The Clerk of Court is dir ected to amend the official capt ion in this case to conform to the * lis ting o f t

heparti es a

bo ve . The Hon. David G. Trager of the United Stat es Distri ct Court for the East ern Distri ct of ** New York, sitting by desi gnation. 1 09
- 28 21
- cv DiF o l c o v . M SNB C Ca b l e L
. L
. C. 1 UNITED STATE S COURT OF AP PEALS 2 FO R T HE SE CO ND CI RC UI T 3 August Term 2009 4 Do cket N o. 09 -28 21 -cv 5 Submitted: May 6, 2010 Decided: Octobe r 7, 2010 6

_____________________________________________________________________________ 7 CLAUD IA DiFOLCO, 8 9 Pl aintif f- Appe llant, 10 - v.- 11 MSNBC CABLE L.L.C., RICK KAPLA N, and SCOTT L EON, 12 De fendants- Appe lle es, 13 - v.- 14 CASSANDRA BROW NSTEIN, 15 De fendant. * 16

_____________________________________________________________________________ 17 Be fo re: MINER an d LYN CH , C ircuit

Judg es, an d T RA GER, Di strict Judg e. ** 1 8 A ppeal f r om s o m uch of

an or derent er ed i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC ourtf orthe 1 9 S o u th e rn D istric t o f N e w Y o rk (P re sk a , C h . J.) a s d ism iss e d , fo r fa ilu re to sta te a c laim 2 0 pur s uantt o Fed. R
. C i v. P. 12( b) ( 6) , caus es of act i on f orbr eac h of

contr act , vi ol at i on of 2 1 the N ew Y ork L aborL aw , def amat i on, and t ort i ous i nt er f er ence w i th pr os pect i ve 2 2 b u sine ss relati o n s, the D istri ct C o u rth av ing d eterm ined , inter ali a, th at: p lai n ti ff-2 1 appel l ant , a T. V
. ent ert ai nm entr eport er , corr es pondentand anc horr epudi at ed her 2 contr actw i th def endantappel l antM SN B C and ther ef or e coul d notpr evai l on herbr eac h 3 o f co n tr ac t or N ew Y o rk L ab o r L aw claim s; tw o o f th e thre e d efa m ati o n claim s w ere 4 barr ed by the def ens e of truth and the thi r d cons i s t ed of non- act i onabl e opi ni on; and the 5 t or t i ous i nt er f

er ence cl ai m f

ai l ed f orr el i ance on the def

amat i on cl ai m s as the w r ongf ul 6 a c ts g iv in g ri s e to it. 7 A ffirm e d in p a rt, v a c a ted in p a rt, an d re m a n d e d in p a rt. 8 S COTT B ROWNI NG G I LLY (Gregory N. Filosa, on the 9 bri ef ), Tho m ps on , Wigdor &Gi lly , L LP , N ew 10 York, New York, for Plaintiff-Appellant. 11 JULI E RI KE LMAN , NBC Universal, Inc., New York, 12 New Y ork , f or A pp ell ee.Ca ssand ra B rowns tein, a P rod

uc er at MS NB C and

nam ed as a partyin t hecas e, ne ver w as 1 served, was dismissed from the action by orderof the DistrictCourt, and is no longe r is a party. 3 1 M I N E R , C i r cui tJ udge: 2 Pl ai nt i f

f
- appel l antC l audi a D i Fol co ( “D i Fol co”) appea l s f r om s o m uch of

an or der 3 ent er ed on M ar ch 30, 2007, i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tf orthe Southern D i s tr i ctof 4 Ne w Yo rk ( P r e s k a , Ch
. J
. ) , a s d i s mi s s e d , f o rf a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m p u r s u a n tt o F e d
. R. 5 C i v. P. 12( b) ( 6) , hercaus es of act i on f orbr eac h of

contr act( and r el at ed N ew Y ork L abor 6 L a w v io la tio n s ), d e fa m a tio n , a n d to rt io u s in te rf e re n c e w ith p ro s p e c tiv e b u s in e s s re la tio n s . 7 T he ca us es of

act i on pl eade d ar os e outof D i Fol co’ s empl oym entby def endant
- appel l ee 8 M S N B C L .L .C . (“ M S N B C ” ) a s a n e n te rt a in m e n t r e p o rt e r, c o rr e s p o n d e n t, a n d a n c h o r. 9 D e fe n d a n t-a p p e llee R ick K a p lan (“ K a p lan ” ) w a s P re sid e n t o f M S N B C a n d d e fe n d a n t1 0 a p p e l l e e S c o t tLe o n ( “ Le o n ” ) wa s a n Ex e c u t i v e P r o d u c e ra tM S NBC. 1 1 1 In d ism iss in g th e c a u se s o f a c tio n , the D istric t C o u rt d e ter m in e d , inte r a lia, th a t: 1 2 D i Fol co r epudi at ed hercontr actw i th M SN B C and ther ef or e coul d notpr evai l on her 1 3 b r e a c h o f

c o n tr a c to rNe w Yo rk Lab o rLa w c l a i ms ; two o f th e th r e e d e f

a ma t i o n c l a i ms 1 4 w er e barr ed by the def ens e of truth, and the thi r d cons i s t ed of non- act i onabl e opi ni on; and 1 5 the t or t i ous i nt er f er ence cl ai m f

ai l ed f orr el i ance on the def

amat i on cl ai m s as the 1 6 w ron g ful ac ts giving ri se to it
. S ee D iFo lco v
. M S N B C C ab le, N o . 0 6 C iv. 47 2 8 (L A P ), 1 7 2 0 0 7 W L 9 5 9 0 8 5 , a t* 3

– 4 , 5 , 8 ( S
. D. N. Y. M a r c h 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 )
. F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, 1 8 w e af

f i rm i n part , vaca t e i n part , and r emand i n partas t o s o m uch of the or derof

the 1 9 D istric t C o u rt a s is th e su b jec t o f th is a p p e a l.4 1 BA CKGROUND 2 I
. T he C our s e of E m pl oym ent 3 D i Fol co and M SN B C ent er ed i nt o a tw o- yearempl oym entagr eementon 4 D ece m ber2, 2004. T he w r i t t en agr eement , s i gned on beha l f of M SN B C by K apl an, 5 pr ovi ded thatthe tw o- yeart erm w oul d comm ence on J anuary 17, 2005. D i Fol co, 6 d esig n ated in the ag ree m en t as “A rt ist , ” a g ree d to em p loy m en t “as a n an ch o r/ co -an ch o r, 7 comm ent at or , corr es pondent , r eport erand/ oranal ys tand i n any otherl i ke capaci ty f or 8 M S N B C .” W ith re g a rd to th e p e rio d o f e m p lo y m e n t, th e a g re e m e n t p ro v id e d a s fo llo w s: 9 T he t erm her eof s hal l be di vi ded i nt o tw o ( 2) cons ecut i ve cyc l es of f i f ty1 0 tw o (5 2 ) w e e k s e a c h . M S N B C sh a ll h a v e th e rig h t to ter m in a te th is 1 1 A gr eementef f ect i ve atthe end of

the f i r s tcycl e by gi vi ng A r t i s tw r i t t en 1 2 n o tice n o t les s th a n six ty (6 0 ) d a y s p rio r to th e e n d o f su c h c y c le. T h is 1 3 A g re e m e n t sh a ll au to m a tica lly ter m in a te a t th e e n d o f th e se c o n d c y c le 1 4 w i thoutnot i ce, unl es s the part i es agr ee otherw i s e. 1 5 T he A gr eementes t abl i s hed D i Fol co’ s compensa t i on dur i ng the tw o cycl es as w el l as 1 6 othert erm s and condi t i ons of empl oym ent , i ncl udi ng thos e cont ai ned i n an att achment 1 7 d e s ig n a te d “ S ta n d a rd P ro v is io n s .” 1 8 D i Fol co as s ert s thats he w as f i r s thi r ed t o be the Los A ngel es - bas ed corr es pondent 1 9 f o rtwo n e w e n t e r t a i n me n ts h o ws — “ M S NBC a tth e M o v i e s ” a n d “ M S NBC 2 0 E nt ert ai nm entH otL i s t . ” A s s uch, s he w as r es pons i bl e f orconduct i ng i nt ervi ew s and 2 1 cov eri ng entert ai nm ent events . D uri ng the co urse of her em ploym ent s he fi l l ed in as host 2 2 on the s how s and appe ar ed on otherM SN B C pr ogr ams as w el l
. D i Fol co al l eges i n her 2 3 compl ai ntthats he5 1 p erfo rm ed all o f he r pro fession al ob li g ati o n s in a n ex em p lary m an n er, 2 a t t e n d e d e v e ry s h o o tf o rwh i c h s h e wa s s c h e d u l e d , tr a v e l e d b e twe e n th e two 3 coas t s f

orM SN B C as s i gnm ent s ( atherow n expens e w i thoutr ei m bur s ement 4 by the C om pany) , and al w ays m ade he r s el f avai l abl e f

orand compl et ed the 5 w ork request ed o f hert o the sat i sf act i on of M S N B C and her m anag ers . 6 D es pi t e hercl os e att ent i on t o the per f orm ance of

heras s i gned dut i es , D i Fol co 7 al l eges thats he w as “s ubj ect ed t o r epea t ed mi s tr eatm entand abus e thatcr eat ed 8 intolerab le w o rkin g co n d it ion s. ” S h e a sserts i n effec t th at L eo n , h er E x ec u ti v e P rod u ce r, 9 and C as s andr a B r ow ns t ei n, herPr oducer , cons pi r ed t o m ake he rl i f e mi s er abl e: thatthey 1 0 “beg an a co ncert ed p at t ern of haras si ng M s. D i F olco, i ncludi ng repeat edly cancell i ng M s. 1 1 D iF o lco ’s s c h e d u led sh o o ts w ith o u t ju stific a tio n o r n o tice to M s. D iF o lco , in o rd e r to 1 2 fu rth e r d a m a g e h e r re p u tatio n a n d c a re e r w ith th e C o m p a n y .” L e o n b e c a m e e sp e c ially 1 3 i r at e af

t erK apl an r eques t ed thats he do s om e w ork on a pr i m e t i m e pr ogr am despi t e the 1 4 fa c t th a t th e re w o u ld h a v e b e e n n o in ter fe re n c e w ith th e e x istin g sh o w s. A c c o rd in g to 1 5 D i Fol co, L eon w entt o f aras t o f al s el y r eportthats he mi s s ed a s hootw hi l e t es t i ng f orthe 1 6 pr i m e t i m e s how
. M or eover , L eon neve rr es ponded t o D i Fol co’ s emai l r egar di ng her 1 7 har as s m entby B r ow ns t ei n, i ncl udi ng B r ow ns t ei n’ s al l eged mi s r epr es ent at i on r egar di ng 1 8 the ti m i ng of seven v oiceovers. 1 9 I I
. T erm i nat i on of E m pl oym ent— the A l l egat i ons 2 0 I n an e- m ai l dat ed A ugus t23, 2005, D i Fol co r eques t ed a meet i ng w i th K apl an, 2 1 pr opos i ng a dat e the f ol l ow i ng w eek w hen s he w oul d tr avel t o N ew J er s ey f orthe 2 2 m e e tin g . T h e fo llo w in g a lleg a tio n s o f th e c o m p lain t p e rta in to th e c o n ten ts o f th a t em a il 2 3 and t o the corr es pondence thatf ol l ow ed:6 1 38. W hi l e s he expr es s ed herhopes t o have mai nt ai ned a pr oduct i ve 2 w orki ng r el at i ons hi p w i th the C om pany and “ be a pa r tof [ K apl an’ s ] t eam 3 f

ora l ong t i m e t o come, ” M s . D i Fol co r eal i zed the D ef endant s L eon and 4 Br o wn s t e i n c o n t i n u e d t o c a n c e l h e rs h o o t s a n d f o r c e h e ro f

f th e a i r . As 5 su c h , sh e in d ica ted to D e fe n d a n t K a p lan th a t th e y sh o u ld “ d isc u ss [h e r] ex it 6 f

r om the s how s . ” Thi s w as M s . D i Fol co’ s w ay of expr es s i ng t o K apl an her 7 des i r e nott o di s ruptthe s how s on w hi ch s he w orked. 8 39. D ef endantK apl an agr eed t o m eetw i th heras pr opos ed t o f urther 9 d isc u ss th e m a tters ra ise d in h e r e m a il. 1 0 40. T hats ame day, M s . D i Fol co i nf orm ed D ef

endantL eon thats he 1 1 planned t o m eetw i th D efendan tK aplan on S eptem ber 1, 20 05
. S he als o 1 2 s t at ed thats he hoped t o r ecor d the s how s f orear l y Sept emberoutof N ew 1 3 J er s ey s i nce s he had t o be i n N ew Y ork t o cover“Fas hi on W eek, ” not i ng 1 4 th a t itw o u ld sa v e th e C o m p a n y tim e a n d m o n e y o n a irfa re if sh e sim p ly 1 5 r emai ned on the Eastcoas tf orthatent i r e t i m e per i od. D ef endantL eon 1 6 a g re e d to th is a rra n g e m e n t. 1 7 41. T he nextday, on A ugus t24, 2005, D ef endantL eon r es ponded by 1 8 abrupt l y i nf orm i ng herthatthey “de ci ded t o change the di r ect i on of the 1 9 fa sh io n w e e k c o v e ra g e ” a n d p lan n e d to se n d th e N e w Y o rk T im e s s ty le 2 0 edi t ort o coverthe s how s i ns t ead of M s . D i Fol co. 2 1 42. M s . D i Fol co i m m edi at el y cont act ed D ef endantK apl an, f

orw ar di ng 2 2 D efe n d an t L eo n ’s m o st r ec en t exa m p le of h is on g o ing effo rtto fo rce h er o ff 2 3 the ai rand as ked t o know w hy s he w as bei ng t aken of f the s chedul ed 2 4 s hoot s . She s peci f i cal l y i nqui r ed w hetherD ef endantK apl an had made 2 5 D ef

endantL eon aw ar e of

herpr evi ous r eques tf

ora meet i ng, f

ear i ng that 2 6 D e fe n d a n t L e o n h a d c a n c e led h e r p a rticip a tio n in F a sh io n W e e k in 2 7 r et al i at i on f orappr oachi ng hi s s uper i orand thatheremai l w oul d be 2 8 m i s i nt erpr et ed. 2 9 43. M s . D i Fol co cl ear l y expr es s ed that“[ s he] di d notr es i gn yes t er day” 3 0 and conf i rm ed thei ragr eed meet i ng s chedul ed f orSept ember1, 2005. 3 1 44. D ef endantK apl an ac know l edged thathe made D ef endantL eon 3 2 a w a re o f h e r p re v io u s e m a il. H is e m a il state d , “M y c o m p lete im p re ss io n is 3 3 thatyou have r es i gned, ” and then cont i nued, “s ooneri s bett ers i nce your 3 4 o b v io u s in te n t is to le a v e .”7 1 45. W hi l e M s . D i Fol co w as i n f l i ghtf r om C al i f

orni a, D ef

endantL eon 2 le fth e r a v o ic e m a il m e s s a g e th a t h e r m e e tin g w ith K a p la n w a s c a n c e le d
. 3 A tthe s ame t i m e, D ef endantM SN B C s entM s . D i Fol co a pr opos ed 4 s epar at i on and r el eas e agr eementthr ough heragent , cl ai m i ng thats he had 5 r es i gned. 6 D i Fol co cl ai m s thatthe t erm i nat i on of herempl oym enti n the manneral l eged 7 cons t i tut ed a mat er i al br eac h of herempl oym entagr eement , gi vi ng r i s e t o hercl ai m f or 8 th e b a lan c e o f th e w a g e s a n d o th e r p a y m e n ts d u e to h e r a n d h e r c o rre sp o n d in g c laim 9 b r o u g h tu n d e rth e Ne w Yo rk L a b o rL a w § § 1 9 0

– 1 9 9
- A. 1 0 I I I
. D ef

amat i on 1 1 F o llo w in g th e ter m in a tio n , ac c o rd in g to th e c o m p lain t, “o n e o r m o re o f D e fe n d a n ts 1 2 b e g a n m a k in g . . . d e fa m a to ry sta tem e n ts a b o u t M s. D iF o lco o n th e In ter n e t an d to 1 3 var i ous m edi a out l et s . ” These s t at ement s , w hi ch i ncl uded cl ai m s that“D i Fol co had 1 4 r es i gned, br oken hercontr actand/ ordes ert ed herco- anchor , ” w er e al l egedl y “made by, 1 5 w i th the part i ci pat i on of and/ orunderthe author i ty and di r ect i on of one orm or e of 1 6 D ef

endant s . ” Thre e t el evi s i on i ndus try w ebs i t es w er e i nvol ved. A n In ter n e t w e b site 1 7 k n o w n a s “ In sid e C a b le” sta ted th a t D iF o lco h a d re sig n e d fro m M S N B C “ in th e m id d le 1 8 o f h e r c o n tra c t,” a n d a w e b site k n o w n a s “ N e w sB lu e s” sta ted th a t “[l]u sc io u s C lau d ia 1 9 D iF o lco h a s q u it M S N B C in th e m id d le o f h e r c o n tra c t, l e a v in g S h a ro n T a y a s th e so le 2 0 ho stof ‘ E ntert ai nm ent H otl i st ’ and ‘A tthe M ov i es. ’” D i F olco cl ai m ed thatthese 2 1 s t at ement s “coul d onl y have or i gi nat ed f r om M SN B C of

f i ci al s gi ven the conf

i dent i al 2 2 natur e ( up t o thatpoi nt ) of hercontr actdi s put e. ” I ti s al l eged that“I ns i de C abl e” a nd 2 3 “N ew sB l ues” reach ov er 80, 00 0 indi vidual s.8 1 D i Fol co al s o cl ai m ed thatdef endant s caus ed a de f

amat ory m es s age abouthert o be 2 pos t ed, underthe al i as “J i l l J ournal i s t ” on the w ebs i t e “TV Spy, ” on oraboutSept ember4, 3 2005. D i Fol co cl ai m s thatT V Spy r eac hed over80, 000 i ndi vi dual s af f i l i at ed w i th the 4 t e l e v i s i o n i n d u s try . Th e me s s a g e s t a t e d th a tDi F o l c o “ b e l i e v e [ d ] th a tc l e a v a g e , o v e rt i me 5 [ s i c] i n the makeup chai rand a huge des i r e t o become a s t ari s . . . how t o pay yourdues
. ” 6 T h e m e ss a g e a lso sta ted th a t “th ro u g h o u t h e r irre v e lan t ca re e r a t M S N B C , sh e c o n sta n tly 7 i gnor ed di r ect i ons f r om new s pr oducer s dur i ng l i ve s hot s , r ef us ed t o do al t ernat e t akes f or 8 e d itin g p u rp o s e s , p o u te d lik e a s p o ile d c h ild a n d n e v e r w a s a te a m p la y e r.” 9 IV
. P roc ee d ing s in the D istri ct C o u rt 1 0 T he mot i on t o di s m i s s the compl ai ntw as f i l ed by def

endant s on J une 27, 2006, 1 1 foll o w ing the re m o v al of the ca se fro m N ew Y o rk S tat e S u p rem e C o u rt , N ew Y o rk 1 2 C ou nty, by N oti ce of R em ov al fi l ed o n Jun e 20 , 20 06
. T he co m plai nt i ncluded a “F i rs t 1 3 C aus e of

A ct i on” f

orB r eac h of

C ontr act ; a “Sec ond C aus e of A ct i on” f

orB r eac h of

the 1 4 I m pl i ed C ovenantof G ood Fai th and Fai rD eal i ng; a “Thi r d C aus e of A ct i on” f

or 1 5 T o rtio u s In ter fe re n c e w ith C o n tra c tu a l an d /o r P ro sp e c tiv e B u sin e ss R e latio n s; a “ F o u rth 1 6 C aus e of

A ct i on” f

orD ef amat i on and/ orSl anderPerSe; and a “ Fi f th C aus e of

A ct i on” 1 7 f orV i ol at i on of

the N ew Y ork L aborL aw . ” Fol l ow i ng the r emoval of the ac t i on, 1 8 D i Fol co f

i l ed a mot i on t o r emand t o the s t at e court , w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC ourtdeni ed. 1 9 Fol l ow i ng s ubm i s s i ons by both s i des , the D i s tr i ctC ourt , by M emora ndum and 2 0 O r derdat ed M ar ch 30, 2007, addr es s ed mot i ons : by al l def endant s t o di s m i s s the 2 1 compl ai ntf

orf ai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m ; by def endant s K apl an and Brow ns t ei n t o di s m i s s f or9 1 l ack of

per s onal j ur i s di ct i on; by def endantB r ow ns t ei n t o have the cl ai m s agai ns ther 2 di s m i s s ed f

ori ns uf f i ci ents ervi ce of

pr oces s ; and by D i Fol co t o tr ans f ervenue t o the 3 D i s tr i ctof

N ew J er s ey i f

the courtf

ound a l ack of

per s onal j ur i s di ct i on overthe 4 ind ividu al de fen d an ts. S ee D iFo lco, 20 0 7 W L 9 5 9 0 8 5 , at *1
. T h e D istri ct C o u rt 5 di s m i s s ed the cl ai m s agai ns tB r ow ns t ei n f orf ai l ur e t o s erve herw i th pr oces s ; det erm i ned 6 th a t th e c o u rt h a d p e rso n a l ju risd ictio n o v e r K a p lan ; an d d e n ied D iF o lco ’s m o tio n to 7 tr ans f

ervenue t o the D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey as m oot , s i nce the courtf ound thati thad 8 per s onal j ur i s di ct i on overal l r emai ni ng def endant s . See i d. at*8–10. 9 A s to the m o ti o n to d ism iss f o r fail u re to state a c lai m , the D istri ct C o u rt 1 0 concl uded thatD i Fol co had r epudi at ed hercontr acti n an exc hange of emai l s and, 1 1 ther ef

or e, thatM SN B C had no f i nanci al obl i gat i ons t o D i Fol co underthe t erm s of her 1 2 contr act . I n r eac hi ng thatconcl us i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tf ound thatthe contr actw as 1 3 “unambi guous i n i t s r equi r ementthat[ D i Fol co] be atM SN B C ’ s di s pos al f ora tw o- year 1 4 per i od” and that“[ p] l ai nt i f f’ s 8/ 23 emai l i s equal l y unambi guous i n expr es s i ng 1 5 [ D i Fol co’ s ] i nt ent i on t o l eave bef or e the compl et i on of

s ai d per i od. ” I d. at*3. A f t er 1 6 ref

err i ng t o an otherem ai l , dated A ug ust31 , the co urtdeterm i ned that “[ b] oth of these 1 7 emai l s f

r om [ D i Fol co] cons t i tut ed r epudi at i on of the contr actand r el i eved M SN B C of 1 8 f utur e obl i gat i ons . ” I d. A l though the D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed thatD i Fol co s oughtan 1 9 uns peci f

i ed amountof

damages f

orextr a w ork and tr avel expens es pr edat i ng the 2 0 r epudi at i on, the courtdet erm i ned thatthe f ai l ur e t o pay thes e amount s di d notadd up t o a 2 1 m a ter ial b re a c h o f th e c o n tra c t an d th e re fo re d ism iss e d th e b re a c h o f c o n tra c t cla im in a ll10 1 r es pect s . I d. at*4. 2 W ith re sp e c t to D iF o lco ’s c laim o f b re a c h o f th e c o v e n a n t o f g o o d fa ith a n d fa ir 3 deal i ng, the D i s tr i ctC our tt ook not e of def endant ’ s ar gum entthatthi s cl ai m w as 4 pr ecl uded by the br eac h of contr actcl ai m . T he courtacknow l edged thatN ew Y ork L aw 5 d o e s n o t re c o g n ize a se p a ra te c laim fo r b re a c h o f th e c o v e n a n t o f g o o d fa ith a n d fa ir 6 deal i ng bas ed on the s ame f act s as a cl ai m f

orbr eac h of

contr act , al though the Feder al 7 R u les o f C iv il P ro c e d u re a llo w th e c laim s to b e p lea d e d in th e a ltern a tiv e . In a n y e v e n t, 8 the D i s tr i ctC our tf ound thatthe br eac h of

the cove nantof

good f ai th and f

ai rdeal i ng 9 cl ai m w as pr oper l y pl eade d and deni ed di s m i s s al of thatcl ai m w i th the f

ol l ow i ng 1 0 r at i onal e: “I n thatthe br eac h of contr actcl ai m i s di s m i s s ed, the ques t i on of pr ecl us i on by 1 1 thatcl ai m i s now m oot . ” I d. at*4. 1 2 A ddr es s i ng the def amat i on cl ai m , the D i s tr i ctC our tobs erved thatthe pos t i ngs on 1 3 the f

i r s ttw o w ebs i t es ( “I ns i de C abl e” a nd “N ew s B l ues ”) cont ai ned true i nf orm at i on that 1 4 D i Fol co had r es i gned bef or e the expi r at i on of

hercontr act . T hi s obs ervat i on r es t ed on the 1 5 court ’ s pr evi ous f i ndi ng thatD i Fol co had i ndeed r epudi at ed hercontr act . A ccor di ngl y, 1 6 the c o u rtco n clud ed that the d efa m ati o n claim s fou n d ed o n the firsttw o p o sti n g s w ere 1 7 “notact i onabl e. ” I d. at*5. T he thi r d pos t i ng ( “J i l l J ournal i s t ” on “TV Spy”) , i ncl uded 1 8 s t at ement s r el at i ng t o D i Fol co’ s l ack of pr of es s i onal i s m . T he def

amat i on cl ai m bas ed on 1 9 th is p o stin g w a s d ism iss e d o n th e b a sis o f th e fo llo w in g fin d in g b y th e D istric t C o u rt: 2 0 “ [A ] rea so n a b le r e a d e r w o u ld c o n c lu d e fro m b o th th e b ro a d e r c o n tex t an d th e im m e d iate 2 1 cont extthatthe thi r d al l egedl y def amat ory s t at ementcons i s t s of opi ni ons , notf

act s . ” I d.11 1 at*8. 2 T h e D istric t C o u rt n e x t ad d re ss e d D iF o lco ’s c laim fo r to rtio u s in ter fe re n c e w ith 3 pr os pect i ve bus i nes s r el at i ons and empl oyed the f ol l ow i ng l anguage i n di s m i s s i ng that 4 c l a i m: 5 I n or al ar gum enton M ar ch 15, 2007, couns el s t at ed thatPl ai nt i f f r el i ed 6 s ol el y on def amat i on as the w r ongf

ul actpr edi cat i ng the cl ai m of t ort i ous 7 i nt er f

er ence . I n thatthe def

amat i on cl ai m has been di s m i s s ed i n i t s ent i r ety, 8 D e fe n d a n ts’ m o tio n to d ism iss th e c laim o f to rtio u s in ter fe re n c e w ith 9 pr os pect i ve bus i nes s r el at i ons i s gr ant ed. 1 0 I d. 1 1 B y endor s ementdat ed M ar ch 17, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC our tf urtheraddr es s ed the 1 2 br eac h of

the f ai rdeal i ng covena ntcl ai m , hol di ng thatD i Fol co “may not
. . . pur s ue the 1 3 m oney r emai ni ng underhercontr actundera br eac h of i m pl i ed cove nantof

f ai rdeal i ng 1 4 cl ai m bu tm ay o nly pursue dam ages (and a clai m ) ar i si ng ou tof f act s di ff erentfr om tho se 1 5 u p o n w h ic h h e r b re a c h o f c o n tr a c t c la im w a s b a s e d .” 1 6 I n a N ot i ce a nd O r derof V ol unt ary D i s m i s s al dat ed M ay 22, 2009, D i Fol co agr eed 1 7 t o di s m i s s al of

the f ol l ow i ng cl ai m s w i th pr ej udi ce: br eac h of the i m pl i ed cove nantof 1 8 good f

ai th and f

ai rdeal i ng; N ew Y ork L aborL aw cl ai m s r el at i ng t o appea r ance f ees and 1 9 u n re im b u rse d e x p e n se s; c laim s fo r p a y m e n t fo r a d d iti o n a l p ro g ra m d u ties se t fo rth in 2 0 p a ra g ra p h s 1 9 a n d 2 0 o f th e c o m p lain t; an d c laim s fo r u n p a id tra v e l ex p e n se s a s s e t fo rth 2 1 in p ara g rap h 2 1 o f th e c o m p lai n t. B y en d o rsem en t dated Ju n e 1 , 2 0 0 9 , the D istri ct C o u rt 2 2 d ir e c te d th e C le rk to m a rk th e a c tio n c lo s e d a n d to d e n y a ll p e n d in g m o tio n s a s m o o t. 2 3 T hi s t i m el y appea l f ol l ow ed. O n appea l , D i Fol co cha l l enges the di s m i s s al of herbr eac h12 1 of contr actand r el at ed N ew Y ork L aborl aw cl ai m s , and herdef amat i on and t ort i ous 2 i nter fer ence w i th b usi ness r el at i on s cl ai m s. 3 A N A L Y S IS 4 I
. St at i ng a C l ai m — the G overni ng L aw 5 A
. R equi r ed A l l egat i ons and the St andar d of R evi ew 6 T h e F ed era l R u les o f C ivil P roc ed u re req u ir e tha t a claim for reli ef c o n tai n “a sh o rt 7 a n d p l a i n s t a t e me n to f th e c l a i m s h o wi n g th a tth e p l e a d e ri s e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f
. ” F e d
. R. 8 C iv . P . 8 (a )(2 ). A c o m p lain t m a y b e d ism iss e d to th e e x ten t th a t it“ fa il[ s] to sta te a c laim 9 upon w hi ch r el i ef can be gr ant ed. ” Fed. R
. C i v. P. 12( b) ( 6)
. T hi s C ourtr evi ew s s uch a 1 0 di s m i s s al de novo. See B ernhei m v. L i t t , 79 F. 3d 318, 321 ( 2d C i r . 1996) ( ci t at i on 1 1 om i t t ed)
. I n doi ng s o, w e ar e cons tr ai ned t o “‘ acc ept [ ] al l f actual al l egat i ons as true, and 1 2 dr aw [ ] al l r eas onabl e i nf er ence s i n the pl ai nt i f

f’ s f avor . ’ ” Shom o v. C i ty of N ew Y ork, 1 3 579 F. 3d 176, 183 ( 2d C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng C hamber s v. T i m e W arner , I nc. , 282 F. 3d 147, 1 4 152 ( 2d C i r . 2002) )
. W e ar e al s o cons tr ai ned, how ever , t o as cert ai n thatthe compl ai nt 1 5 “ c o n tain su ffic ien t fa c tu a l m a tter, a c c e p ted a s tru e , to ‘ sta te a c laim to re lief th a t is 1 6 p lau sib le o n its fa c e .’” A sh c ro ft v . Iq b a l, 12 9 S . C t. 19 3 7 , 1 9 4 9 (2 0 0 9 ) (q u o tin g B e ll A tl. 1 7 C orp. v. T w om bl y, 550 U
. S. 544, 570 ( 2007) )
. I n otherw or ds , a compl ai nti s not 1 8 r equi r ed t o have “ det ai l ed f actual al l egat i ons , buti tdemands more than an una dorned, the 1 9 def

endant
- unl aw f

ul l y- harm ed- m e ac cus at i on. ” I d. at1949 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks 2 0 o mi t t e d )
. I n i t s f o rmu l a t i o n o f

th e Two mb l y - I q b a l r e q u i r e me n t s f o ra s t a t e me n to f

c l a i m, 2 1 the Supr eme C our thas es t abl i s hed the f ol l ow i ng or dert o be f

ol l ow ed i n det erm i ni ng13 1 w h e th e r t h e p le a d in g is a d e q u a te : “ W h e n th e re a re w e ll- p le a d e d fa c tu a l a lle g a tio n s , a 2 c o u rt sh o u ld a ss u m e th e ir v e ra c ity a n d th e n d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e y p lau sib ly g iv e rise to 3 a n e n title m e n t to re lie f.” Id . a t 1 9 5 0 (e m p h a s is s u p p lie d ). 4 B
. C ons i der at i on of M att er s E xtr aneous t o the C om pl ai nt 5 In c o n sid e rin g a m o tio n to d ism iss fo r fa ilu re to sta te a c laim p u rsu a n t to R u le 6 1 2 (b )(6 ), a d istric t co u rt m a y c o n sid e r th e fa c ts a lleg e d in th e c o m p lain t, do c u m e n ts 7 att ache d t o the compl ai ntas exhi bi t s , and document s i ncorpor at ed by r ef er ence i n the 8 compl ai nt . C hamber s , 282 F. 3d at153; H ayden v. C ounty of N as s au, 180 F. 3d 42, 54 ( 2d 9 C i r. 19 99 ). W here a do cum ent i s not i nco rporat ed b y ref erence, the co urtm ay n everl ess 1 0 cons i deri tw her e the compl ai nt“r el i es heavi l y upon i t s t erm s and ef f ect , ” ther eby 1 1 r ender i ng the document“i nt egr al ” t o the compl ai nt . M angi af i co v. B l um enthal , 471 F. 3d 1 2 3 9 1 , 3 9 8 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ) (qu o ti n g C h am b ers, 28 2 F
. 3 d at 15 2

– 5 3 ). H o w ev er, “ev en if a 1 3 d o c u m e n t is ‘in teg ra l’ to th e c o m p lain t, i t m u st b e c lea r o n th e re c o rd th a t n o d isp u te 1 4 exi s t s r egar di ng the authent i ci ty oracc ur acy of the document
. ” Faul knerv. B eer , 463 1 5 F. 3d 130, 134 ( 2d C i r . 2006)
. “I tm us tal s o be cl earthatther e exi s tno m at er i al di s put ed 1 6 i s s ues of

f actr egar di ng the r el evanc e of the document
. ” I d. 1 7 I I
. D i Fol co’ s St at ement s of C l ai m s E xami ned 1 8 A
. T h e C o n tra c t C laim 1 9 D i Fol co’ s compl ai nton i t s f ace cl ear l y al l eges a br eac h of herempl oym ent 2 0 contr actw i th M SN B C
. I n br i ef , s he al l eges thats he w as s ubj ect ed t o i nt ol er abl e w orki ng 2 1 con dit i on s and thatshe w as f i red w hen she com plai ned abo ut the co nd i t i on s. S he als o14 1 as s ert s thatdef

endant s i m pr oper l y i nt erpr et ed ce r t ai n of here- m ai l s as not i ces of 2 r es i gnat i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our tr ef err ed t o e- m ai l s f

r om D i Fol co thatw er e s ai d t o be 3 i ncorpor at ed by r ef er ence i n the compl ai nti n concl udi ng thatD i Fol co di d i ndeed 4 r epudi at e hercontr actby r es i gnat i on and ther ef or e thatthe compl ai ntf ai l ed t o s t at e a 5 c laim u p o n w h ich re lief c o u ld b e g ra n ted . T h e D istric t C o u rt re fe rre d to th o se e -m a ils 6 d a ted A u g u st 2 3 a n d A u g u st 3 1 in a rriv in g a t a c o n c lu sio n th a t “[b ]oth o f th e se e -m a ils 7 from P lai n ti ff co n sti tuted rep u d iat ion o f th e C o n tr ac t and reli ev ed M S N B C o f future 8 obl i gat i ons ” D i Fol co, 2007 W L 959085, at*3. 9 Un d e rNe w Yo rk l a w 1 0 “[ a] r epudi at i on can be ei thera s t at ementby the obl i gort o the obl i gee 1 1 i ndi cat i ng thatthe obl i gorw i l l comm i ta br eac h thatw oul d of i t s el f gi ve the 1 2 obl i gee acl ai m f ordamages f

ort ot al br eac h’ ora ‘ vol unt ary af f i rm at i ve ac t 1 3 w hi ch r ender s the obl i gorunabl e orappar ent l y unabl e t o per f orm w i thout 1 4 s u c h a b re a c h .” 1 5 N or con Pow erPar tner s , L
. P. v. N i agar a M ohaw k Pow erC orp. , 705 N
. E
. 2d 656, 659 1 6 ( N
. Y
. 1998) ( quot i ng R ES TATEMENT [S EC ON D ] OF C ON TRA CTS § 2 5 0 ) (cit ing II 1 7 F a rn s w o rt h , C o n tr a c ts § 8 .2 1 ; U C C § 2 -6 1 0 , C o m m e n t 1 (2 0 0 1 )) . H o w e v e r, a 1 8 r epudi at i on can be det erm i ned t o have oc curr ed onl y w hen i ti s s how n that“the 1 9 announce m entof an i nt ent i on nott o per f orm w as pos i t i ve and une qui vocal
. ” Tenavi s i on, 2 0 I n c . v . Ne u ma n , 3 7 9 N. E
. 2 d 1 1 6 6 , 1 1 6 8 ( N. Y. 1 9 7 8 ) ; s e e a l s o De L o r e n z o v . BA C 2 1 A g en cy , Inc
. , 6 8 1 N
. Y
. S
. 2 d 8 4 6 , 8 4 8 (A p p . D iv. 19 9 8 ) (i n d icati n g that rep u d iat ion o cc u rs 2 2 w h ere “the rep u d iat ing p arty h as in d icated an u n q u ali fi ed an d clea r refusa l t o p erfo rm ”); 2 3 R achmani C orp. v. 9 E
. 96th St
. A pt . C orp. , 629 N
. Y
. S. 2d 382, 385 ( A pp. D i v. 1995)15 1 ( expl ai ni ng thatr epudi at i on occur s w hen ther e i s “a de f i ni t e and f

i nal comm uni cat i on of 2 th e in te n tio n to fo re g o p e rf o rm a n c e ” ). 3 G ener al l y, “[ t ] he i s s ue of r epudi at i on orabandonmenti s an i s s ue of f act . ” B er cow 4 v. D amus, 776 N
. Y
. S. 2d 289, 290 ( A pp. D i v. 2004)
. A n exce pt i on appl i es w her e the 5 r epudi at i on i s i n w r i t i ng, i n w hi ch ca s e the courtm ay r es ol ve the i s s ue of r epudi at i on “as 6 a mat t erof

l aw . ” See Y ork A gent s , I nc. v. B ethl ehem St eel C orp. , 318 N
. Y
. S. 2d 157, 7 158–59 ( A pp. D i v. 1971)
. E ven i f the r epudi at i on i s i n w r i t i ng, how ever , w her e the 8 w ri tte n e x p re s s io n s a re a m b ig u o u s a s to th e irm e a n in g , “ th e n s u c h d e te rm in a tio n [i.e ., 9 r epudi at i on] i s t o be made by the j ury. ” H art f or d A cc. & I ndem. C o. v. W es ol ow s ki , 33 1 0 N
. Y
. 2 d 1 6 9 , 1 7 2 (19 7 3 ). 1 1 B eca us e D i Fol co r ef err ed i n hercompl ai ntt o here- m ai l s t o K apl an of A ugus t23, 1 2 2005, and A ugus t24, 2005, the D i s tr i ctC our tcoul d deem them i ncorpor at ed i n the 1 3 compl ai ntand ther ef or e s ubj ectt o cons i der at i on i n i t s r evi ew of the ade quacy of

the 1 4 c o m p lain t. A lth o u g h D iF o lco w ro te in h e r e -m a il o f A u g u st 2 3 th a t sh e w ish e d to 1 5 “ d is c u s s [h e r] e x it f ro m th e s h o w s ” a n d to g iv e M S N B C “ a m p le tim e to re p la c e [h e r],” 1 6 thes e s t at ement s can be t aken a s i ndi cat i ve of herdes i r e t o getoutf

r om underthe 1 7 d i r e c t i o n o f

th e p e o p l e wi th wh o m s h e h a d p r o b l e ms r a th e rth a n l e a v i n g M S NBC 1 8 alt o g ethe r. A lso, he r st atem en t th at sh e w an ted to “b e a p art of [M S N B C ’s] team for a 1 9 lon g ti m e to c o m e” an d that sh e a sk ed for a m ee ti n g w ith K ap lan to d iscu ss m att ers 2 0 f ur therm ay poi nti n the di r ect i on of herdes i r e t o cont i nue empl oym enton a di f f er ent 2 1 l evel
. D i Fol co’ s e- m ai l t o K apl an on the very nextday, A ugus t24, i n w hi ch D i Fol co16 1 i nqui r ed aboutthe ca ncel l at i on of herf as hi on w eek a s s i gnm ent , i ncl uded the f ol l ow i ng: 2 [ T ] o be cl ear , I di d notr es i gn yes t er day and w as r eal l y gi vi ng you 3 s i gni f

i cantnot i ce of

m y i nt ent i on s o you coul d begi n thi nki ng about 4 al t ernat i ves f ornextyear . [ A ] s al w ays , counton m y cont i nued 5 p r o f

e s s i o n a l i s m. 6 K apl an’ s e- m ai l r es pons e of A ugus t28, 2005, i gnor ed the f or egoi ng al t ogetherand s t at ed 7 the f

ol l ow i ng: “M y compl et e i m pr es s i on i s thatyou had r es i gned .
. . ” and “ yourobvi ous 8 i nt enti s t o l eave . ” K apl an may w el l have putthi s “s pi n” on the ea r l i ere- m ai l i n an 9 att emptt o r i d M SN B C of an empl oyee he cons i der ed tr oubl es om e. 1 0 In a n y e v e n t, w e d o n o t ag re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t “[p ]l a in tiff’s 8 /2 3 e -m a il 1 1 i s . . . unambi guous i n expr es s i ng [ D i Fol co’ s ] i nt ent i on t o l eave , ” D i Fol co, 2007 W L 1 2 959085, at*3, as a mat t erof l aw . T her e ar e atl eas tf actual i s s ues as t o w hetherD i Fol co 1 3 had made a f

i nal and def

i ni t e comm uni cat i on of an i nt entt o f

or ego per f

orm ance orhad 1 4 i ndi cat ed herr ef us al t o per f

orm i n a cl earand unqual i f i ed w ay s uch as t o j us t i f y a 1 5 c o n c lu sio n th a t sh e h a d re p u d iate d h e r c o n tra c t. 1 6 A s f

ur thers uppor tf

ori t s concl us i on thatD i Fol co had r epudi at ed hercontr act , the 1 7 D i stri ctC ou rtref err ed to an e-m ai l com m un i cat i on fr om D i F olco t o K aplan, dated A ug ust 1 8 3 1 , 2 0 0 5 , se e id ., fo llo w in g K a p lan ’s A u g u st 2 8 e -m a il th a t in c lu d e d lan g u a g e th a t it 1 9 w oul d be “[ b] es tf oral l ” thatD i Fol co l eave “qui ckl y” and that“s ooneri s bett er . ” The 2 0 A u g u st 3 1 e -m a il w a s n o t atta c h e d to th e c o m p lain t, w a s n o t in c o rp o ra ted b y re fe re n c e in 2 1 the compl ai nt , and w as noti nt egr al t o the compl ai nt . N ei therw as i tr el i ed upon i n any 2 2 w ay in D iFo lco’s c lai m for b rea ch o f co n tr ac t. M o reo v er, i t w as se n t aft er K ap lan’s17 1 A ugus t24 e- m ai l s ett i ng f or th hi s “compl et e i m pr es s i on” thatD i Fol co had r es i gned and 2 t erm i nated her em ploym ent. T he D i stri ctC ou rttheref ore erred i n co nsi deri ng the A ug ust 3 3 1 e -m a il. 4 M or eover , the A ugus t31 e- m ai l w as ambi guous as w el l
. O n the one ha nd, as the 5 D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed, D i Fol co w r ot e: “I tw as m y i nt ent i on t o gi ve you l ong- t erm not i ce 6 thatI w as t err i bl y di s appoi nt ed i n the w ay I w as tr eat ed and w as notpl anni ng on 7 r eturni ng f

orthe s econd ye arof

m y contr act . ” O n the otherhand, D i Fol co w r ot e i n the 8 sa m e e -m a il: “ S o w e w e n t fro m y o u r a g re e m e n t to m e e t w ith m e to d isc u ss th e iss u e s to 9 you havi ng a ‘ compl et e i m pr es s i on’ of m y r es i gnat i on, w hi ch w as nevergi ven. . . . E ven 1 0 i f you w er e uncl earf

r om m y or i gi nal e- m ai l , . . . w hatpartof ‘ I di d notr es i gn yes t er day 1 1 and w as m er el y gi vi ng you s i gni f i cantnot i ce of

m y i nt ent i on s o you coul d begi n thi nki ng 1 2 aboutal t ernat i ves f ornextyear ’ i n m y f

ol l ow - up di d you notunder s t and? N o not i ce w as 1 3 gi ven, no f

orm al l ett erof

r es i gnat i on w as s ent . N o t i m e f r ames w er e of

f er ed. ” 1 4 T h e A u g u st 3 1 e -m a il i s a len g th y o n e a n d c a n n o t as a m a tter o f la w b e sa id to 1 5 ma n i f

e s ta c l e a ra n d u n e q u i v o c a l r e p u d i a t i o n . I n ru l i n g o n a mo t i o n p u r s u a n tt o F e d
. R. 1 6 C i v. P. 12( b) ( 6) , the duty of a court“i s m er el y t o as s es s the l egal f eas i bi l i ty of

the 1 7 co m p lai n t, n o t t o assa y the w eigh t of th e e v iden ce w h ich m igh t be o ffered in su p p o rt 1 8 ther eof

. ” C ooperv. Par s ky, 140 F. 3d 433, 440 ( 2d C i r . 1998) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on and 1 9 quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)
. T he D i s tr i ctC ourther e “a s s ay[ ed] the w ei ghtof the evi dence ” 2 0 o f r e p u d ia tio n a n d im p ro p e rl y c h o s e b e tw e e n re a s o n a b ly c o m p e tin g in te rp re ta tio n s . 2 1 B eca us e w e f

i nd thata cl ai m has been s t at ed f ora br eac h of

contr actand thatr epudi at i on18 1 has notbeen e s t abl i s hed as a mat t erof l aw , w e r ei ns t at e D i Fol co’ s br eac h of contr act 2 claim as w ell as h er c o rresp o n d ing claim b rou g h t pu rsua n t t o the p rov isi o n s o f N ew Y o rk 3 L abo r Law §§ 19 0– 19 9-A forfai l ure t o p ay w ages. 4 B
. T he D ef amat i on C aus es of

A ct i on 5 T he D i stri ctC ou rtdeterm i ned that tw o o f the all eged l y d efam at ory st at em ents — 6 th e sta tem e n t o n th e “ In sid e C a b le” w e b site th a t D iF o lco h a d re sig n e d fro m M S N B C “ in 7 th e m id d le o f h e r c o n tra c t” a n d th e sta tem e n t o n th e “ N e w sB lu e s” w e b site th a t C lau d ia 8 D i Fol co has qui tM SN B C i n the mi ddl e of hercontr act ” — “[ w e] r e true . . . and thus not 9 act i onabl e. ” D i Fol co, 2007 W L 959085, at*5. T hi s det erm i nat i on w as bas ed on the 1 0 court ’ s concl us i on thatD i Fol co r epudi at ed hercontr actas a mat t erof l aw , a conc l us i on 1 1 thatw e have r ej ect ed as pr ematur e. A ccor di ngl y, w e ar e cons tr ai ned t o r ei ns t at e the 1 2 def

amat i on cl ai m s , w hi ch ar e pl eade d pr oper l y t o s t at e cl ai m s i n any eve nt . T he 1 3 compl ai ntal l eges thatthe s t at ement s w er e untrue and de f amat ory and w er e publ i s hed 1 4 w ith m a lice a n d “ w ith k n o w led g e o f th e ir fa lsity a n d /o r w ith a re c k les s d isre g a rd fo r th e ir 1 5 tru th o r f

a ls ity .” D i Fol co f

ur theral l eges thatthes e s t at ement s w er e “w i l l f ul ” and 1 6 “ in te n d e d to s e ri o u s ly h a rm [h e r] . . . c a re e r.” 1 7 A cc o rdin g to the co m p lai n t, the d efa m atory stat em en ts “i m p u g n M s. D iFo lco’s 1 8 h o n e sty , tru stw o rth in e ss , d e p e n d a b ili ty , an d p ro fe ss io n a l fitne ss a n d a b ili ties b y fa lse ly 1 9 chargi ng her w i th co nd uct that w ou l d tend t o inj ure her i n h er trade or busi ness. ” T hese 2 0 and otheral l egat i ons i n the compl ai ntar e ade quat e t o s upporta cl ai m bas ed on a “ w r i t i ng 2 1 w hi ch t ends t o di s par age aper s on i n the w ay of [ her ] of f i ce, pr of es s i on, ortr ade. ”19 1 N i chol s v. I t em P ubl i s her s , I nc. , 132 N
. E
. 2d 860, 862 ( N
. Y
. 1956)
. T he compl ai nt 2 d esc ri b es statem en ts th at, “if true , w o u ld ten d to p rov e [D iFo lco] un fi t t o co n ti n u e [he r] 3 c a lli n g .” Id . (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s a n d c itatio n s o m itt e d ). T h e c o m p lain t se ts fo rth 4 the nec es s ary el ement s t o m ake outa cl ai m f ordef amat i on i n N ew Y ork, i ncl udi ng the 5 e l e me n to f

ma l i c e . S e e g e n e r a l l y L i b e rma n v . Ge l s t e i n , 6 0 5 N. E
. 2 d 3 4 4 , 3 4 9

– 5 0 ( N. Y. 6 1 9 9 2 ). 7 A s t o the thi r d al l eged de f amat ory s t at ement— the TV Spy w ebs i t e s t at ementthat 8 D i Fol co r el i ed on cl eava ge and makeup t o advanc e hercar eer , i gnor ed di r ect i ons , r ef us ed 9 “al t ernat e t akes , ” pout ed, and w as nota t eam pl ayer— the D i s tr i ctC ourtal s o w as 1 0 p re m a tu re in its d ism iss a l. T h e D istric t C o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t “a re a so n a b le r e a d e r w o u ld 1 1 c o n c lu d e fro m b o th th e b ro a d e r c o n tex t an d th e im m e d iate c o n tex t th a t th e th ird a lleg e d ly 1 2 d e fa m a to ry s ta te m e n t c o n s is ts o f o p in io n s , n o t f a c ts .” D iF o lc o , 2 0 0 7 W L 9 5 9 0 8 5 , a t * 8
. 1 3 H ow ever , “‘ [ o] pi ni ons bas ed on f al s e f act s ar e ac t i onabl e . . . agai ns ta def endantw ho had 1 4 know l edge of

the f al s i ty orpr obabl e f

al s i ty of the under l yi ng f

act s . ’ ” D avi s v. R os s , 754 1 5 F. 2d 80, 86 ( 2d C i r . 1985) ( quot i ng H ot chnerv. C as t i l l o- Puche, 551 F. 2d 910, 913 ( 2d 1 6 C ir. 1 9 7 7 ). S u c h k n o w led g e o f fa lsity is p ro p e rly a lleg e d h e re , an d D iF o lco is e n tit led to 1 7 s how thatthe “ne gat i ve cha r act er i zat i on” pr es ent ed on the w ebs i t e “i s coupl ed w i th a 1 8 clea r bu t f

alse im p li ca ti o n that the a u tho r i s p ri v y to fac ts ab o u t th e p erso n that are 1 9 u n k n o w n to th e g e n e ra l r e a d e r.” D a v is 7 5 4 F .2 d a t 8 5

– 8 6
. 2 0 C
. T h e T o rtio u s In ter fe re n c e w ith P ro sp e c tiv e B u sin e ss R e latio n s C laim 2 1 In o rd e r t o re c o v e r f o r t o rt io u s in te rf

e re n c e w ith p ro s p e c tiv e b u s in e s s re la tio n s , a20 1 pl ai nt i f

f m us tpl ead a nd pr ove: 2 ( 1) bus i nes s r el at i ons w i th a thi r d party; ( 2) the def endant ’ s i nt er f

er ence 3 w i th those bu si ness r el at i on s; (3) the d efendan tact ed w i th the sol e pu rpose 4 of

harm i ng the pl ai nt i f

f orus ed di s hones t , unf

ai rori m pr operm eans ; and 5 ( 4) i nj ury t o the bus i nes s r el at i ons hi p. 6 N adel v. Pl ay- B y- Pl ay Toys & N ovel t i es , I nc. , 208 F. 3d 368, 382 ( 2d C i r . 2000)
. N ot i ng 7 the s t at ementof

couns el “thatPl ai nt i f

f r el i ed s ol el y on def

amat i on as the w r ongf

ul act 8 pr edi cat i ng the cl ai m of t or t i ous i nt er f

er ence ” and thati thad di s m i s s ed the def amat i on 9 cl ai m s , the D i s tr i ctC our tf ound no f

urtherbas i s f

orpr ocee di ng w i th the t ort i ous 1 0 i nt er f

er ence cl ai m and di s m i s s ed i tf orf ai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m . D i Fol co, 2007 W L 1 1 9 5 9 8 0 5 , at *8
. O u r reinstatem en t of th e d efa m ati o n claim eli m inates th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s 1 2 r at i onal e f

ordi s m i s s al of

the t or t i ous i nt er f

er ence cl ai m . H ow ever , ourr evi ew of the 1 3 D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s 12( b) ( 6) rul i ngs bei ng de novo, “w e ar e f r ee t o af f i rm the dec i s i on bel ow 1 4 o n d is p o s itiv e b u t d if fe re n t g ro u n d s .” P ri m e tim e 2 4 J o in t V e n tu re v . N a t’ l B ro a d . C o ., 1 5 2 1 9 F .3 d 9 2 , 1 0 3 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). W e a ffirm th e d ism iss a l o f to rtio u s in ter fe re n c e c laim 1 6 f o rth e r e a s o n s g i v e n b e l o w. 1 7 I n the thi r d cl ai m , ent i t l ed “Tor t i ous I nt er f er ence w i th C ontr actual and/ or 1 8 P ro sp e c tiv e B u sin e ss R e latio n s,” D iF o lco a lleg e s th a t “[d ]efe n d a n ts in ten tio n a lly 1 9 in ter fe re d w ith P lain tiff’s p ro fe ss io n a l re latio n sh ip s a n d o p p o rtu n iti e s fo r e m p lo y m e n t” 2 0 a n d th a t “[d ]efe n d a n ts’ a c tio n s p e rm a n e n tly in ju re d P lain tiff’s b u sin e ss re latio n sh ip s in 2 1 the [ new s and ent ert ai nm ent ] i ndus try. ” A ccor di ng t o the compl ai nt , thes e ac t i ons gave 2 2 rise to d a m a g e s flo w in g fro m h a rm to D iF o lco ’s c a re e r d e v e lo p m e n t, ec o n o m ic h a rm in21 1 the f

orm of l os ti ncome and benef

i t s , harm t o herpr of

es s i onal and per s onal r eput at i on, 2 and harm con si st i ng of m ental ang uis h an d em oti on al dis tres s. 3 A sid e fro m th e fa c t th a t th e se a lleg a tio n s a re to o c o n c lu so ry , v a g u e , an d lac k in g in 4 a f

actual bas i s t o m ake outD i Fol co’ s t ort i ous i nt er f er ence cl ai m , s ee Bl ack Carand 5 L i very I ns . , I nc. v. H & W B r oker age, I nc. , 813 N
. Y
. S. 2d 751, 752 ( A pp. D i v. 2006) , the 6 compl ai ntf

ai l s ent i r el y t o des cr i be any thi r d party w i th w hom D i Fol co had pr os pect i ve 7 bus i nes s r el at i ons t o be i nt er f er ed w i th, s ee N adel , 208 F. 3d at382–83. T he l ack of s uch 8 a n a l l e g a t i o n i s f a t a l t o th i s c l a i m. 9 I I I
. C oncl us i on 1 0 W e af

f i rm the j udgm entof

the D i s tr i ctC our tas t o the di s m i s s al of the cl ai m f

or 1 1 t or t i ous i nt er f

er ence and vac at e s o m uch of the j udgm entas di s m i s s es the caus es of act i on 1 2 fo r b re a c h o f c o n tr a c t ( w ith re la te d N e w Y o rk L a b o r L a w c la im s ) a n d d e fa m a tio n . W e 1 3 r emand f

orf ur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th the f or egoi ng.