Stephen Nolan Bedford, Also Known as Nolan Bedford v. Darin Spassoff and 6 Tool, LLC, Formerly Known as Dallas Dodgers Baseball Club LLC, D/B/A Dallas Dodgers Baseball, 520 S.W.3d 901

Background

Darin Spassoff is sole owner/president of 6 Tool, LLC (formerly Dallas Dodgers Baseball Club), a youth baseball-instruction organization; Stephen Nolan Bedford is a parent of a player.
On Sept. 12, 2014 Bedford posted on Facebook (via his then-wife's account) accusing the Dodgers/batting coach of misconduct; Spassoff later had the post removed from the Dodgers’ Facebook page.
Spassoff and the Dodgers sued Bedford for libel (and asserted other tort claims); Bedford moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA).
The trial court denied the TCPA motion; Bedford appealed interlocutorily. The court of appeals held the TCPA applied but found the plaintiffs established a prima facie libel claim (including that the statement was defamatory per se), and affirmed dismissal denial only as to libel.
The Supreme Court of Texas granted review solely as to the libel claim to decide whether plaintiffs met the TCPA’s clear-and-specific-evidence standard and whether the statement was defamatory per se.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Facebook post is defamatory per se	Post accused Dodgers/Spassoff of failing in moral judgment essential to running a youth baseball business, so damages may be presumed	Post at most criticized handling of an extramarital affair; not an imputation of a skill or quality unique/peculiar to the profession	Not defamatory per se — accusation about failing to discipline or prevent an affair is not a quality peculiar to running a baseball club
Whether plaintiffs produced clear and specific evidence of actual damages (required if not per se)	Plaintiffs alleged actual and exemplary damages and claimed practices were disrupted and duress endured	Bedford argued plaintiffs offered no specific facts showing monetary loss, clients lost, or that anyone saw the post before removal	Plaintiffs failed to meet TCPA clear-and-specific-evidence standard — no specific proof of economic or other actionable damages
Whether TCPA dismissal was properly denied as to libel claim	Plaintiffs argued their pleadings and affidavit established prima facie defamation and damages	Bedford argued TCPA required dismissal because plaintiffs failed to show clear and specific evidence of each element	The Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded for dismissal of the libel claim and determination of attorney’s fees under the TCPA
Whether appellate court relied on evidence outside the clerk’s record	Plaintiffs had relied on extra-record exhibits on appeal	Bedford argued those exhibits were not properly before the court of appeals	The Supreme Court did not decide this issue because it resolved the case on the merits (insufficient evidence of damages)

Key Cases Cited

In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. 2015) (TCPA requires plaintiffs to present clear and specific evidence to avoid dismissal)
WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. 1998) (elements of defamation)
Hancock v. Variyam, 400 S.W.3d 59 (Tex. 2013) (defamation per se requires ascribing a defect in a quality peculiar to the plaintiff’s trade or profession)