Trending

Here’s the Latest on Audacy’s $500,000 Lawsuit Against Joe Krause

By Kevin Kinkead

Published: Dec 30th, 2025 · 9:43 AM EST

---

We’ve been following the court case between Mike Missanelli and JAKIB Media owner Joe Krause for more than a year now, as Mikey Miss seeks more than $50,000 he says he’s owed for work he performed on JAKIB’s Philadelphia Eagles YouTube shows.

The latest update came earlier in the month, when the judge presiding over the case denied Krause’s motion for summary judgment, filed in September after a summer deposition. The case remains open and could possibly head to trial if a resolution isn’t reached soon. Krause maintains that Missanelli did not sign his contract, and did not perform all of the requirements therein, while Mike’s lawyer argues that contract is indeed valid, and centered on the YouTube shows and not “ancillary functions.” 

At the same time, there’s a separate Krause lawsuit that remains open, and that’s the $500,000 claim filed by Audacy back in 2024, alleging that Krause defaulted on a repayment agreement tied to paid programming on Audacy-owned radio stations.

The list of docket entries was empty between March and October, then a number of filings hit the system over the past 12 weeks.

To summarize:

1. Audacy lawyers withdrew a motion to compel discovery answers.
2. Both sides agreed to extend discovery from November 3rd to January 2nd, 2026, allowing time to conduct depositions.
3. Additional 2026 deadlines were set for Plaintiff’s Expert Reports (February 3rd), Defense Expert Reports (March 3rd), and Dispositive Motions (April 3rd)
4. The judge on December 4th granted a defense motion to compel discovery responses, ordering Audacy’s lawyers to “respond to the Interrogatories and Requests for Production fully within twenty (20) days.“
5. This motion also ordered an Audacy representative to appear for deposition within 20 days of response.

Notable in this case is that Krause has legal representation from Philadelphia firm Bochetto and Lentz. He is “pro se” in the Missanelli suit, or representing himself without a lawyer. Audacy is using Amato and Keating, a Northampton-based firm that specializes in commercial collection, and their side has been slow in this process, which is somewhat surprising. Krause’s lawyers are on the offensive and challenging the plaintiffs in discovery, for instance, requesting in their interrogatories a list of all potential witnesses, exhibits, communications, payments, etc. That creates a lot work for the opposition, and puts the ball in their court, figuratively speaking. As a result, the initial deadlines have now been pushed back by two months despite the complaint being filed way back in May of 2024 with an 18-month window for fact discovery.

The complaint itself claims that Krause initially agreed in March of 2021 to a repayment plan amounting to $430,000, with a $110,000 discount. Audacy says that in addition to defaulting, there exists $90,000 of unpaid new programming as well, bringing the sought total in relief to about $544,000 with the inclusion of interest and legal fees.

In a July, 2024 response to the filing, Krause’s lawyers denied that $90,000 of new programming was incurred, noting separately that “Plaintiff overcharged Defendant for services… Furthermore, Defendant did not request or use all invoiced services. Plaintiff further failed to credit Defendant as agreed.” It’s also alleged that not all of the agreed-to programming was aired as required, and there’s a further claim in the document stating that Krause was overcharged by $4,000 per week for 50 weeks, by stating incorrect audience numbers (bullet point #8):

Audacy lawyers responded two weeks later, denying each assertion. Included in their rebuttal was the claim that Krause was not owed commission, while any discussed discounts were rendered null and void because of the alleged contractual breach. They say Krause was charged a flat monthly fee, not per program, while there is no provision giving a discount for audience size.

We contacted both law firms to see if depositions have taken place, or if they’re scheduled, but no response as of publication.