James L. Turner v. Theodore v. Wells, Jr.
879 F.3d 1254
| 11th Cir. | 2018Background
- The NFL hired Paul, Weiss to investigate allegations that Miami Dolphins players bullied offensive lineman Jonathan Martin; Paul, Weiss issued a 144‑page public Report in February 2014 concluding that persistent harassment contributed to Martin’s departure and referencing coach James Turner’s conduct.
- Five days after the Report’s release, the Dolphins fired Turner; Turner then sued Paul, Weiss and partner Theodore Wells in federal court alleging Florida defamation and defamation‑by‑implication claims and attached the Report to his complaint.
- The Report described incidents including (a) Turner giving Player A a male "blow‑up doll" amid homophobic taunting, (b) Turner’s texts to Martin urging a public statement defending teammate Richie Incognito, (c) coaches’ awareness but failure to stop insulting comments, and (d) the offensive linemen’s internal “Judas” fines that discouraged ‘‘snitching.’’
- The district court dismissed Turner’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed.
- The court held the challenged statements were nonactionable opinions or true/accurate factual recitations, that alleged omissions did not create a defamatory implication, and that Turner is a public figure who failed to plead actual malice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Report’s statements about the blow‑up doll and Turner’s participation amounted to defamatory false statements of fact | Turner: the gift was a harmless joke and the Report falsely portrayed him as endorsing homophobic taunting | Paul, Weiss: the characterization is an opinion grounded in disclosed facts and supported by witness accounts | Held: nonactionable opinion and factual narrative; not defamatory |
| Whether labeling Turner’s texts to Martin as “inappropriate” / showing “poor judgment” is actionable | Turner: characterization damaged his reputation | Paul, Weiss: opinion based on disclosed, quoted texts; not provably false | Held: opinion/nonactionable; context supports the characterization |
| Whether statements that Turner was aware of insults and never sought to stop them are false | Turner: assertions misleading; locker‑room banter is normal | Paul, Weiss: Report limited the awareness to "some" comments and cites witnesses; factual | Held: statements are true or substantially accurate; not defamatory |
| Whether Report falsely attributed creation/enforcement of a “Judas” fine system to Turner | Turner: implication that he established/enforced the system harmed him | Paul, Weiss: Report assigns the fine system to players and notes Turner denied creating it; conclusion based on evidence | Held: no false factual assertion; claim fails |
| Whether omissions/juxtaposition in Report created defamatory implication | Turner: selective omissions (e.g., that players viewed gift as a joke, lack of comparison to other NFL locker rooms) created false gist | Paul, Weiss: editorial discretion; omitted material irrelevant or included elsewhere; many favorable facts were reported | Held: no defamatory implication; opinion privilege and absence of falsity defeat claim |
| Whether Turner must plead actual malice because he is a public figure | Turner: disputes public‑figure status / adequacy of pleading malice | Paul, Weiss: Turner is a (limited) public figure in a public controversy and failed to plead facts showing subjective malice | Held: Turner is a public figure and complaint fails to plead actual malice plausibly |
Key Cases Cited
- Jews For Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2008) (elements of defamation under Florida law and falsity requirement)
- Keller v. Miami Herald Publ’g Co., 778 F.2d 711 (11th Cir. 1985) (court’s role in construing statements and considering qualifying language for opinion/fact distinction)
- Michel v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 816 F.3d 686 (11th Cir. 2016) (Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard applies to actual malice; distinction between fact and opinion)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (actual malice standard for public‑figure defamation)
- Hallmark Builders, Inc. v. Gaylord Broad. Co., 733 F.2d 1461 (11th Cir. 1984) (truth/substantial accuracy required; court may decide defamation as a matter of law)