Garfinkle v. The Conference on Jewish Material Claims against Germany, Inc.

Background

Jonathan Garfinkle sued The Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, Inc. (the “Claims Conference”) and Gregory Schneider, its former Executive Vice President. Garfinkle alleged that Schneider sent a letter to Garfinkle’s employer, Jewish Community Services of South Florida, stating that the Claims Conference would not work with Garfinkle and requesting assurance that he would have no involvement with the Claims Conference’s grants. Garfinkle alleged that the letter caused his employment to be terminated.

Garfinkle asserted claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, tortious interference with business relations, and civil conspiracy. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. The court stated that it had diversity jurisdiction and applied New York law because the parties agreed that Florida and New York law did not materially conflict for these claims.

Court’s Analysis

Intentional infliction of emotional distress. Under New York law, this claim requires extreme and outrageous conduct. The court held that the alleged effort to damage Garfinkle’s reputation and career by using the Claims Conference’s influence to cause his termination did not meet New York’s demanding standard, even assuming the allegations were true.

Defamation. A defamation claim requires, among other things, a false statement of fact. The court reviewed the letter and found that Garfinkle identified no explicitly false statement in it. The court also rejected his theory that the letter was defamatory by implication because he did not make the required rigorous showing that the letter could reasonably be read to convey a defamatory inference that the author intended or endorsed. The letter referred to the Claims Conference’s prior experience with another grantee agency but did not mention improper billing practices or other wrongdoing.

Tortious interference with business relations. Under New York law, this claim requires a business relationship, interference, wrongful purpose or improper means, and injury. The court held that Garfinkle did not plausibly allege that the defendants used criminal or independently wrongful means. It also held that he did not plausibly allege that the defendants acted solely to harm him. The complaint’s allegations that the defendants wanted to damage his career and reputation were conclusory. Other allegations supported an alternative explanation: the Claims Conference may have acted out of self-interest to protect the proper use of its funds, including funds it provided to Garfinkle’s employer.

Civil conspiracy. The court stated that New York does not recognize civil conspiracy as an independent tort. Because Garfinkle’s underlying tort claims were dismissed, the conspiracy claim also could not proceed.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket Number 10 and close the case. The opinion does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.