## Facts

- David Hersh was the president and majority owner of Professional Sports and Entertainment Association of Tennessee, L.P. (PSET), which owned and operated a minor-league baseball team in Jackson, Tennessee.
- Charles Farmer was the mayor of Jackson during the events at issue.
- Under contracts between PSET and the City of Jackson, the City had an option to purchase the team under certain circumstances.
- Negotiations about the team’s sale to the City failed, and in 2002 the City and Farmer (in his official capacity as mayor) sued Hersh and PSET in Tennessee chancery court over alleged contract and related disputes; Hersh and PSET asserted claims as well.
- In the midst of the public dispute, Hersh allegedly told the media and others that Farmer was trying to “steal” the team.
- Farmer later filed this defamation action against Hersh, alleging the “steal” statement was false, that Hersh knew or should have known it was false, and that Hersh intended to harm Farmer’s reputation.

## Issues

1. Whether Hersh’s alleged statement that Farmer was trying to “steal” the baseball team was an actionable defamatory statement of fact or, in context, nonactionable rhetorical hyperbole/opinion.
2. Whether Farmer presented sufficient evidence of legally compensable damages to survive summary judgment on his defamation claim.

## Decision

- Hersh filed a motion to dismiss; because matters outside the pleadings were submitted, the trial court treated the motion as one for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Hersh, concluding the alleged “steal” statement was not defamatory and that Farmer failed to present sufficient proof of damages.
- The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the alleged statement was “mere hyperbole” and not defamatory as a matter of law, and affirming the damages ruling as an additional basis for summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- To prevail on defamation, a plaintiff must show a statement that is false and defamatory, published to a third party, and that caused legally cognizable harm (with the required degree of fault depending on the plaintiff’s status and the context).
- A statement is not actionable if a reasonable audience would understand it as loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language rather than a literal, verifiable assertion of fact.
- Whether challenged language is capable of a defamatory meaning can be decided as a matter of law where context shows the statement is rhetorical exaggeration, not a factual charge of criminal conduct.
- Summary judgment is proper when the plaintiff cannot produce evidence sufficient to establish an essential element of the claim, including defamatory meaning or compensable damages.
- Proof of damages matters even when a plaintiff alleges reputational harm; absent evidence supporting recoverable injury, a defamation claim may fail at summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Hersh because, given the contentious and public dispute over the team’s ownership and the City’s purchase option, saying the mayor was trying to “steal” the team was understood as exaggerated rhetoric rather than a factual accusation, and Farmer also did not present sufficient evidence of damages to support his defamation claim.


Farmer v. Hersh, 2007 WL 2264435 (2007)