P contracted with D to provide services. P employees were required to be certified, and when unions struck P, D refused to grant conditional certifications during a strike. P defaulted on the contract and P sued D for a laundry list of causes one of which was a defamation claim. D moved for summary judgment on P’s defamation claim. The defamation claim arose out of a letter written by Scarpa (D) and mailed to P at P's request. The letter set forth allegations of bribery against Ps. Ps were required to report these allegations of criminal misconduct, as part of D's bidding requirements. The subsequent report by P was then incorporated into the City's Vendex system, which resulted in the allegations of misconduct appearing in every bid for a D contract submitted by Ps.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.