Plaintiff made the outright claim that he had cancelled Vanessa’s
medical insurance. (See Doc. 52-5 (“[Plaintiff] informed me that he had cancelled
his wife Vanessa’s insurance and explained that she would soon die from cancer.”);
Doc. 52-6 (“I witnessed [Plaintiff] bragging about the fact that he cancelled his wife
Vanessa’s medical insurance.”).)
Likewise, the subsequent statements, wherein Defendant wrote that
Vanessa was unable to continue her treatment at Johns Hopkins due to the
cancellation of her insurance and had to go to the “State Hospital in Pennsylvania”
(see Doc. 54-6), were substantially true. Indeed, Plaintiff himself admits that the
cancellation of Vanessa’s insurance prevented her from continuing her treatment at
Johns Hopkins and required her to go to Hershey Medical Center. (See Emekekwue
Dep. at pp. 65-66 (“Then she was actually referred to Hershey Medical Center,
Pennsylvania State University Medical Hospital, because of the insurance that she
doesn’t have at Johns Hopkins.”).)
The statements contained in the next sentence, that Plaintiff was proud
of taking away Vanessa’s medical insurance and “had no problems informing all and
sundry how she would soon die,” were also substantially true. Although Plaintiff
claims that he never made any such statements, two OCA members provided sworn
22

declarations stating that Plaintiff said “[Vanessa] can die for all I care” and called her
a “villain.” (Doc. 52-5, ¶ 6; Doc. 52-4, ¶¶ 5-6.) Thus, even if Defendant’s statement
was not entirely accurate, the “gist” of it was true.
Finally, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s opinions as provided in the
last three sentences of the email were defamatory. In Pennsylvania, a defamatory
communication in the form of an opinion is only actionable if it “may reasonably be
understood to imply the existence of undisclosed defamatory facts justifying the
opinion.” Remick v. Manfredy, 238 F.3d 248, 261 (3d Cir. 2001) (emphasis in
original); Balleta v. Spadoni, 47 A.3d 183, 197 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012). As the
Third Circuit has explained:
Although there may be no such thing as a false opinion, an
opinion which is unfounded reveals its lack of merit when
the opinion-holder discloses the factual basis for the idea.
If the disclosed facts are true and the opinion is
defamatory, a listener may choose to accept or reject it on
the basis of an independent evaluation of the facts.
However, if an opinion is stated in a manner that implies
that it draws upon unstated facts for its basis, the listener is
unable to make an evaluation of the soundness of the
opinion. In such circumstances, if the underlying facts are
false, the Constitution does not protect the opinion. See
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 556A.
Redco Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 758 F.2d 970, 972 (3d Cir. 1985). Here, Defendant’s
stated opinions, i.e., that it was “pathetic that [Plaintiff] want[ed] to gain financially
from [Vanessa’s] death, ” and that Plaintiff should “stop begging OCA and ODA to
pay you,” constituted non-actionable expressions of opinion.
The first four paragraphs of Defendant’s email provided the factual
circumstances upon which Defendant based her opinions, i.e., the membership status
of the parties and the constitution, and, in the final paragraph, Defendant stated that
Plaintiff was seeking benefits from the OCA. As discussed above, these facts were
23

substantially true. Furthermore, the recipients of the email were intimately aware of
the facts and circumstances underlying the statements made in this email. Thus, the
email recipients could choose to accept or reject Defendant’s opinions based on the
disclosed facts and, therefore, Defendant’s statements are not actionable.
For all these reasons, Defendant has met her burden in proving that the
statements contained in her email were substantially true or constituted nonactionable expressions of opinion. As Plaintiff has not provided any competent
evidence to overcome Defendant’s showing, Defendant is entitled to summary
judgment on these grounds.
3.

Conditional Privilege

Finally, even if the court had found that the communication was capable
of a defamatory meaning or that Defendant was not entitled to the affirmative
defenses of truth or opinion, the publication was made on a conditionally privileged
occasion, thus relieving Defendant of any liability.
Conditional privilege serves as an affirmative defense to defamation
claims under Pennsylvania law. 42 Pa. Con. Stat. § 8343(b)(2). Thus, a properly
stated defense of conditional privilege will relieve a defendant of liability even where
the court concludes that a communication is capable of a defamatory meaning.
Miketic v. Baron, 675 A.2d 324, 329 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996). Communications are
privileged when they are “made on a proper occasion, from a proper motive, in a
proper manner, and based upon reasonable cause . . . .” Choi v. Sohn, Civ. No. 011782, 2004 WL 627060, *3 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 1, 2004) (quoting Davis v. Resources for
Human Dev., 770 A.2d 353, 358 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001)). Stated differently, a
conditional privilege arises “whenever circumstances are such as to lead any one of
24

several persons having a common interest in a particular subject matter correctly or
reasonably to believe that facts exist which another sharing such common interest is
entitled to know.” Merck, 102 F. App’x at 253-54 (internal quotations and citations
omitted).
In this case, Defendant and the other members of the OCA had a
common interest in whether the OCA should pay death benefits to Plaintiff’s
children because the issue involved a novel question pertaining to a “grey area” of
the constitution and potentially involved a significant amount of the organization’s
funds. (See, e.g., Doc. 54-8 (“Even if the majority approves my proposal, I think it
would still be appropriate to submit it for ratification to the general membership at
our next meeting (with proper procedure to safeguard the sensitivity of the matter)
both because of the novelty of the case and the amount of money involved.”).)
Defendant was uniquely qualified to offer her opinion on the matter because she is a
past president of the OCA and is intimately familiar with the constitution, bylaws,
and operating procedures of the organization.12 (Id.; see Doc. 52-5, ¶ 2.)
Defendant’s intent and purpose in authoring and sending the email was to inform
other members about the issue, to ensure that the decision was made by the entire
membership and not by a select group, to ensure that payments were not made in
violation of the OCA constitution, and to offer her suggestion that OCA members
voluntarily contribute money for a fund to give to the children. (C. Offor Dep. at pp.
57-58.) The court is persuaded that the circumstances “correctly or reasonably”
Plaintiff’s position that “Defendant is neither a patron nor an executive member of the
OCA” and, therefore, is not entitled to conditional privilege (Doc. 54-2, p. 8) is misguided because
Defendant’s privilege is grounded in her membership alone. See Rankin, 211 A.2d at p. 31 (extending
conditional privilege “to the members of the [church], all of whom had a very real interest in the
resolution of the problems which had involved the handling of the church’s affairs”).
12

25

caused Defendant to believe that facts existed which the members of the OCA were
entitled to know, and, therefore, it finds that Defendant’s email was a conditionally
privileged communication.
Once a matter is deemed conditionally privileged, the burden shifts to
the plaintiff to prove that the defendant abused the conditional privilege. Howard v.
Deklinski, Civ. No. 01-4171, 2002 WL 31501850, *1 (3d Cir. 2002); Choi, 2004 WL
627060 at *3 (citing Davis, 770 A.2d at 359). An abuse occurs “when the
publication is actuated by malice or negligence, is made for a purpose other than that
for which the privilege is given, or to a person not reasonably believed to be
necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose of the privilege, or includes
defamatory matter not reasonably believed to be necessary for the accomplishment of
the purpose.” Beckman v. Dunn, 419 A.2d 583, 588 (Pa. Super. 1980); Tucker at 254
(citing Elia v. Erie Ins. Exch., 634 A.2d 657, 661 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993)). “[A]
private figure defamation plaintiff, seeking compensation for harm inflicted as a
result of the publication of defamatory matter, must prove that the defamatory matter
was published with want of reasonable care and diligence to ascertain the truth or, in
the vernacular, with negligence.” Rutt v. Bethlehems’ Globe Pub. Co., 484 A.2d 72,
83 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984) (internal citations omitted).
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate facts which would support a finding
that the publication was a result of negligence or improper purpose. As the court has
already found that Defendant’s statements were substantially true or constituted
legally protected opinion, Defendant cannot be liable for failure to exercise
reasonable care and diligence to ascertain the truth. Nevertheless, even assuming
Plaintiff had properly established his prima facie case and Defendant was not entitled
26

to the affirmative defenses of truth and opinion, Plaintiff has failed to offer any
material facts to show that the purpose, scope, or subject matter of Defendant’s
statements were improper. Defendant disseminated the email to OCA members who
undoubtably shared her interest in the finances and constitution of the organization.
While some of the statements in the email, particularly those in the last paragraph,
revealed Defendant’s personal opinions of Plaintiff and were, at times, arguably
distasteful and insulting, the issues involved reasonably permitted Defendant to go
beyond a simple interpretation of the constitution and discuss Plaintiff personally.
Mr. Obiajulu’s email indicated that the board was considering awarding a
discretionary payment to Plaintiff despite the apparent constitutional restrictions. It
was therefore reasonable for Defendant, in order to protect the finances and ideals of
the OCA, to set forth both facts and her opinions counseling against either a
constitutional or discretionary disbursement of funds. Thus, the court concludes that
Defendant adequately supported her claim of conditional privilege and that Plaintiff
failed to produce the necessary material facts to prove that the privilege was abused.
Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on this ground. See
Miketic v. Baron, 675 A.2d 324, 329 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996) (finding that Plaintiff
failed to meet his burden to show abuse of privilege where complaint merely alleged
an abuse of privilege in a series of legal conclusions and failed to demonstrate facts
which would support a finding that the publication was a result of malice or
improper purpose).

IV.

Conclusion
27

For the reasons set forth above, the court will grant Defendant’s motion
for summary judgment. An appropriate order will issue.
s/Sylvia H. Rambo
United States District Judge
Dated: June 12, 2014.

28