Paul sued his employer, Acme Corporation, in the proper U.S. District Court in State X, claiming that (1) Dan (an Acme supervisor) had defamed him by informing the president of Acme that Paul was an ineffectual employee, and that this statement was within the scope of Dan’s employment at Acme, and (2) Acme owed Paul $15,000 in unused vacation pay. As a consequence of both harms, Paul claimed damages in the aggregate amount of $80,000. Acme responded to Paul’s complaint on the ground that Dan was an indispensable party and that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking since the two claims aggregated by Paul to satisfy the “in excess of $75,000” requirement did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. (You may assume that the court could not obtain personal jurisdiction over Dan.) This motion was denied. Acme then filed an answer that admitted Dan’s statement, but denied that it was made within the scope of Dan’s employment and asserted the affirmative defense of truth. Paul then filed a summary judgment motion, with his personal supporting affidavit, describing facts that demonstrated that he had performed his job competently. Acme failed to respond to Paul’s summary judgment motion.

Paul’s motion for a summary judgment should be: