Messina v. Krakower

Karyne Messina (plaintiff) and Susan Fontana co-owned and co-managed a corporation. Messina and Fontana got into a dispute about managing the business. Fontana retained attorney Daniel Krakower and his law firm (defendants) to help resolve the conflict. Krakower sent a letter to Messina in which he listed his concerns about the propriety and legality of Messina’s actions and alleged that Messina had violated her fiduciary duties and Delaware corporate law. Krakower proposed a process for one owner to buy out the other and warned that if the matter was not resolved reasonably and fairly, Fontana would have to consider taking appropriate legal action. Krakower added that the letter was for settlement purposes only and if Messina did not respond by a certain date, Fontana would assume Messina was not interested in resolving the matter and proceed accordingly. Krakower emailed a draft of the letter to Fontana and copied a businessman whom Fontana had authorized to negotiate a settlement. Instead of replying to Krakower’s letter, Messina filed a defamation action against Krakower and his firm, alleging that Krakower’s letter constituted libel per se. The trial court found that Krakower and his firm were protected from a defamation claim by the judicial-proceedings privilege and granted their motion for summary judgment. Messina appealed.