Sanguedolce v. Wolfe, 164 N.H. 644

Plaintiff Paul Sanguedolce, an inmate, sued Telegraph Publishing Company and reporter Wolfe for defamation over a April 21, 2011 article claiming he testified against Gibbs; plaintiff did not actually testify against Gibbs.
Telegraph moved to dismiss arguing the article was not defamatory as a matter of law; plaintiff sought to amend to add a negligence claim.
Trial court granted dismissal of the defamation claim and denied the negligence amendment; plaintiff appealed.
Court reviews motion to dismiss by whether pleadings could reasonably permit recovery, assuming true.
Court concludes the false claim that plaintiff testified against Gibbs cannot be reasonably construed as defamatory; court vacates denial of amendment and remands on negligence issue.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the statement defamatory as a matter of law?	Sanguedolce argues the article could lower him among readers.	Telegraph contends the statement is not defaming; it merely states he testified.	No; not reasonably defamatory.
May plaintiff amend to allege a standalone negligence claim?	Amendment would state ordinary negligence for reporting.	Defamation grounds the case; negligence would be futile.	Remanded to consider amendment; not decided on merits.

Gen. Insulation Co. v. Eckman Constr., 159 N.H. 601 (2010) (threshold for reviewing dismissals; assume pleadings true)
Pierson v. Hubbard, 147 N.H. 760 (2002) (defamation standard; reasonable inference standard)
Touma v. St. Mary’s Bank, 142 N.H. 762 (1998) (defamatory standard for implied diminishment)
Remsburg v. Docusearch, 149 N.H. 148 (2003) (special circumstances third-party liability)
Tessier v. Rockefeller, 162 N.H. 324 (2011) (liberal amendment of pleadings; discretion)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (First Amendment defamation standards)