## Facts

- J. Harrison Henderson III worked as an agent for professional football players.
- Denver Gold head coach Darrel “Mouse” Davis spoke to reporters about failed contract negotiations between the Gold and quarterback Raphael Cherry after Cherry retained Henderson.
- Davis said the Gold offered Cherry more than $100,000 before Henderson became Cherry’s agent, that Henderson raised Cherry’s price to $200,000, and that the Gold gave Cherry a better offer than anyone else.
- Davis described Henderson as a “sleazebag agent” who “slimed up from the bayou.”
- A newspaper owned by Times Mirror and a sports publication printed articles reporting Davis’s statements.
- Henderson alleged the statements harmed his reputation and business and interfered with his ability to secure contractual relationships in the sports industry.

## Issues

1. Whether Davis’s “sleazebag” and “slimed up from the bayou” remarks were actionable defamation or protected opinion/rhetorical hyperbole.
2. Whether the reported statements about negotiation amounts and the asserted “better offer” were actionable defamatory statements of fact under Colorado law.
3. Whether the media defendants could be liable for republishing Davis’s statements if the underlying statements were not actionable.
4. Whether the complaint adequately stated claims for disparagement and intentional interference with contractual relations.

## Decision

- The court granted all defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions and dismissed the complaint in full.
- The court held the insulting characterizations were nonactionable opinion and rhetorical hyperbole rather than verifiable statements of fact.
- The court held the negotiation-related statements, in context, did not plausibly convey a defamatory imputation actionable under Colorado defamation law.
- Because the underlying statements were not actionable, republication by the media defendants could not support liability.
- The court dismissed the disparagement and intentional interference claims for failure to allege the required elements, including actionable false statements and improper interference.

## Legal Principles

- Defamation requires an actionable statement of fact; loose, figurative language, name-calling, and rhetorical hyperbole are generally protected as opinion and are not provably true or false.
- Courts may determine at the pleading stage that challenged language is nonactionable as a matter of law when the words and context signal opinion rather than factual assertion.
- Republication does not create defamation liability where the republished statements are not defamatory or are constitutionally protected.
- Disparagement (injurious falsehood) requires a specific false statement aimed at business or economic interests and resulting pecuniary loss; nonfactual insults and generalized commentary are insufficient.
- Intentional interference with contractual relations requires improper conduct directed at causing breach or preventing formation of a contract; allegations resting on nonactionable commentary about negotiations do not state the claim.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed Henderson’s defamation, disparagement, and interference claims because the “sleazebag” remarks were protected opinion and the negotiation-related statements did not amount to actionable defamation; without actionable underlying speech or improper interference, neither republication nor the related tort theories could proceed.


Henderson v. Times Mirror Co., 669 F. Supp. 356 (D. Colo. 1987)