James Turntine v. Charles Peterson, 959 F.3d 873

Plaintiffs James Turntine and Promotional Services, a Missouri darts league operator, contracted with RedEye Rhino (Minnesota) in 2015 for exclusive jerseys and purchased $7,500 in Tournament vouchers to be awarded as prizes; some vouchers were not awarded and Promotional Services repurchased $2,500 worth.
In 2016 Promotional Services required a $500 charity donation for apparel branding; RedEye Rhino declined and Turntine donated on its behalf; Defendants thereafter published disparaging Facebook posts and Promotional Services banned RedEye Rhino from future events.
In 2018 Defendants posted a video and comments on Facebook accusing Turntine and Promotional Services of lying, manipulating, and engaging in underhanded business practices arising from the parties’ earlier dealings.
Plaintiffs sued in Missouri state court for two counts of libel and one of slander seeking damages; Defendants removed to federal court on diversity grounds and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
The district court dismissed all counts, concluding the challenged statements were nonactionable opinion or otherwise not defamatory; the Eighth Circuit reversed, holding the complaint sufficiently pleaded actionable defamation and that the opinion privilege did not foreclose the claims at the pleading stage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject-matter jurisdiction: amount in controversy	Damages pleaded “in excess of $20,000” per count and unspecified punitive damages do not show >$75,000	Removing defendants argued aggregated and open-ended damages could reasonably exceed $75,000	Court held diversity jurisdiction satisfied: a factfinder might award >$75,000 and removal burden met; not legally certain otherwise
Whether statements are capable of defamatory meaning	Statements calling plaintiffs liars/manipulators impute dishonesty and harm reputation	Statements were rhetorical, opinion, or non-factual responses to plaintiffs’ posts	Court held statements are capable of defamatory meaning (impute fraud/integrity issues)
Opinion privilege applicability	Statements imply verifiable facts about past business conduct and thus are not protected opinion	Statements are protected opinion and rhetorical hyperbole	Court held opinion privilege does not defeat the claims at pleading stage; reasonable factfinder could find implied factual assertions
Use of “innocent-construction” rule / proper Missouri law standard	District court erred by construing statements in their “most innocent sense”	Defendants relied on Missouri Court of Appeals precedent applying innocent-construction	Court held Missouri Supreme Court would not adopt innocent-construction post-Nazeri; court must ask only whether statements are capable of defamatory meaning and then whether any privilege applies

Overcast v. Billings Mut. Ins., 11 S.W.3d 62 (Mo. 2000) (elements of defamation under Missouri law)
Henry v. Halliburton, 690 S.W.2d 775 (Mo. 1985) (test whether statement is capable of defamatory meaning)
Smith v. Humane Soc'y of U.S., 519 S.W.3d 789 (Mo. 2017) (opinion privilege does not apply if statement implies objective facts)
Nazeri v. Mo. Valley Coll., 860 S.W.2d 303 (Mo. 1993) (abandoning rigid per se/per quod framework; unified analysis)
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) (opinion vs. fact; statements implying false assertions of fact are actionable)
Kopp v. Kopp, 280 F.3d 883 (8th Cir. 2002) (amount-in-controversy legal-certainty standard)
Angus v. Shiley Inc., 989 F.2d 142 (3d Cir. 1993) (open-ended damages allegations valued by reasonable reading)
Bell v. Hershey Co., 557 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 2009) (removing party bears burden to prove jurisdictional threshold)
Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058 (11th Cir. 2010) (amount-in-controversy sometimes facially apparent)
Anton v. St. Louis Suburban Newspapers, Inc., 598 S.W.2d 493 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980) (statements imputing dishonesty in professional character are defamatory)