2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-30-2005 

# I s m a el v . Ali P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-4894

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" I s m a e l v . Al i " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 941. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/941NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 03- 4894

___________ TAR EQ I SM AEL
v. AB BA S AL I , DE P AR T M E NT OF M ANAGE M E NT E BE RL Y C OL L E GE OF BU SI NESS; M AN TON GI BBS, DEPA RTM ENT O F M AN AG EM ENT EBER LY CO L L E GE OF BU S I NE S S ; CA RO L DR YE , DE P AR T M E NT OF M ANAGE M E NT E BE RL Y C OL L E GE OF BU S I NE S S ; RO BE RT CA M P , E BE RL Y C OL L E GE OF BU SI NESS; BH AR AT D AS, DEPA RTM ENT O F M AN AG EM ENT EBER LY CO LLE G E O F BU SI N ESS; A M ER I CA N SO CI ETY FO R C O M PETI TI V EN ESS,

A bbas A l i , D epar t m ent of M anage m ent E ber l yC ol l ege of B us i nes s ; M ant on G i bbs , D epar t m ent of M anage m ent E ber l yC ol l ege of

B us i nes s ; C ar ol D r y e, D epar t m ent o f M an ag em en t E b erlyC o ll eg e o f B u sine ss; R o b ert C am p, E berl yC oll ege o f B usi ness; B harat D as, D epart m ent of M anag em ent Eb erl yC oll ege o f B usi ness, A p p e llan ts

___________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 99- cv- 01932) D i s t r i ct J udge: T he H onor abl e R ober t J . C i ndr i ch

___________ A R G U E D O C T O B E R 28, 20042 B efore: N Y G A A R D , A M B R O , and G A R T H , C i rcui t Judg es.

( Fi l ed: J une 30, 2005 ) T hom as G . E ddy , E s q. O f f ice o f A tto rn e yG e n e ra l o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia 564 For bes A venue, M anor C om pl ex Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 B r uce C. Fox, E s q. ( A r gued) O ber m ay er , R ebmann, M axw el l & H i ppel 500 G r ant St r eet Sui t e 5240, O ne M el l on C ent er Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 C o u n se l f

o r A p p e llan ts J oel F. B i gat el , E s q. ( A r gued) 211 H aver for d A venue N arber t h, PA 19072 C ouns el for A ppel l ee

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ N Y G A A R D , C i r cui t J udge. A p p ell an ts, A b b as A li an d M an ton G ibb s, so u g h t an o rde r gra n ti n g them su m m ary j udgm ent on t he bas i s of s over ei gn i m m uni t y . T he D i s t r i ct C our t s ugges t ed t hat A l i and G ib b s, b o th e m p lo y e e s o f In d ian a U n iv e rsity o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia ( IU P ), f

a iled to d e m o n stra te t hat t heyw er e ac t i ng w i t hi n t he s cope of t hei r empl oy m ent w hen t heym ade s ever al
a lle g e d ly d e f

a m a to ry st a te m e n ts , a n d th e re f o re w e re n o t e n title d to im m u n ity. See 1 P A . C ON S . S TAT . A NN . § 2310. B eca us e w er e ar e unabl e t o det er m i ne pr eci s el yt he bas i s for3

t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s opi ni on, w e ar e conc om i t ant l yunabl e t o as cer t ai n w het her w e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on. T hus , w e w i l l vaca t e t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s opi ni on and r emand t he
c a u se f o r th e D istric t C o u rt to re c o n sid e r A li an d G ib b s’ m o tio n f o r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t. A l i and G i bb s, bo t h p rofessor s at IU P , act ed as co ordi nator s for a busi ness gl obal i zat i on confe r ence . I U P w as t he pr i m ar ys pons or of t hi s confe r ence . A l t hough
num er ous or gani zat i ons hel ped s pons or t he conf er ence , t w o ar e of pr i m ar yi m por t ance : t he A m er i can Soci et yfor C om pet i t i venes s ( A SC ) and t he I nt er nat i onal Soci et yfor C om pet i t i venes s ( I SC ) . B ot h of t hes e or gani zat i ons ar e as s oci at ed w i t h I U P. I n addi t i on t o hi s ful l pr ofes s or s hi p at I U P, A l i s er ved as an i ncorpor at or of I SC and A SC , E xecut i ve D i r e c t orof

I SC, a nd a s A s s i s t a ntD i r e c t orof A SC. G i bb s , a l s o a fu l l pr of e s s ora t I U P,
s er ved as an i ncorpor at or of I SC , T r eas ur er of I SC , and A s s oci at e Execut i ve D i r ect or of A SC . A t t he conf

er ence , A l i s er ved as Pr ogr am C hai r m an and G i bbs w as t he P rog ram /C o n fe ren ce C o o rdin ator. A l i and G i bbs cl ai m t hat fol l ow i ng t he conf er ence , ques t i ons ar os e r egar di ng t he
m anneri n w hi ch A ppel l ee, T ar eq I s m ael , handl ed conf er ence funds . A l i and G i bbs aut hor ed a s er i es of l et t er s addr es s ed fi r s t t o I s m ael and t hen t o hi s empl oy er s at t he U ni ver s i t yof C al gar y , al l egi ng t hat I s m ael m i s handl ed conf er ence funds . A l l of t he l et t er s w er e w r i t t en on ei t her A SC or I SC l et t er head. T he l et t er s w er e s i gned by I U P/ C om m onw eal t h empl oy ees . T he l as t four w er e s i gned byG i bbs , one as “C onfer ence C oor di nat or , ” t w o as “Pr ofes s or and C onfer ence C oor di nat or , ” and one as “C onfer ence4

C o o rdin ator, A m erican S o cietyfo r C o m p eti ti v en ess.” Ism ae l cl aim s tha t t h ese let ters
w e r e d e f a m a t o r y. Is m a e l f ile d s u it a g a in s t A li, G ib b s , th re e o th e r i n d iv id u a ls , A S C , IS C , a n d IU P . T he D i s t r i ct C our t found t hat I U P w as ent i t l ed t o s over ei gn i m m uni t yand di s m i s s ed t he
c laim s a g a in st it. A li an d G ib b s c laim e d th a t th e yto o w e re e n tit led to so v e re ig n im m u n ity p u rsu a n t to P e n n sy lv a n ia L a w , w h ich p ro v id e s th a t “th e C o m m o n w e a lth , an d its o f f icia ls and empl oy ees act i ng w i t hi n t he s cope of t hei r dut i es , s hal l cont i nue t o enj oy s over ei gn i m m uni t yand off

i ci al i m m uni t yand r emai n i m m une fr om s ui t . ” 1 P A . C ON S . S TAT . A NN . § 2 3 1 0 . T h e C o u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n f o r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t. A li an d G ib b s n o w a p p e a l. T he fi r s tques t i on w e must addr es s , i s w het her w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t he D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t A li a n d G ib b s w e re n o t e n title d to s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. A t th e v e ry le a s t, w e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to d e te rm in e th e q u e s tio n o f ju ri s d ic tio n . U

ni t ed S ta tes v . R u iz , 5 3 6 U . S . 6 2 2 , 6 2 8 (20 0 2 ). W h ere w e a re f ac ed w it h an interl o cu tory
a p p e a l f ro m a d e n ial o f

su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, so u g h t o n th e b a sis o f so v e re ig n im m u n ity , it is of crit ical i m p o rt an ce to d eterm ine w h ythe D ist ri ct C o u rt d en ied th e m o ti o n . If the re
w a s a m a ter ial d isp u te o f f a c t, w e lac k ju risd ictio n to re v iew its o rd e r. W e a re u n a b le to
m ake t hat det er m i nat i on on t hi s r ecor d. T h e D ist ri ct C o u rt all u d ed to li m it ed fa cts i n w ri ti n g it s o p inion d en y ing su m m ary j udgm ent

— t hat t he l et t er s w er e w r i t t en on A SC l et t er head a nd t hat A l i and G i bbs di d not
r ece i ve a s al ar yfr om A SC or I SC . N o ot her fac t s r el at i ng t o A l i or G i bbs w er e addr es s ed1. For exampl e, i t does not appea r t hat t he D i s t r i ct C our t opi ni on cons i der ed, nor

d id th e C o u rt c ite to , the R e sta tem e n t S e c o n d o f A g e n c y , the law f

o llo w e d in P e n n s y lv a n ia . A l i ot a v. G r aham , 984 F. 2d 1350, 1358 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . T hi s i s s i gni fi cant beca us e t he R es t at ement pr ovi des t hat conductm ayfal l w i t hi n t he s cope of empl oy m ent “ a lth o u g h d o n e in p a rt to s e rv e th e p u rp o s e o f th e s e rv a n t o r o f

a th ir d p e rs o n .” R ES TAT EMEN T (S EC ON D ) OF A GEN C Y § 236. T he C om m ent s el abor at e t hat a per s on m ay s er ve t w o m as t er s “bot h of w hom ar e i nt er es t ed i n t he per for m ance of t he s ame act . ” I d. , c m t. a.; see B rum

f i el d v. Sa nd ers , 2 3 2 F . 2 d 3 7 6 , 3 8 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). 2. W e dec l i ne t o r es pond at l engt h t o our col l eague ' s di s s ent . B eca us e t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt d id n o t se t f

o rth f in d in g s o f

f a c t an d c o n c lu sio n s o f

law su f f icie n t f o r u s to d e te rm in e o u r j u ri s d ic tio n , n o r m a yw e e n g a g e in a p p e lla te f a c t f in d in g , s ee Chal

f antv. W ilm in g to n In stitu te , 574 F. 2d 739, 747- 753 ( 3d C i r . 1978) , w e have concl uded t he pruden t op t i on i s a r em and for t he D i st ri ct C ou rtt o m ake the requi si t e fi nd i ng s. 5 b yth e D istric t C o u rt. T h e C o u rt d id n o t cite to th e re lev a n t P e n n sy lv a n ia la w . W ith o u t a 1
s t at ement fr om t he D i s t r i ct C our t expl ai ni ng w hat fac t s or l aw i t s concl us i on w as bas ed on, w e ca nnot det er m i ne w het her w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew i t s or der . W e now exer ci s e our s uper vi s or ypow er s t o r equi r e t he D i s t r i ct C our t on r emand t o cl ear l yi dent i fy
w het her t hi s m ot i on for s um m ar yj udgm ent , m ade on a cl ai m of qual i fi ed i m m uni t y , has b e e n d e n ie d b e c a u s e th e re w a s a d is p u te o f m a te ri a l f

a c t, o r a s a m a tte r o f

la w . See F or bes v. Tow ns hi

p of Low erMer i on , 3 1 3 F . 3 d 1 4 4 , 1 4 9 (20 0 2 ). H e n c e , w e w ill v a c a te a n d re m a n d th e c a u se to th e D istric t C o u rt f o r it to r e v isit the issu e o f so v ere ign im m u n it yan d rec o n side r A p p ell an t’ s m o ti o n fo r sum m ary ju d g m e n t. 23. R ober t C amp— D ean of t he Eber l yC ol l ege of

B us i nes s at I ndi ana U ni ver s i t y of Penns y l vani a ( “I U P”) , as w el l as an i ncorpor at or , boar d m ember , and off i cerof t he A m er i can Soci et yfor C om pet i t i venes s ( “A SC ”) and t he I nt er nat i onal Soci et yfor C o m p e titiv e n e s s (“ IS C ” )— w a s a m e m b e r o f th e c o n f e re n c e o rg a n iz in g c o m m itte e . Is m ael al so w as a m em ber of the organizi ng com m i t t ee and , according t o A l i and G i bb s, p rog ram tr ea su rer. 4. B efor e t he conf er ence , I s m ael r ece i ved a number of conf er ence r egi s t r at i on chec ks . H e depos i t ed t he che cks i nt o an ac count at t he R oy al B ank of Canada . A t t he c o n f e re n c e , a d isp u te d e v e lo p e d b e tw e e n Ism a e l an d A li co n c e rn in g v a rio u s a sp e c ts o f its run n ing , inclu d ing inv it ati o n s to a lun ch eo n at t h e h o m e o f th e P reside n t of N o rt h ern C ypr es s t hat excl uded ce r t ai n fac ul t ym ember s fr om I U P ( G i bbs among t hem). I s m ael a n d A li h a d p u b lic a rg u m e n ts. O n e p ro f e ss o r h e a rd A li sh o u t th a t h e w o u ld g e t ev e n w ith Is m a e l. 6 A M B R O , C i r cui t J udge, di s s ent i ng I r e s pe c t fu l l y

di s s e nt be c aus e I di s a gr e e wi th m y c ol l e a gu e s ’ c on c l us i onthat we can n o t d eterm in e w h eth er w e h av e j u risd ictio nan dth u s w e sh o u ldrem an d . In stead , I be l i e ve we have jur i s di c t i on. Furthe r , I woul d a ffi rm the Di s tr i c t

Court ’ s de ni a l of de fe ndant s ’ s umm ary

judgm e nt

m ot i on. Fa ct ua l His tory T h e f o llo w in g f

acts are relev an t to th is ap p eal inad d itio nto th e f acts d escrib edin the m ajority

op inion. In No vem

ber 199 8, Is m ae l andAli wer e i nv olved in a conf er ence at th e E asternM ed iterran eanU n iv ersity inN o rth ernC y

p ress. Ism ael’s co n du ct in

3
conn ec ti on with the c on ference spawned a serie s of lette rs that un derl ie this dispute. 4 I s m a e l c l a i m s that

Al i or de r e d Car ol Dr

ye , as e c r e t ary

at the Ebe r l y

Col l e ge of Bus i ne s s , t o fax al e tt e r

dat e d Nove m

be r 30, 1998, that

c ont a i ne d fa l s e s t at e m e nt s about5. A SC i s an i ndepende nt corpor at i on. I t w as nei t her cont r ol l ed byI U P nor

re q u ir e d to re p o rt to o r s e e k IU P a p p ro v a l f o r i ts f o rm a tio n o r a c tiv itie s . 6 . IS C a ls o is a n in d e p e n d e n t c o rp o ra tio n . 7 I s m a e l ’ s handl i ng of c onfe r e nc e funds . Ac c or di ng t o Drye , Al i pr e par e d the l e tt e r and o rd eredh er to sig nit. Ism ael claim s th at th e letter w as carb o nco p iedto C am p an dA li and forwar de d by

Drye t o offi c i a l s at

Ea s t e rn Me di t e rr ane an Uni ve r s i ty , t o num e r ous other c on ference atte nd ee s, and to Ism ae l’ s e m ploy er . The le tt er

was on A SC le tt er

head 5 and state d that “ it

was a gree d that no C on ference fu nd s are [sic ] d eposit ed in a per sonal or fake a c c ount . . . . [W ]e have e thi c a l and pr ofe s s i ona l r e s pons i bi l i t i e s t o our part i c i pant s . . . [and] we fe e l obl i gat e d t o i nform the c onfe r e nc e part i c i pant s about the ca sh flow .” Th e l ette r c on ta ined no re qu es t for an acc ou nting, bu t dem anded the ret urn o f u n sp en t co n f

eren ce f u n d s to A S C . Is m ae l c la im s that Gibbs then si gn ed a l ette r s ec re tl y co-a utho re d b y

Ali—date d Janu ar y 20 , 199 9, and add re ss ed to the Pre si dent of the Univers it

y of Calgar y —that c ont a i ne d fa l s e i nform at i on. The l e tt e r , a l s o on ASC l e tt e rhe a d, a c c us e d I s m a e l of l yi ng r e gar di ng the pay

m e nt of hot e l e xpe ns e s i n c onne c t i on wi th the c onfe r e nc e and s t e a l i ng conf er ence proceeds. It

re qu es ts the Pre si dent to as si st AS C in solving the “ fraud iss ue” and putt i ng an e nd t o the “ unpr ofe s s i ona l c onduc t . ” I t a l s o r e que s t s that

I s m a e l be in stru ctedto f

o rw ardall co n f

eren ce p ro ceed s to G ib b s, p ayab le to IS C . T h e letter d id 6
no t r equest

an ac coun ti ng of

the fun ds or additi on al info rm at ion as t o con ference ex p en d itures.8

Is m ae l c la im s that this l ette r c ause d the Un iver si ty of Calgar y to st art an invest igat ion andthat

Gibb s s igned res po nsive l ette rs , c o-authored by Ali, date d M ar ch 1 8 , Ju n e 3 , an dJu n e 1 6 , 1 9 9 9 , to th e U n iv ersity o f C alg ary m ak in g ad d itio n al f

alse s t at e m e nt s about

I s m a e l t o the e ffe c t

that he ha d m i s appr opr i at e d c onfe r e nc e funds for his per sonal a cc ou nt and that his conduct was a “ cr im inal ac t. ” Di s c us s i on I . Jur i s di c t i on. a. T h e d en ia l o f su m m a ry ju d

gm en t in th is ca se is a n im m edia tely a p p ea la b le co lla tera l o rd

er. Federa l a pp el late courts general ly

do no t e nter

ta in appeal s from

dist ri ct court or de r s de nyi ng m ot i ons for s umm ary judgm e nt

unl e s s thos e or de r s e nd l i t i gat i on. 28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 ; R iva s v. City o f P a ssa ic , 365 F.3d18 1, 19 1 (3d . Cir 20 04 ). Ho wever, appeal s from

ce rt ai n “coll at er al ” orders m ay be im m ediate ly appeal able even thou gh they d o n o t term in ate litig atio n . Cohe n v . Be ne f i c i al I nd. Loan Cor

p. , 337 U. S. 541, 546 ( 1949) . And though thi s c a s e i s adi ve r s i ty a c t i on ba s e d on s t at e l aw c l a i m s , i n Brow n v. Grab owsk

i , 9 2 2 F .2 d1 0 9 7 (3 dC ir. 1 9 9 0 ), w e reco g n izedth at “th e p arties ina d iv ersity a c t i on . . . ar e bound by

fe de r a l pr oc e dur a l r

ul e s gove rni ng appe a l s , i nc l udi ng the coll at er al order doctri ne.” Id . at 110 6. Co ll at er al orders subj ec t t o imm ediate appeal ar e thos e or de r s that

( 1) c onc l us i ve l y

de t e rm i ne the di s put e d i s s ue , ( 2) r e s ol ve an i m port ant issu e en tirely

sep arate f

ro m th e m erits o f

th e law su it, an d(3 ) can n o t b e ef f ectiv ely9

rev iew edo nap p eal f

ro m a f in al j u d g m en t. Se eCoope r s & Ly brand v
. Li v es ay , 437 U. S. 463, 468 ( 1978) ( c i t i ng Co hen , 3 3 7 U .S . at 5 4 6 ). I n Brown we wr ot e that

“ the r i gh t

t o an i nt e r l oc ut or

y app e a l fr om

the de ni a l of

a cl ai m of absolute or qu al ifie d imm un it y un der s tate law can on ly exis t where the s tate has e xt e nde d an unde r l yi ng s ubs t ant i ve r i ght t o be fr e e fr om

the bur de ns of l i t i gat i on ar i s i ng fr om a c t s t ake n i n the c our s e of [offi c i a l ] dut i e s . ” 922 F. 2d at 1106- 07 ( quot at i on o m itted ). Inef

f ect, “[ i] t is im m u n ity fro m su its , r ath e r th anm e r e i mm

u n i ty f r o m l i ab i l i ty, th at . . . m ak e[ s] [ ano rd er d en yin g su mm ary j u d g m en t o nstate statu to ry imm u n ity grou nd s i mm ediate ly] app ea la ble. ” I n reCi t yof Phi lade l phi a Li t i gat i on , 49 F. 3d 945, 957 ( 3d Ci r . 1995) (e m

ph as is added). Als o, afte r wri ti ng that orders denying summ ar

y judgm e nt s ought on i mm uni ty gr ounds ba s e d on Pe nns yl vani a ’ s Pol i t i c a l Subdi vi s i on To rt Clai m s Act

(“ PS TC A”) were no t i mm ediate ly appeal able orders (r ec og nizi ng that the PS TC A p r ov i de d f

or i mm un i ty fr om l i abi l i ty r athe r that i mm un i ty fr om s ui t ) , we r e i t e r at e d that

“ whe n im m u n ity fro m su it i s i nvol ve d, the oppos i t e r e s ul t s houl d be reach ed .” 4 9 F .3 dat 9 5 8 (em p h asis ad d ed ). S

ee a lso G iu

ffre v. B issell , 31 F. 3d 1241, 1 2 4 8 (3 dC ir. 1 9 9 4 ) (“T h e d en ial o f a claim o f qu alif iedimm u n ity p rem isedup o nstate law . . . is ap p ealab le o n ly if th e state h as co n f

erredanu n d erlyin g sub stan tiv e imm u n ity from suit s . . . .” ) ( em

ph as is om itte d). Pres um ably

denial of summ ar y ju dg m ent s ou gh t due to im m un it y from suit —as op po se d to imm

un it y from li abil it y —is potenti al ly

an im m ediate ly appeal able coll at er al10

order beca

use prong s one and three of the Co hen t e s t ar e s at i s fi e d whe n i mm

uni ty fr om su it is at issu e, b u t n o t w h enimm u n ity f ro m liab ility is at issu e. C

f. M itch ell v. F

o rsyth , 472 U. S. 511, 526- 27 ( 1985) ( hol di ng that fe de r a l qua l i fi e d i mm

uni ty i s i mm uni ty fr om suit rather than im m un it y from li abil it y , andthus denial of

summ ar y ju dg m ent on f

eder al qu a l i fi e d i mm

un i ty gr ound s i s i mm e di at e l y

app e a l abl e be c aus e a l l thr e e pr on gs of Co hen ar e s at is fied). Pron g o ne of

the Co hen test requ ires th at th e d ecisio nto b e ap p ealedco n clu siv ely d eterm in es th e d isp u tedissu e. Wh ensu mm ary j u d g m en t b asedo nimm

u n ity f ro m su it is d en ied , su it co n tinu es an dth e attem p t to f o restall it inits early

stag es is lo st. See M itch ell , 472 U. S. at

527 ( “ the c ourt ’ s de ni a l of s umm ary judgm e nt

fi na l l y and c onc l us i ve l y

de t e rm i ne s the de fe ndant ’ s c l a i m of r i ght not t o s tand tr i al”) (em

p h asis in tex t). P ro n g th ree requ ires th at th e d ecisio nto b e ap p ealedcan n o t b e ef f ectiv ely
r e vi e we d on appe a l fr om afi na l judgm e nt . As we wr ot e i n Brown , [ a] d ecisio nd en yin g su mm ary j u d g m en t to ano f

f icial assertin g imm

u n ity f ro m b o thlitig atio nan dliab ility [ th at is, imm

u n ity f ro m su it] . . . in v o lv es a rig h t th at can n o t b e ef

f ectiv ely v in d icatedaf

ter th e trial h as o ccu rred . T h is is b ecau se th e essen ce o f

su chimm

u n ity is its p o ssesso r’s en titlem en t n o t to have t o ans we r

for hi s c onduc t

i n ac i vi l dam a ge s a c t i on. 92 2 F .2d at 110 6 (ci tati on s andqu otat ions om itte d). Thu s, beca use denia l of summ ar

y ju dg m ent bas ed on im

m un it y from suit sati sfie s prong s one and three of the Co hen test, a de fe ndant m ay i mm e di at e l y

appe a l s uc h an or de r

i f pr ong two i s s at i s fi e d ( de t e rm i ni ng11

whe the r the or de r r e s ol ve s an i m

port ant i s s ue e nt i r e l y

s e par at e fr om

the m e r i t s of the lawsuit) . I n thi s c ont e xt , the i s s ue s de vol ve t o two: ( 1) ar e Al i and Gi bbs c l a i m i ng i mm uni ty fr om s ui t or l i abi l i ty ; and ( 2) i s the i mm uni ty i s s ue s e par abl e fr om

the m e r i t s of the l awsuit . The st at

utory se ct ion u nd er

wh ic h A li and G ibbs cl ai m im m un it y —1 Pa. Cons . St at . § 2310—r e a ds i n part : “ [T]he Comm onwe a l th, and i t s offi c i a l s and e m pl oye e s a c t i ng wi thi n the s c ope of the i r dut i e s , s ha l l c ont i nue t o e njoy s ove r e i gn i mm uni ty and offi c i a l i mm

uni ty and r e m a i n im m u n e fro m su it .” Id . (em p h asis ad d ed ). Th is plai nly

m akes Penn sylvania

em ploy ee s a ct ing in the sc op e of their of fici al du ti es im m un e from suit and thu s prong s one and three of the Co hen t e s t ar e s at i s fi e d. Wh eth er imm

u n ity is sep arab le f

ro m th e m erits o f

th e law su it is a to u g h er issu e. G w iszcz v. P h ila d

elp h ia , 550 A.2d88 0 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 198 8), i m plie s that the answer un der Pennsylvania

procedural l aw is no . Bes ides the fac t t hat we a pp ly federal pr oc e dur a l l aw i n thi s fe de r a l c a s e , i s ade fam at i ons ui t l i ke our s di ff

e r e nt i n any e ve nt ? I n Gw is zc z , the Co mm onwe a l th C ourt of Pe nn s yl vani ahe l d that

the de ni a l of

a summ ar y ju dg m ent m otion b y

the Pennsylvania

Departm ent of T ranspo rt at ion (“DOT ”) , b asedo nP en n sylv an ia’s so v ereig nimm u n ity u n d er § 2 3 1 0 , w as n o t anap p ealab le c ol l at e r a l or de r

i n an a c t i on for

fa i l i ng t o m a i nt a i n ar oa dway . 550 A. 2d at 882. The D O T claim edinits m o tio nf o r su mm ary

j u d g m en t th at G w iszcz f ailedto state a claim
w ith ino n e o f

th e ex cep tio n s to so v ereig nimm u n ity enu m eratedin4 2 P a. C o n s. S tat.7. A not her Penns y l vani a ca s e t o hol d t hat j ur i s di ct i on w as l acki ng i n an appe al of

den i al of a su m m aryj ud gm ent unde r § 231 0 w as H am m ond v. Thom

ps on , 551 A . 2d 667 (P a . C m w th 1 9 8 8 ). H o w e v e r, itd o e s n o t co n tain sig n if ica n t d isc u ss io n o th e r th a n to quot e G w i s z cz . 5 5 1 A .2 d a t 6 6 8 . 12 § 8522( 1)
- ( 9) . ( Exc e pt i on 4 de a l s wi th ne gl i ge nt l y m a i nt a i ne d hi ghway s and e xc e pt i on 5 deal s with n egli gently

m ai ntai ned p otho le s. ) I n d ec li ning ju ri sdic ti on , the Co urt r e a s one d that

the e xc e pt i ons t o i mm

uni ty ( ne gl i ge nt l y

fa i l i ng t o m a i nt a i n hi ghway s and pothol e s ) t i e i ne xtr i c abl y wi th the m e r i t s ( fa i l i ng t o m a i nt a i n ar oa dway) . W i thi n the Co hen rub ric, p ro n g tw o w as n o t satisf iedu n d er P en n sylv an ia p ro cedu ral law relatin g to ap p eals. 7 Ino u r case (ap p lyin g f

ed eral p ro cedu ral law ), is d ef am atio nd if

f eren t, i. e. , does im m un it y from a defam at ion suit ( if Ali andGibb s wer e a ct ing as I UP —andther efore C o mm o n w ealth

— em

p lo yees) m erg e w ithw h eth er d ef am atio nactu ally

o ccu rred ? T o ask the que s t i on i s t o gi ve the ans we r : no. Whe the r Al i and Gi bbs we r e a c t i ng wi thi n the s c ope of the i r

e m pl oy m e nt har dl y de pe nds on the m e r i t s of the l aws ui t . Eve n the elem en ts o f

each in qu iry

are p o les ap art. C o n du ct w ith insco p e o f em p lo y m en t (1 ) is wh at the e m ploy ee is em

ploy ed to perform , ( 2) occurs within authoriz ed ti m e andspac e lim its, an d(3 ) is d o n e to serv e th e em p lo yer. Cos ta v . Rox borough Me mor i al Hos pi tal , 7 0 8 A .2 d4 9 0 , 4 9 3 (P a. S up er. C t. 1 9 9 8 ). A m o n g th e elem en ts o f d ef am atio nin Pe nns yl vani aar e : ( 1) ade fam at ory c omm uni c at i on; ( 2) publ i c at i on by the de fe ndant ; ( 3) it s a pp li cati on to the pla inti ff ; ( 4) un ders tand ing b y

the r ec ipie nt of

it s defam at ory13

m e ani ng; ( 5) the pl a i nt i ff’ s unde r s t andi ng that i t i s i nt e nde d t o appl y

t o hi m /he r ; and ( 6) sp ecial h arm

to th e p lain tif

f . 4 2 P a. C o n s. S tat. § 8 3 4 3 (a). Inth is co n tex t, it is saf e to say pron g two of

the Co hen t e s t

i s s at i s fi e d. b . Th e majorit

y’ s argum ent t

ha t we c an no t deter

mine wh et

her we have ju risdictio n is in co rrect. Th e m ajority

as se rt s, withou t c it at ion, that [w ]he re w e a re f

ac ed w it h an interl o cu toryap p ea l from a d en ial o f su m m ary j udgm ent , s ought on t he bas i s of s over ei gn i m m uni t y , i t i s of cr i t i cal im p o rt an ce to d eterm ine w h y the D ist ri ct C o u rt d en ied th e m o ti o n . If the re w a s a m a te ri a l d is p u te o f f a c t, w e la c k ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w its o rd e r. Howe ve r , a s the Supr e m e Court and one of my

c ol l e a gue s i n the m a

jor i ty have previously

re cogn iz ed, there is no such rule . See Behrens v . Pelle ti er , 516 U. S. 299, 312- 13 ( 1996) (“ Denial of

summ ar y ju dg m ent often incl ud es a det er m inat ion that t

here ar e c ontr ove rt e d i s s ue s of m at e r i a l fa c t . . . and J ohns on [ v. Jones , 5 1 5 U .S . 3 0 4 (1 9 9 5 ),] sure ly did n ot m ean that e very

such denial of

summ ar y ju dg m ent i s non appeal able .” ); G iu ffre , 31 F. 3d at

1247 ( Garth, J . ) ( “ [T]he i mm e di at e appe a l abi l i ty of or de r s de nyi ng im m un it y is no t a utom at ic al ly

defeat ed m er el y

beca use s om e i ss ues of m at er ia l fac t re m ai n.”) . I nde e d, the m a jor i ty i s i nc orr e c t

e ve n t o di s t i ngui s h be twe e n de ni a l s of s umm ary judgm e nt

that de t e rm i ne that

the r e i s age nui ne i s s ue of m at e r i a l fa c t and denial s of summ ar

y ju dg m ent that do n ot, a s a l l de ni a l s of s umm ary

judgm e nt , by

de fi ni t i on, i nvol ve ade t e rm i nat i on that the e vidence i s dis pu te d suf fici entl y to ra is e a genu ine i ss ue of

m at er ia l fact fo r tri al . . . . Ob viou sl y , i f a dete rminat ion b y a dis tr ic t c ou rt

that ge nui ne i s s ue s of m at e r i a l fa c t warr ant tr i a l we r e s uffi c i e nt

t o pr e ve nt

us14

f ro m ex ercisin g j u risd ictio nf

ro m ano rd er rej ectin g a qu alif iedimm u n ity d ef en se, w e w o u ldn ev er h av e j u risd ictio no v er su chap p eals— a resu lt pl a i nl y at odds wi th M

itch ell [ v. F

o rsyth , 4 7 2 U .S . 5 1 1 (1 9 8 5 ),] an dits p r o g e n y. Win field v. B a ss , 106 F. 3d 525, 529 ( 4th Ci r . 1997) ( c i t i ng Be hre ns , 516 U. S. at 312- 13; F ed . R . C iv . P . 5 6 ). Ap pare ntly , the m ajority ’s conclusi on that it cann ot dete rm ine whether it has jur i s di c t i on i s ba s e d on John son v. J on es , 5 1 5 U .S . 3 0 4 (1 9 9 5 ), Wa lker v. H o rn , 286 F. 3d 705 ( 3d Ci r . 2002) , and Z icca rdi v. City o

f P h ila d elp h ia , 2 8 8 F .3 d5 7 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 2 ). H o w ev er, J

ohns on , Walk

er , and Zi c c ardim er el y

held that , i n a federalqu al ifie d imm u n ity case, th ere is n o in terlo cu to ry ap p ellate j u risd ictio nto h ear a claim that a d istrict co u rt erro n eo u sly f o u n dth at a reaso n ab le j u ry co u ldf in dcertainf

acts. See Be hre ns , 516 U.S. at

31 3 (“ J ohns on held, s im

ply , that det er

m inat ions of

evidenti ar

y suff ic ie ncy at summ ar y ju dg m ent are no t i mm ediate ly appeal able m er el y

beca use they happ en to ar is e i n a qu al ifie d-im m un it y ca se .” ); Walk

er , 2 8 6 F .3 dat 7 1 0 ; Zi c c ardi , 288 F. 3d at 59 ( “ To the e xt e nt

that the appe a l di s put e s the di s tr i c t c ourt ’ s i de nt i fi c at i on of the f acts th at are sub

j ect to g enu in e d isp u te, w e d ism iss th is ap p eal f o r lacko f ap p ellate ju ri sdic ti on .” ). T h e p ro b lem

is th is: A li an dG ib b s neve r m ade a cl ai m , l ike the cl ai m s prohibite d i n J ohns on , Walk

er , and Zi c c ardi , th at th e D istrict C o u rt erro n eo u sly f o u n dth at a re as on able ju ry

could f ind certa in fact s. Rather , they cl ai m ed that

the Dis tr ic t Cou rt er roneou sl y concluded that the fact s i n the re cord in the l ight m ost favorable to Is m ae l15

did n ot sati sfy

the le gal st andard of

sovere ign imm

un it y beca use i t m is un ders toodthe l aw of s ove r e i gn i mm

uni ty . I n the i r

“ s umm ary

of the ar gum e nt ” s e c t i on, Al i and Gi bbs ar gu ed that the undi s put abl e fa c t s di c t at e that Appe l l ant s we r e a c t i ng wi thi n the s c ope of thei r e m ploy m ent with IUP and summ ar y ju dg m ent s ho uld h ave been g ran tedb y

th e D istrict C o u rt up o na p ro p er ap p licatio no f P en n sylv an ia l aw, w h ich it fa iled

to a p p ly . The Di s tr i c t

Court ’ s r e l i anc e on the ASC l e tt e rhe a d us e d wa s m i s pl a c e d and wr ong as a mat te r of law , b ecau se it is the m ani fe s t at i on of author i ty fr om the pr i nc i pa l , I UP, whi c h as a mat te r of age nc ylaw ad o p tedb y

th e P en n sylv an ia C o u rts, is co n tro llin g o nth e issu e. Ap pell ant Br. at

15 (fir st em ph as is in original ; l atte r two em ph as es added). Inad d itio n , J

ohns on , Wa lker, and Zi c c ardiaddres s a pp ea la bili ty of is sues unde r l yi ng the m erits of

a c la im , while ou r c as e a dd re ss es appeal abil it y of is sues un derl ying w hether immu nity fr om tr i a l on the m e r i t s att a c he s . I n B ro w n v. A rm en ti , 247 F. 3d 69 ( 3d Ci r . 2001) , our Court e xpl a i ne d that

“ [w]e ha d he l d i n G iu

ffre. . . th at a c l a i m that ‘ I di dn’ t do i t ’ i s di ffe r e nt

than ac l a i m

t o the r i ght

of qua l i fi e d i mm

uni ty and that a denia l of summ ar

y ju dg m ent bas ed on the form er is no t a pp ea la ble. ” I d. at 7 7 n .4 . The c a s e s appar e nt l y

r e l i e d on by

the m a jor i ty a ddr e s s appe a l abi l i ty

of i s s ue s unde r l yi ng the m erits o f

a claim , i. e. , “I d idn ’t d o it” claim s. T h u s, th ere w as n o j u risd ictio ninth o se c a s e s . H o w e v e r , th e c l a i m i nth i s c a s e i s f o r qu a l i f i e di mmun i ty , w h i c ho n e o f my c ol l e a gue s i n the m a

jor i ty de s c r i be d i n G iu

ffreas d if

f eren t f ro m u n ap p ealab le claim s. Furthe rm or e , appe a l s of i s s ue s unde r l yi ng the m erits of c l a i m s fa i l a l l thr e e pr ongs of the Co hen test. Se eBe hre ns , 516 U. S. at 313. I n c ontr a s t

t o J ohns on , Walk

er , and16

Zi c c ardi , ho wever, the i ss ue in this ca se sati sfie s a llthre e prong s of the Co hen test. Th us, while J

ohns on , Walk

er , and Zi c c ardipr ohi bi t

i nt e r l oc ut ory

appe a l s of ( 1) e vi de nt i ary

s uffi c i e nc y

i n ( 2) fe de r a l i mm

uni ty c a s e s of ( 3) i s s ue s unde r l yi ng the m erits of a c la im that (4) fai l a llthre e prong s of the Co hen t e s t f o r i n t e r l o c u t o ry ap p e a l ab i l i ty, thes e c as es do no t prohibit i nter locutory appeal s of (1) m is un ders tand ings of the l egal s t andar d of s ove r e i gn i mm uni ty i n ( 2) Pe nns yl vani a§ 2310 c a s e s of ( 3) i s s ue s unde r l yi ng w h eth er imm

u n ity atta ches that

(4) s at is fy

al l t hree pron gs of

the Co hen t e s t

for i n t e r l o c u t o ry ap p e a l ab i l i ty. A s I c o n c lu d e w e h a v e ju risd ictio n , I tu rn to w h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt c o u ld d e te rm in e a s a m a tte r o f la w th a t A li a n d G ib b s a c te d w ith in th e ir IU P e m p lo y m e n t. I I . Wh e t he rAl ian d G i bb s ’ ac t i on s w e r e ou t s i de t he s c op e of t he i rI UP em ploy m ent. I n P etruzzi’s IG

A S u p erm a rkets, In c. v. D a rlin g-D ela w a reCo. , 998 F. 2d 1224 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ), w e w ro te th e u su al ref rainreg ard in g su mm ary

j u d g m en t: W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c t

c ourt ’ s s umm ary

judgm e nt

de t e rm i nat i on de no vo , appl yi ng the s am e s t andar d a s the di s tr i c t c ourt . . . . [S]umm ary

judgm e nt s houl d be gr ant e d i f, a ft e r dr awi ng a l l r e a s onabl e i nfe r e nc e s fr om the unde r l yi ng fa c t s i n the l i ght m os t favor abl e t o the non- m ovi ng party , the c ourt c onc l ude s that

the r e i s no ge nui ne i s s ue of m at e r i a l fa c t t o be r e s ol ve d at

tr i a l and the m ovi ng party i s e nt i t l e d t o judgm e nt

a s am att e r

of law . Id . at 1 2 3 0 ; s e eal

s o Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 56 ( c ) . Whe n A l i andGi bb s , e m pl oye e s of

a C o mm o n w ealthedu catio n al in stitu tio n , d issem in atedth e letters ab o u t Ism ael’s co n du ct,8. C os t a v. R oxbor ough Mem ’ lH os p. , 7 0 8 A . 2 d 4 9 0 , 4 9 3 (P a. S u p er. C t. 1 9 9 8 ); B ut l erv. F l o- R un V

endi ng C o. , 5 5 7 A .2 d 7 3 0 , 7 3 6 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 19 8 9 ); S h u m a n E sta te v. W eber , 4 1 9 A .2 d 1 6 9 , 1 7 3 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 19 8 0 ); F i t zger al d v. McC ut cheon , 410 A . 2d 1 2 7 0 , 1 2 7 2 (P a . S u p e r C t. 19 7 9 ); W in w a rdv . R h o d e w a ld , 198 A . 2d 623, 624 ( Pa. Super C t. 1 9 6 4 ). 9 . T h e D ist ri ct C o u rt d id n o t app lyP en n sy lvan ia l aw o n sco p e o f e m p loy m en t. In (c o n tin u e d ...) 17 d idth ey co n clu siv ely

d o so as em

p lo yees? If

so , th e d en ial o f

su mm ary j u d g m en t sh o u ld b e rev ersed ; if

n o t, it sh o u ldb e af

f irm ed . A s ex p ected , P en n sylv an ia sub stan tiv e law g o v ern s th is d iv ersity case. Er i eR. R. Co. v . Tomk

i ns , 3 0 4 U .S . 6 4 , 7 2 -7 3 (1 9 3 8 ); Al i ota v . Graham , 984 F. 2d 1350, 1358 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ). T o qu o te ag ainth e P en n sylv an ia statu te at issu e inth is case— § 2 3 1 0

— it reads i n p art : “[T ]he C om m on w eal t h, and i t s offici al s and em ploy ees act i ng w i t hi n t he
s cope of t hei rdut i es , sh a ll co n tin u e to e n jo yso v e re ig n im m u n itya n d o f f icia l im m u n ity and r emai n i m m une fr om s ui t . ” Id . (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h e P en n sy lvan ia S u p erior C o u rt has adopt ed t he gene r al s t andar d of t he R es t at ement ( Second) of A gency§ 228 for d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a n e m p lo y e e ’s c o n d u c t is w ith in th e sc o p e o f e m p lo y m e n t. “ I n the 8
abs e nc e of any

c ontr ary de c i s i ons or

pr onounc e m e nt s by

the Supr e m e Court

of Penn sylvania , we pre dict that that court wou ld fo ll ow this ho lding.” A lio ta , 984 F.2dat 1358. Thus ( t o r e pe at

what I have wr i tt e n a l r e a dy) , c onduc t i s wi thi n the s c ope of em ploy m ent i f (1) it

is of a kind that the em

ploy ee is em

ploy ed to perform , ( 2) it

occurs sub stan tially

w ith inth e au th o rizedtim e an dsp ace lim its, an d(3 ) at least p art o f its pu rpose i s t o ser

ve the e m ploy er . Res tate m ent ( Second ) of A gn ec y § 228. The 99. ( . . . cont i nued)

deny i ng A l i and G i bbs ’ m ot i on for s um m ar yj udgm ent , t he D i s t r i ct C our t w r ot e: [T]he r ecor d demonst r at es t hat t he al l egedl ydefa m at or yl et t er s w er e s ent byt he i ndi vi dual defe ndant s i n t hei r capa ci t i es as r epr es ent at i ves of A SC . T he l et t er s w er e on A SC l et t er head. T he fa ct t hat t he i ndi vi dual d e f e n d a n t s d i d n o t r e c e i v e a s a l a r yf r o m A S C o r I S C i s i r r e l e v a n t . As p lain tiff p o in ts o u t, m a n yp e o p le s e rv e a s v o lu n tee rs in c o m m u n ity o rg a n iza tio n s y e t ar e n o t in su late d f ro m d e f a m a tio n c laim s. A t a m i nim um , t he indi vidual defe nd ants hav e fai l ed to dem on st rat e as a m a t t e r o f l a w t h a t t h e y a r e e n t i t l e d t o s o v e r e i g n i m m u n i t y. 18 Re s t at e m e nt

( Se c ond) of Age nc y

§ 228 a l s o pr ovi de s that

“ [c ]onduc t

of as e rvant

i s not wi thi n the s c ope of e m

pl oy m e nt i f i t i s di ffe r e nt

i n ki nd fr om

that author i z e d, far

be yond the author i z e d t i m e or

s pa c e l i m i t s , or

t oo l i tt l e a c t

uat e d by a pur pos e t o s e rve the
m aster.” A li an dG ib b s h av e n o t sh o w nas a m atter o f law th at th eir actio n s w ere w ith in the s cope of

thei r I UP em

ploy m ent bec ause they

have no t s ho wn as a m atte r of law that th ey h av e satisf

iedp ro n g s o n e an dth ree o f th e sco p e o f

em p lo y m en t test. a. Vi e wi ng t

hef ac t s i n t hel i ght mos t f av orableto I

s mae l , Al iand Gi bbs hav enot

s hown as a mat te r

of law t hat t hedi s s e mi nat i on of th e letters w a s co n d

u ct o f a kin d th a t th ey w ere em

p lo yed to p erfo rm (P ro n g O n e). Ali andGibb s c la im

that they diss em inat ed the l ette rs to as ce rt ai n w hat happened to th e co n f

eren ce f u n d s an dto o b tainanacco u n tin g o f th o se f u n d s o nb eh alf

o f IU P . Cam p ar guabl y

gave t e s t i m ony

i n hi s de pos i t i on that

be for e Nove m

be r 30, 1998, he10 . T o repeat, C am p is t he D ean o f t he E berl yS cho ol of B usi ness at IU P , A l i i s a

P r o f e s s o r a t t h e Eb e r l yS c h o o l o f Bu s i n e s s , a n d Gi b b s i s a P r o f e s s o r a t I UP. Th u s , Ca mp p re s u m a b ly h a s a u th o ri ty to a u th o ri z e th e c o n d u c t o f A li a n d G ib b s o n b e h a lf o f IU P . 11. A l i and G i bbs ci t e a di ffe r ent par t of C amp’s depos i t i on t es t i m onyt o ar gue t hat t heyw er e aut hor i zed t o w r i t e t he ki nd of l et t er s at i s s ue: T he ques t i on w oul d be, i s i t w i t hi n t he s cope of t hei r r es pons i bi l i t i es , and vi r t ual l yal l act i vi t i es of an a cade m i c s chol ar l ynat ur e ar e w i t hi n t he s cope be caus e t heyr efl ectback on t he U ni ver s i t y , s o, I m ean, al m os t on a w eekl ybas i s t her e’ s cor r es pondence goi ng out t hat I don’ t aut hor i ze b u t itd e a ls w ith so m e a c tiv ityth a t a f a c u ltym e m b e r is in v o lv e d in conj unct i on w i t h an out s i de or gani zat i on or a par t i cul ar eventor w h atev er. . . . A g ain, i t cou ld inv o lve d ial o g u e li k e this w h ere I w o u ldn ’t h a v e n e c e ss a rilyse e n it b u t it[ d o e s n o t] m e a n it w a sn ’t w ith in th e ir res po nsi bil i t i es. (c o n tin u e d ...) 19 author i z e d Al i and Gi bbs t o pur s ue ge tt i ng an a c c ount i ng fr om I s m a e l thr ough 10
corr es po nd ence . Q: ( I s m a e l ’ s Att orne y) : Di d anyone s pe ak wi th you about the c ont e nt s of the [No vem

ber 30, 19 98 ] lette r, as sum ing it was se nt ou t on N ov em ber 30 th, before that t im e? A : (C am p ) . . . A li an dG ib b s talk edto m e ab o u t th e letter– ab o u t th e . . . n atu re o f th e letter . . . . Q: Do youre ca llwh at

you r dis cuss ions were concerni ng the l ette r? A : [ T ] h ere h adn o t b eenan y acco u n tin g f

o r w h at tran sp iredf

in an cially in c onjunc t i on wi th the c onfe r e nc e , and t he ys ai d t he ywe regoi ng to mak

ean ef fort to get an a cc ou nting from P rofess or Is ma el . Q : D idth ey

say h o w th ey w ere g o in g to d o th at? A : Well, I a ssu m ed

it w o u ld b e co rresp o n d

en ce o f so m e kin d. I certa in ly w o u ld h a ve b een agreea b le th a t th ey p u rsu e th e m a tter . . . . Q: . . . [D] id youauthoriz e [the Nov em ber 30] le tt er ? A: In directly , I ’ m

s ur e I di d. Q : Wh at d o yo um e ani n d i r e c t l y? A : I d idn o t readth e letter an dsay yes, d o th is, b u t th e co n ten ts I w o u ld hav eaut hor i z e d i n ge ne ral .” (E m

p h asis ad d ed .) 1111. ( . . . cont i nued)

B u t C am p ’s resp o n se w as to a h yp o thetical qu esti o n . A fter es tablishing that the J an u ary 2 0 , 1 9 9 9 le tte r w a s o n A S C le tte rh e a d , Is m a e l’ s a tto rn e ya s k e d w h e th e r, if s uch a l et t er had bee n on I U P l et t er head, i t w oul d have be en aut hor i zed: (I s m a e l’ s a tto rn e y ) Q : I n a m a tte r s u c h a s th is , i f a l et t erw as t o go out f r o m I UP , s a ya n id e n tic a l le tte r . . . ( C amp) A : . . . I t w oul dn’ t be unus ual for a fa cul t ym ember oper at i ng w i t hin hi s or her res po nsi bil i t i es t o send ou t a l et t er l i ke thi s o n I UP l et t er head . (E m

p h asis ad d ed .) In th e p assa g e c it ed b yA li an d G ibb s, C am p is m ere lyex p an d ing h is an sw er to Ism ae l’ s att o rne y ’s hy p o thetical. T h u s, w h il e the p assa g e m igh t sho w a lett er li k e tha t of Jan u ary 2 0 , 1 9 9 9 w ritten o n IU P lette rh e a d w a s c o n d u c t o f th e k in d A li an d G ib b s w e re h ire d to p e rf o rm , ith a rd lysh o w s, a s a m a tter o f law , tha t ev e ry lette r a t issu e in th is c a se se n t not on IU P l et t erhead, bu t rat her on A S C l et t erhead, w as cond uct w i t hin A l i and G i bb s’ d u tie s a t I U P . 12. C amp w as depos ed on D ece m ber 19, 2002. H e w as di s m i s s ed as a def endant elev en m o n ths later. 20 But c on tr a s t tho s e ge ne r a l “ I wo ul d h ave be e n a gr e e abl e , ” ty pe of “ i nd i r e c t [] ” author i z at i on s t at e m e nt s wi th the fol l owi ng. Cam p wr ot e an e - m a i l on De c e m be r 3, 19 98 , s tati ng that

“I did n ot writ e the [N ov m ber 30, 19 98 ] lette r n o r did I a u th o rize it .” ( Em pha s i s a dde d. ) Furthe rm or e , Cam p wa s ar guabl y

an i nt e r e s t e d wi tne s s whe n he im plie d in h is depo si ti on that he m ay have authorize d the No vem ber 30, 19 98 , l ette r, as he wa s s t i l l ade fe ndant

at the t i m e of the de pos i t i on, and the t e s t i m ony c onc e rne d the 12 pot e nt i a l l i abi l i ty

of two of hi s pr ofe s s or s . Cam p’ s de ni a l of author i z at i on of the No vem ber 30, 19 98 le tt er

in his Dec em

ber 3, 199 8 e-m ai l, com

bined w it h the fact that Cam p w as ar gu ably

an inte re st ed witnes s when h e i m plie d in h is depo si ti on that he m ay21

have author i z e d the Nove m be r 30, 1998 l e tt e r , m e ans that Al i and Gi bbs fa i l e d t o s how that ther e i s no iss ue as to wh ether Cam p autho ri ze d A li and G ibbs to pu rs ue gett ing an ac coun ti ng from

Is m ae l t hrou gh corr es po nd ence . Furthe rm or e , upon r e c e i vi ng the J anuary 20, 1999 l e tt e r

t o the Uni ve r s i ty

of Ca l gary , s i gne d by

Gi bbs and wr i tt e n on ASC l e tt e rhe a d, Cam p e - m a i l e d I s m a e l s t at i ng th at “D r. A li b eliev es th at h e, p erso n ally , an dth e A m ericanS o ciety f o r C o m p etitiv en ess have be e n t ake n a dvant a ge of. ” The r e i s no r e fe r e nc e i n the e - m a i l t o I UP havi ng autho r i z e d A l i or

Gi bb s t o w r i t e the l e tt e r . I n f a c t , the r e i s no r e fe r e nc e t o any I UP inte re st or authority

in the m atte r genera ll y . Cam p’s deposit ion tes ti m on y

al so re veal ed that he had n ot se en the l ette r before he re ce ived a c op y of it in the m ai l, and that at t

hat tim e h e w as n o t co n tem

p latin g co mm

u n icatin g w ithth e U n iv ersity o f C alg ary o nb eh alf of I UP. In this context, I have no d oubt Ali andGibb s have not show n as a m atte r of law th at th e d issem in atio no f

th e letters w as co n du ct o f th e k in dth at IU P em

p lo yedth em

to p erf o rm . b. Vi e wi ng t hef ac t s i n t hel i ght mos t f av orableto I

s mae l , Al iand Gobbs hav eal

s o not s hown as a mat te r

of law t hat e nough of

t he pur pos eof t hedi s s e mi nat i on of

t hele t te r s was to s e rv eI UP (

Prong T h re e). “C o n du ct o f

a serv an t is n o t w ith inth e sco p e o f em p lo y m en t if it is . . . to o little actu atedb y

a p urp o se to serv e th e m aster.” R estatem en t (S eco n d ) o f A g en cy § 2 2 8 . T h u s, A li an dG ib b s m

u st sh o w as m atter o f

lawth at e nough of the pur pos e of the13. T he onl yt i m e I U P w as ar guabl yr efe r ence d as an i nt er es t ed par t yw as i n t he

N ovember 30, 1998, l et t er , w hi ch makes t he fol l ow i ng gener al s t at ement : “W e have ethica l and p rof

essio n al resp o n sibil it ies t o o u r pa rt ici p an ts an d to E M U an d o ther p ri m ary s p o n s o rs (I U P & IS C ) i n th is re g a rd .” d issem in atio no f

th e letters w as to serv e IU P . C o n sid erin g th e f acts inth e lig h t m o st favor abl e t o I s m a e l—s uc h a s Al i ’ s vow t o ge t e ve n wi th I s m a e l , the us e of the ASC le tt er head fo r a llthe l ette rs Is m ae l a ll eges defam ed him , that Ali and G ibbs re qu es te d that the m on ey

be re turned to AS C andISC, and that I UP is no t r efere nced as an inte re st ed party in any of the l ette rs —A li and G ibbs have no t s ho wn as a m atte r of law that

13
e nough of the pur

pos e of the di s s e m i nat i on of the l e tt e r s wa s t o s e rve I UP. I ns t e a d, by far the i r pr i m ary pur pos e m ay have be e n t o ge t

pe r s ona l r e ve nge or

s e rve ASC. Conc l us i on U n lik e my

co lleag u es, I b eliev e w e h av e j u risd ictio nto d ecid e th is case. A s A li and G ibbs have no t s ho wn as a m atte r of law that the dis se m inat ion o f the le tt er s was c onduc t that I UP e m pl oye d Al i and Gi bbs t o pe r form and that e nough of the pur

pos e of the dis se m inat ion o f the le tt er s was to se rve I UP , they have no t s ho wn as a m atte r of law that thei r a ct ions were within the s cope of thei r I UP em

ploy m ent. Th us, I wo uld aff

ir m th e D istrict C o urt’s d en ial o f A li an dG ib b s’ su mm ary j u d g m en t m o tio n . A s a resu lt, I resp ectf u lly d issen t.

_________________________