It's coming back to Judge Cohn:
While we believe the district court correctly dismissed the complaint, we reach that conclusion for different reasons. Because a reasonable reader of the article would have concluded that it presented statements of fact (not just non actionable opinion), the article is not privileged against a defamation action. But because Michel has failed to adequately plead facts giving rise to a reasonable inference that the defendants published the article with actual malice, he has nonetheless failed to state a claim; accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed. However, the dismissal should have been entered without prejudice, and Michel given leave to amend his complaint.This should be fun!
Happy Friday, plebes!