OPINION AND ORDER Between November 29, 2021, and December 3, 2021, Plaintiff Sara Hakimi corresponded with Defendant Guidant Global (“Guidant”) as part of an employment verification process in connection with Plaintiff’s anticipated work at non-party BNP Paribas. The correspondence was contentious, in part due to Plaintiff’s belief that Guidant’s process was fragmented and not secure, and her concomitant reticence to disclose sensitive personal information. Things came to a head on December 1, 2021, when Plaintiff was asked to provide Guidant with a completed Form I-9 and to participate in Guidant’s process to verify the Form and supporting documentation through an authorized third party, to which process Plaintiff strenuously objected. In the days that followed, an unnamed individual at either Guidant or Defendant Corporate Employment Resources, Inc. (“CER”) informed BNP Paribas of Plaintiff’s obstinance. In that exchange, the individual advised BNP Paribas that Plaintiff had not timely provided the necessary information for Guidant’s verification of her employment, and that the delay had impeded Guidant’s ability to approve Plaintiff for work at the bank. Perhaps more importantly for the instant litigation, that individual also expressed to BNP Paribas that Plaintiff had been “rude” and “uncooperative” during the process. Due to the delay in verifying Plaintiff’s information, BNP Paribas ultimately canceled Plaintiff’s offer of employment. Plaintiff not only vehemently disagrees with these characterizations of her conduct and demeanor, but also asserts that the statements were defamatory. Plaintiff maintains that she had in fact provided all the necessary information, including a Form I-9, to be onboarded at Guidant, and should have been approved for work as a matter of course. As Plaintiff explains it, the delays in her onboarding were in retaliation for her decision to express her criticism of the onboarding process to several employees of either Guidant or CER, including Defendant Carol Hector. This criticism, in turn, prompted some combination of Guidant, CER, and/or Hector to defame Plaintiff to BNP Paribas and thereby sabotage her position. Separately, Plaintiff asserts a claim for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage against Guidant, CER, and Hector, as well as against Defendants Impellam Group (“Impellam”) and its employee, Karen Schleuder (together with Guidant, CER, Hector, and Impellam, “Defendants”), and a claim for vicarious liability against Guidant and Impellam. Now before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (the “SAC” (Dkt. #50-2)), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), and Defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (the “FAC” (Dkt. #42)), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth in the remainder of this Opinion, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety and denies Plaintiff’s motion to amend. BACKGROUND1 A. Factual Background Plaintiff has worked as a banking and finance contractor for over twenty years, in the specialized areas of regulatory reporting and risk reporting. (FAC 15). Guidant is a managed service provider, offering outsourced professional services to entities such as BNP Paribas. (Id. 16). CER and Impellam are both companies involved in the human resources (“HR”) process through which Guidant onboards contractors prior to those contractors beginning work at Guidant’s clients. (Id. 21). For two years, from September 25, 2019, through September 25, 2021, Plaintiff worked as a contractor for BNP Paribas through non-party Maltem Consulting Group. (FAC 16). When Plaintiff’s contract ended, BNP Paribas advised her that it wanted to renew its consulting relationship with Plaintiff, with a proposed tentative start date in early December 2021. (Id. 17). Plaintiff and her manager at BNP Paribas verbally agreed that she would return to work with the bank, prompting her manager to begin the process of obtaining approval to rehire Plaintiff as a contractor. (Id.). After Plaintiff’s manager secured the necessary approvals for Plaintiff’s employment, Plaintiff was instructed to work with Guidant, BNP Paribas’s preferred vendor for external consultants, to onboard as an employee with Guidant. (FAC
16, 18). This process began on or about November 22, 2021, when Plaintiff received an email from Haddad containing an offer of employment with Guidant as a consultant to BNP Paribas. (Id. 19). One week later, on or about November 29, 2021, Plaintiff emailed Haddad inquiring about the timing of the onboarding process with Guidant and its potential implications for her early-December start date at BNP Paribas. (Id. 20). This email prompted a phone conversation between Plaintiff and Haddad on that same day, in which conversation Plaintiff relayed her concerns to Haddad about the delay in processing her onboarding and the impact of that delay on her start date. (Id.). Thereafter, Haddad sent Plaintiff a link to a portal where Plaintiff could input her onboarding information. (FAC 21). On or before December 1, 2021, Plaintiff accessed the portal and input, among other information, her full legal name, date of birth, Social Security Number (“SSN”), New York driver’s license number, current address, professional references, and academic documents. (Id.
