is an opinion or fact is a matter of law, Lund v. Chi. & Nw. Transp. Co., 467 N.W.2d 366, 369 (Minn.Ct.App.1991), but “the truth or falsity of a statement is inherently within the province of a jury.” Keuchle v. Life’s Companion P.C.A., Inc., 653 N.W.2d 214, 218 (Minn.Ct.App.2002). “ ‘[T]rue statements, however disparaging, are not actionable.’ ” McKee v. Laurion, 825 N.W.2d 725, 730 (Minn.2013) (quoting Stuempges, 297 N.W.2d at 255). We agree with the district court that Malek’s statements that “Thomas is a prick,” “he is tired of [Thomas’s] crap,” and he “is not going, to put up with his sh — anymore” are all statements of Ma-lek’s subjective view or opinion and, by themselves, are not actionable as a matter of law. See McKee, 825 N.W.2d at 733; see also Lund, 467 N.W.2d at 369 (<HOLDING>). We do not, however, agree with the district
holding that a plaintiff must plead with specificity as to the statements or omissions considered to be fraudulent the speaker when and why the statements were made and an explanation of why they were fraudulent holding that statements that hospital would provide high quality care to patients were expressions of opinion or puffing holding analysts statements insufficient to satisfy particularity requirements because plaintiffs failed to identify with specificity the statements made by a particular defendant or describe how those statements were false or misleading holding that statements at issue were protected expressions of opinion because they lacked specificity and precision and the factual implications concerning such statements were unclear holding plaintiffs must plead alleged defamatory statements with precision