Prakazrel Michel v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 816 F.3d 686

Prakazrel “Pras” Michel, a public figure (Grammy-winning artist and philanthropist), sued the New York Post and two reporters for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress over a Page Six article saying he was a “no-show” headliner at a 9/11 benefit for “his own” Hope for Them foundation and alleging related improprieties.
The article asserted Michel was listed as a board member on the Foundation’s website, that the event lost money, that a check bounced, that MTV was not a sponsor despite promo material, and quoted named and unnamed sources.
Michel alleged he had no relationship with the Foundation, never guaranteed a performance, and that reporters knew (via an email from the Foundation president) he was not a board member.
The district court applied New York law, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding the statements were non-actionable opinion given Page Six’s gossip context.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and remanded: it held the challenged statements are provable facts (not protected opinion) but Michel failed to plausibly plead actual malice; dismissal should have been without prejudice and Michel must be given leave to amend.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether challenged statements are fact or opinion	Michel: statements ("no-show," "bailed on," "his own foundation") are false factual assertions damaging his reputation	Post: Page Six is a gossip column; tone/context make statements non-actionable opinion/hyperbole	Held: Statements are provable factual assertions, not mere opinion (reversed district court on this point)
Whether publication was privileged by context (Page Six)	Michel: placement doesn’t convert false factual reporting into protected opinion	Post: placement in gossip column and style signal opinion	Held: Placement alone insufficient; immediate article context reads like factual news, so no privilege as opinion
Whether Michel plausibly pleaded actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard)	Michel: reporters failed adequate investigation and had an email indicating Michel was not a board member, showing reckless disregard	Post: reporters interviewed multiple sources and included contrary information in the article; failure to investigate alone is insufficient	Held: Michel failed to plead facts giving rise to a reasonable inference of actual malice; dismissal of complaint proper on this ground but must be without prejudice
Whether dismissal should be with prejudice	Michel: should be allowed discovery and amendment to plead malice	Post: dismissal on merits	Held: Dismissal should be without prejudice; plaintiff given leave to amend to plead actual malice plausibly

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (establishes actual malice standard for public-figure defamation)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must be plausible to survive dismissal)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard applies to intent/malice)
Brian v. Richardson, 660 N.E.2d 1126 (N.Y. 1995) (opinion/fact analysis; totality of context governs)
Gross v. New York Times Co., 623 N.E.2d 1163 (N.Y. 1993) (news-section reporting can be actionable fact despite some hedging language)
Mann v. Abel, 885 N.E.2d 884 (N.Y. 2008) (opinion-page context and disclaimer can shield rhetorical statements)
Levin v. McPhee, 119 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 1997) (signals of speculation can indicate opinion)
St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (reckless disregard standard examples)
Harte-Hanks Commc’ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (failure to investigate not enough; purposeful avoidance may show malice)