The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joe Billy McDADE United States Senior District Judge
This matter is before the Court sua sponte for reconsideration of the portion of Magistrate Judge Gorman's January 21, 2010 Order granting the United States' Motion to Substitute itself as Defendant in place of Sang Kim. (Doc. 8). On July 19, 2010, the Court gave Plaintiff the opportunity to file a brief and evidence by August 13, 2010 on the issue of whether Sang Kim was acting in the scope of his federal employment when he committed the acts alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint; Plaintiff filed no brief or additional evidence. (Doc. 14). For the reasons explained below, Magistrate Judge Gorman's Order granting the United States' Motion to Substitute itself as Defendant is affirmed.
On November 25, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Mr. Kim, a federal employee, in the Circuit Court of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit in Rock Island County, Illinois. (Doc. 1-2). As explained in this Court's July 19, 2010 Order & Opinion, under the Federal Tort Claims Act, as amended by the "Westfall Act," a federal employee is personally immune from suits alleging that he has committed state common law torts, if those actions took place within the scope of his federal employment; the matter is removed to federal district court and the United States is substituted for the employee as defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1), (d)(1). Removal and substitution of defendants begins with a Certification filed by the Attorney General or his delegate that the employee's conduct was within the scope of his federal employment, which was filed in this case. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2). On January 8, 2010, the United States, on behalf of Mr. Kim, filed a Certification of Scope of Employment by Acting United States Attorney Jeffrey B. Lang and removed the matter to this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2).*fn1 (Doc. 1). Mr. Lang's Certification stated that Mr. Kim was acting in the scope of his employment with the United States Army at all times relevant to the Complaint. (Doc. 5-1). The United States, acting on behalf of Mr. Kim, on January 19, 2010, filed a Motion to Substitute itself as Defendant for Mr. Kim under 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2).*fn2 (Docs. 6 & 7).
On January 29, 2010, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's suit, arguing that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Federal Tort Claims Act. (Docs. 9 & 10). Plaintiff responded in opposition to this Motion to Dismiss, arguing that Mr. Kim was not acting within the scope of his employment and that the Federal Tort Claims Act was therefore inapplicable; Plaintiff did not dispute that he has not exhausted his administrative remedies. (Docs. 11 & 12). The Court ordered the United States to file a reply to Plaintiff's response, which it did, addressing Plaintiff's arguments in the Response, and providing additional evidence and documentation on the scope of employment issue. (Doc. 13). On July 19, 2010, finding that the scope of employment question must be revisited, the Court denied the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice as premature, and with leave to refile. (Doc. 14). As explained in the Court's July 19, 2010 Order & Opinion, judicial review of the scope of employment certification is proper, but here Magistrate Judge Gorman ruled on the United States' Motion to Substitute Party only two days after it was filed, and Plaintiff thus did not have the chance to respond in opposition to the Motion to Substitute. Therefore, there was no meaningful judicial review of the scope of employment certification, and such review should be provided.*fn3 Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 U.S. 417, 432, 434 (1995); Taboas v. Mlynczak, 149 F.3d 576, 579 fn. 1, 580-81 (7th Cir. 1998); Hamrick v. Franklin, 931 F.2d 1209, 1211 (7th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff bears the burden of persuading the Court that Mr. Kim was not acting in the scope of his employment when he made the statements alleged in the Complaint. Taboas, 149 F.3d at 582 (citing Snodgrass v. Jones, 957 F.2d 482, 487 fn. 3 (7th Cir. 1992); Hamrick, 931 F.2d at 1211 (7th Cir. 1991) (citing S.J. & W. Ranch, Inc. v. Lehtinen, 913 F.2d 1538, 1543 (11th Cir. 1990)).*fn4 Where a motion for substitution of defendants "contends that, even accepting the allegations of the complaint as true, the defendant acted within the scope of employment," it may be decided on the face of the complaint. Taboas, 149 F.3d at 580 (citing McHugh v. University of Vermont, 966 F.2d 67, 74-75 (2d Cir. 1992)).
In the alternative, the motion for substitution may be decided by reference to affidavits and other evidence outside the pleadings (akin to a summary judgment motion) if the movant contests the facts as pled and the plaintiff is unable to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to scope of employment.
Id. at 581 (citing Maron v. United States, 126 F.3d 317, 322 (4th Cir. 1997); Melo v. Hafer, 13 F.3d 736, 746 (3d Cir. 1994); Wood v. United States, 995 F.2d 1122, 1129 (1st Cir. 1993)). See also Snodgrass, 957 F.2d 482, 484 (7th Cir. 1992) (quoting Stevenson Olds Sales and Service v. Industrial Com. of Illinois, 489 N.E.2d 328, 330 (3d Dist. 1986) ("Under Illinois law, 'where the essential facts are undisputed, whether an injury arose out of and in the course of employment presents a question of law.'"). Finally, if there are disputed factual issues that are material to the disposition of the scope of employment question, then "the district court may hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve material factual disputes related to the scope of employment." Id.; Godbout, 2004 WL 442601, *3 ("plaintiff is entitled to an evidentiary hearing (and presumably limited discovery) to resolve material factual disputes related to scope of employment").
In its Reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss, Defendant provided additional argument and evidence that Mr. Kim was acting in the scope of his employment when he committed the acts alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint, but did not contradict the facts presented in the Complaint. As noted above, Plaintiff has not provided any additional argument or evidence to contradict that provided by Defendant, though he was given the opportunity to do so, and so the Court assumes that Plaintiff does not have any factual dispute with the evidence as provided by Defendant. Therefore, the Court may decide the matter on the basis of the evidence provided by Defendant.
Plaintiff has been employed by the United States Army since March 2008 at the Army Armament Research and Development Engineering Center ("ARDEC") in Rock Island, Illinois. (Terronez Decl. at 1). He was temporarily assigned to work as a Quality Assurance Specialist in Mosul, Iraq from June to November 2008, under Mr. Kim's supervision. (Kim Decl. at ¶¶ 3, 4, 7). In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Mr. Kim defamed him and intentionally interfered with his prospective business opportunities through an email on December 11, 2008 to Plaintiff's supervisor, Steve Terronez, at the Rock Island Arsenal. (Doc. 1-2). Plaintiff contends that this email, in which Mr. Kim allegedly informed Plaintiff's supervisor that Plaintiff had falsely represented the duties he had performed in Iraq and that he had failed to properly perform his duties, was false and defamatory, and was sent with the intent of impeding Plaintiff's future employment opportunities with the Army. (Doc. 1-2 at ¶¶ 5, 9). He also alleges that Mr. Kim's statements were "malicious in that he knew they were false or acted in reckless disregard for their truth," and that they "were intentional and malicious in that he had no personal knowledge of the facts that he accused plaintiff of misrepresenting and he had expressed an extreme animosity toward the plaintiff." (Doc. 1-2 at ¶¶ 8, 11).
Defendant admits that Mr. Kim, stationed in Balad, Iraq, did not personally observe Plaintiff's work in Mosul. (Kim Decl. at ¶¶ 8-9). After Plaintiff returned to the United States, Mr. Kim learned from Plaintiff's replacement, Troy Morris, that Plaintiff did not arrange for Mr. Morris' transportation and housing as instructed, had no filing system, and had no required reference manuals. (Kim Decl. at ¶¶ 8-10). In addition, Plaintiff had allowed contractors to use a stamp indicating that vehicles had been fully inspected by Army staff, in a violation of policy. (Kim Decl. at ¶ 11) Mr. Morris also informed Mr. Kim that, because Plaintiff sometimes could not be found, vehicles were sometimes released to the troops without a final inspection. (Kim Decl. at ¶ 12). Finally, Ms. Leonard, another supervisor of Plaintiff's, informed Mr. Kim that Plaintiff resisted her instructions to document contractors' deficiencies. (Kim Decl. at ¶ 13).
On November 27, 2008, Mr. Kim, having received this information about Plaintiff's work in Mosul, sent an email to Mr. Terronez and another person explaining that three of the four employees from Rock Island had performed their duties well, but that Plaintiff had not.*fn5 (Doc. 13 at 9-10). Because Plaintiff had not lived up to the expected standards, Mr. Kim asked that, if Plaintiff volunteered for another overseas assignment, that his performance in Mosul be taken into consideration. (Doc. 13 at 10). Around December 2, 2008, Mr. Terronez spoke with Plaintiff about Mr. Kim's email, and gave him a copy of it. (Terronez Decl. at 2).
In early December 2008, Mr. Terronez asked Plaintiff to relate his 2008 work performance to him as part of Plaintiff's annual performance appraisal. (Terronez Decl. at 2). Plaintiff informed Mr. Terronez that he had worked as Acting Site Lead and served as an investigating officer in Mosul. (Terronez Decl. at 2). Because both of these duties were outside the scope of Plaintiff's position, and because he knew that Mr. Kim had been dissatisfied with Plaintiff's performance, Mr. Terronez was surprised that Mr. Kim would have assigned Plaintiff to these duties. (Terronez Decl. at 2). On December 11, 2008, Mr. Terronez requested information via email from Mr. Kim about these reported duties. (Terronez Decl. at 2; Doc. 13-1 at 8-9). Mr. Kim's reply, also on December 11, 2008, states that, after checking with Ms. Le[o]nard, he could not confirm that Plaintiff had undertaken either of the two duties he reported to Mr. Terronez, that the first of such duties would have interfered with his other work and would have been beyond the scope of the work he was assigned to, and that, as to the second of the duties, Mr. Kim had never been informed of Plaintiff's qualifications to perform it. (Doc. 13-1 at 8). Mr. Kim also expressed his concerns that the inquiry from Mr. Terronez indicated that Plaintiff may not have been performing the work "as contracted," and that ...