Tr. at 19:15-19. By linking “history reveals” to the “fantasy” sentence, plaintiff concedes away the factual predicate of the alleged defamation. The “fantasy” sentence is itself a figurative, hyperbolic, non-factual rendering of Peyser’s opinion of the Simpson criminal defense theory. Peyser does not, as defendants’ brief aptly notes, describe literal situations of Cochran “blinding” the jurors nor causing them to “buy” his theory of the defense; nor can the abstract concept of justice literally be “turned on its ear.” Peyser’s allegation that Cochran and his associates are “legal scoundrels” is also merely figurative, as it is a general way of conveying her opinion that they are “shady practitioners.” See Yagman, 55 F.8d at 1440 (citing Lewis v. Time, 710 F.2d 549 (9th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>)). The very statement alleged to be defamatory
recognizing a distinction between pure opinion which does not imply that it is based upon undisclosed facts and mixed opinion which implies that it is based upon facts which justify the opinion but are unknown to those reading or hearing it holding that use of phrase shady practitioner to describe lawyer was nonactionable opinion where the article set forth the facts upon which the opinion was based holding that an experts opinion must be based on facts in evidence or within his or her knowledge and that the admission of an experts opinion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion holding a medical opinion to be not significantly probative where the opinion was contrary to other substantial record evidence holding that the portion of a state court opinion following the phrase in any event is an alternative holding