Vanessa Ngam v. Jennifer Kludt, Avera St. Luke Aberdeen, SD Staff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA CENTRAL DIVISION VANESSA NGAM, 1:24-CV-01025-ECS Plaintiff, vs. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR HEARING AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION JENNIFER KLUDT, AVERA ST. LUKE ABERDEEN, SD STAFF, Defendants. Pending before the Court are two motions filed by Plaintiff, Vanessa Ngam (Ngam). Ngam is proceeding pro se. First, on September 17, 2025, Ngam filed a motion “to request a formal hearing.” Doc. 15. This motion was filed after the Court issued a written ruling granting in part and denying in part the Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Doc. 14. Second, on September 24, 2025, Ngam filed a motion for reconsideration. Doc. 16. In this motion, Ngam asks the Court to reconsider its ruling dismissing her defamation claim based on the common interest privilege. Id. The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff’s defamation claim without prejudice. Doc. 14. The lawsuit survives, however, because the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss Ngam’s remaining racial discrimination claim. Doc. 14 Id. at 12-13. In her motion for reconsideration, Ngam seeks to “reiterate some aspects in the complaint...” Doc. 16 at 1. Ngam argues the defamation claim should not be dismissed “even though those making the statements had the privilege to do so...” Doc. 16 Id. at 4. After careful consideration, Ngam’s pending motions are denied. The parties have been ordered to prepare a discovery report for the Court’s consideration so that a scheduling order can be entered. Doc. 19. The Court can see no need to order a hearing now. Instead, the parties need to begin the discovery process and follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, Ngam’s motion requesting a formal hearing, Doc. 15, is denied. Ngam’s motion for reconsideration is also denied. A district court's decision on a motion for reconsideration rests within its discretion. Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 413 (8th Cir. 1988). “Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Id. at 414 (citation omitted). Here, Ngam merely reiterates prior arguments in her motion for reconsideration. Nothing presented by Ngam causes the Court to change its mind about its prior ruling. As a result, Ngam’s motion to reconsider, Doc. 16 is denied. Therefore, for good cause it is ORDERED that Plaintiff Vanessa Ngam’s Motion to Request a Formal Court Hearing, Doc. 15, is denied. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, Doc. 16, is denied. DATED this 21st day of October, 2025. BY THE COURT: ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE