Clark sued his employer, Daily Planet corporation, in the proper U.S. District Court in State X, claiming that (1) Perry (a Daily Planet editor) had defamed him by information the President of Daily Planet that Clark was an ineffectual employee, and that his statement was within the scope of Perry's employment at Daily Planet, and (2) Daily Planet owed Clark $5,000 in unused vacation pay. As a consequence of both harms, Clark claimed damages in the aggregate amount of $80,000. Daily Planet responded to Clark's complaint with an FRCP 12(b) motion to dismiss Clark's complaint on the grounds that Perry was an indispensable party and that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking since the two claims aggregated by Clark satisfy the "in excess of $75,000" requirement did not arise off of the same transaction or occurrence. The court could not obtain personal jurisdiction over Perry. Daily Planet's motion was denied. Daily Planet then filed an answer that admitted Perry's statement but denied that it was made within the scope of Perry's employment and asserted the affirmative defense of truth. Clark then filed a summary judgment motion, with his personal supporting affidavit describing facts that demonstrated that he had performed his job competently. Daily Planet failed to respond to Clark's summary judgment motion. Should Clark's motion for a summary judgment be granted? Explain