What is intentional interference with contractual relations?

The elements of a cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations are:

  1. the existence of a valid contract between the plaintiff and a third party;
  2. the defendant’s knowledge of that contract;
  3. the defendant’s intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship;
  4. actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; and
  5. resulting damage.

Redfearn v. Trader Joe’s Co. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 989, 997 (citation omitted).

Only “a stranger to a contract” may be liable for interfering with it. Mintz v. Blue Cross of California (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1594, 1603.

“[A] cause of action for intentional interference with contract requires an underlying enforceable contract. Where there is no existing, enforceable contract, only a claim for interference with prospective advantage may be pleaded.” PMC, Inc. v. Saban Entertainment, Inc. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 579, 601.

“The question is whether a plaintiff must plead and prove that the defendant engaged in wrongful acts with the specific intent of interfering with the plaintiff’s business expectancy. We conclude that specific intent is not a required element of the tort of interference with prospective economic advantage. While a plaintiff may satisfy the intent requirement by pleading specific intent, i.e., that the defendant desired to interfere with the plaintiff’s prospective economic advantage, a plaintiff may alternately plead that the defendant knew that the interference was certain or substantially certain to occur as a result of its action.” Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1154.

A contracting party cannot be held to interfere with its own contract. Asahi Kasei Pharma Co. v. Actelion Ltd. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 945, 961.

CACI 2201 sets forth the elements of the tort of interference with contract. CACI 2201; see PG&E v. Bear Stearns (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1118, 1126.

Useful Rulings on Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations

Recent Rulings on Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations

ALEXANDER VS GOODMAN JUNE

Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations (2nd cause of action) “Intentional interference with contractual relations, also known as intentional inducement of breach of contract, is a cause of action in tort “against noncontracting parties who interfere with the performance of a contract.” (Kuney, et. al., California Law of Contracts (CEB 2020-2021) §8.78, citing Redfearn v. Trader Joe’s Co. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 989, 997 (emphasis in original); see also Jenni Rivera Enterprises, LLC v.

  • Hearing

DUAL DIAGNOSIS TREATMENT CENTER VS. HEALTH NET, INC., ET AL

.; (5) intentional interference with contractual relations; and (6) declaratory relief. Health Net asserts that Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants engaged in insurance fraud by exploiting the Affordable Care Act and obtaining millions of dollars in reimbursement from Health Net for substance abuse treatment services. Health Net alleges that cross defendants purchased substance abuse treatment patients from “body brokers.” Health Net successfully sought leave to file a First Amended Cross Complaint (FAXC).

  • Hearing

LAGUNA GREENBELT INC VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE

Heritage Fields asserts claims against the County for (1) intentional interference with contractual relations, (2) breach of contract, and (3) declaratory relief related to the County's development plans, the PAA, and the ARDA. Lowe is also named as a Defendant in the intentional interference claim. Irvine asserts claims against the County for (1) breach of contract and (2) declaratory relief related to the County's development of the parcels and the PAA.

  • Hearing

BRUCE THUE VS MICHAEL LAINE

The demurrer is OVERRULED. 2nd cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations The elements which a plaintiff must plead to state the cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations are (1) a valid contract between plaintiff and a third party; (2) defendant’s knowledge of this contract; (3) defendant’s intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; (4) actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; and

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

WAYNE H. PLATT INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE PLATT FAMILY TRUST DATED NOVEMBER 7, 2000,, ET AL. VS OAKHURST INCOME FUND I, LP, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.

Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) wrongful foreclosure; (2) breach of written agreement; (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) fraud based on misrepresentation and concealment; (5) negligent misrepresentation; (6) promissory estoppel; (7) quiet title; (8) judgment to cancel instruments; (9) intentional interference with contractual relations; (10) intentional interference with prospective economic

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

XERA HEALTH LLC VS SCHEELE

The elements of intentional interference with contractual relations (FAC count 7) are set forth in CACI 2201. See PG&E v. Bear Stearns & Co., 50 Cal. 3d 1118, 1126 (1990). J. Turning to count 8 of the FAC: "'The tort of intentional...interference with prospective economic advantage imposes liability for improper methods of disrupting or diverting the business relationship of another which fall outside the boundaries of fair competition.'" CrossTalk Productions, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CALIFORNIA CREDITS GROUP, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS NORTH AMERICAN CLIENT SERVICES, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The FAC asserts claims for (1) breach of contract against Edgewater, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Edgewater, (3) breach of contract against VSNF, (4) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against VSNF, (5) breach of contract against Stockton, (6) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Stockton, and (7) intentional interference with contractual relations against NACS.

  • Hearing

KLA BPL PORTFOLIO OWNER LLC VS NF PLANT ENTERPRISES, LP, ET AL.

Both demurrers place into issue the second cause of action (“COA”) for tortious interference with contractual relations (“Interference.”) DISCUSSION CACI 2201 sets forth the elements of Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations: 1. That there was a contract between [name of plaintiff] and [name of third party]; 2. That [name of defendant] knew of the contract; 3. That [name of defendant]’s conduct prevented performance or made performance more expensive or difficult; 4.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DUAL DIAGNOSIS TREATMENT CENTER VS. HEALTH NET, INC., ET AL

.; (5) intentional interference with contractual relations; and (6) declaratory relief. Health Net asserts that Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants engaged in insurance fraud by exploiting the Affordable Care Act and obtaining millions of dollars in reimbursement from Health Net for substance abuse treatment services. Health Net alleges that cross defendants purchased substance abuse treatment patients from “body brokers.”

  • Hearing

RYAN HARPER ET AL VS MANHATTAN INN OPERATING COMPANY LLC

Code 17106; Violation of Corporate Securities Law of 1968; Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Accounting; Conspiracy to Commit Fraud; Conspiracy to Commit Fraud; Unfair Business Practices; Conversion; Injunction; Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; Professional Negligence; Breach of Fiduciary Duty.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ANDREA GALANTE VS LAUREN ENGLISH

The sixth cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations is based upon the allegation that Defendant did not pay Plaintiff rent or money and deprived Plaintiff of the use and rental of his apartment, which interfered with Plaintiff’s ability to pay his monthly payments of the purchase price to the owner of the property. (SSC, ¶¶ 102 – 117.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

FIRST SECURE EQUITY LLC, ET AL. VS 2304 SAWTELLE LLC, ET AL.

interference with contractual relations; (5) intentional misrepresentation; (6) negligent misrepresentation; (7) malicious prosecution; and (8) abuse of process.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

FIRST SECURE EQUITY LLC, ET AL. VS 2304 SAWTELLE LLC, ET AL.

interference with contractual relations; (5) intentional misrepresentation; (6) negligent misrepresentation; (7) malicious prosecution; and (8) abuse of process.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

DADSON WASHER SERVICE, INC. VS WASH MULTIFAMILY LAUNDRY SYSTEMS, LLC

Defendant has pointed to no authority in which the other party to a contract that was allegedly interfered with was indispensable to a complaint alleging intentional interference with contractual relations.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LISA MARIE BROOKS VS LARA E FIELDING

The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiff asserts ten causes of action for: 1) conversion; 2) intentional interference with contractual relations; 3) inducing breach of contract; 4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; 5) negligent infliction of emotional distress; 7) unjust enrichment; 8) tort of another; 9) constructive trust; and 10) declaratory relief. On August 21, 2020, Defendant moved for summary judgment/adjudication as to each cause directed to her.

  • Hearing

XIAOFAN SUN VS HRC FERTILITY CLINIC, ET AL.

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on May 15, 2019, alleging six (6) causes of action sounding in: (1) Fraud; (2) Fraudulent Concealment; (3) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; (4) Professional Negligence; (5) Negligent Training and Supervision; and (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LAW OFFICES OF STEVE QI & ASSOCIATES, A CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, ET AL. VS CMB EXPORT, LLC, A TEXAS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Proof the interfering conduct was wrongful, independent from the interference itself, is not required to recover for interference with contractual relations. (Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 212, 237-238, bold emphasis added.) Defendants argue that they cannot be held liable for intentional interference with contract because their interference was justified. Justification is an affirmative defense to an action for intentional interference with contract. (A. F.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

KEYA MORGAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, VS RICHARD SHEPP, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

The operative First Amended Complaint states four causes of action for: 1) defamation; 2) intentional interference with contractual relations; 3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and 4) negligent infliction of emotional distress. On September 28, 2020, Francis filed a motion for leave to file a special motion to strike as to Plaintiff’s FAC. No opposition as submitted. On October 2, 2020, Calderon and Francis’s counsel, Ruby J. Garrett, filed a motion to be admitted pro hac vice.

  • Hearing

ENTERPRISE ONE INC VS OKHUI PLUMMER ET AL

On May 31, 2018, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit for: C/A 1: Against Plummer for Breach of Contract C/A 2: Against Plummer for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith & Fair Dealing C/A 3: Against Plummer for Intentional Misrepresentation C/A 4: Against Plummer for Negligent Misrepresentation C/A 5: Against Huertas for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations C/A 6: Against Huertas for Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Relations C/A 7: Against Plummer for Violation of Bus. & Prof

  • Hearing

DE CONSULTING GROUP, INC., A CALIFORIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS YOKOHAMA VENTURES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Sixth Cause of Action (Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations).

  • Hearing

GARY MCKENZIE VS ANTHONY BUSTAMANTE ET AL

The Complaint alleges causes of action for: Fraud; Elder financial abuse; Intentional interference with contractual relations; and Intentional interference with prospective economic relations. Prior to this action, McKenzie filed a quiet title action (TC027368). That case was dismissed on November 1, 2019 after a settlement was reached among Petrolla, Bustamante, and McKenzie. Fuentes now moves the Court for an order disclosing the terms of the settlement agreement. The motion is unopposed.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

WEBTOON ENTERTAINMENT, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL. VS ROCKETSHIP ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, A PENNSYLVANIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Akel for (1) inducing breach of contract, (2) intentional interference with contractual relations, (3) intentional interference with prospective economic relations, (4) fraudulent inducement to enter contract, (5) negligent misrepresentation, (6) violation of Bus. and Prof. Code ¶17200, (7) common law unfair competition, and (8) declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

GARRETT D. LEEVERS VS NETWORK DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.

Previously, Cross-Complainants’ fifth cause of action was for intentional interference with contractual relations. Now, Cross-Complainants have changed their fifth cause of action to negligent interference with prospective economic relationship. The Court did not grant leave to change causes of action. The Court strikes this cause of action from the amended cross-complaint. COA 7: Extortion The Court previously sustained the demurrer to the extortion cause of action with leave to amend.

  • Hearing

MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC VS. FROMAN

In fact, Cross-Complainants have not submitted any evidence in support of its cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations to show that a valid contract exists between Cross-Complainants and a third party, that Maxim induced a breach, or that there was an actual breach of the contractual relationship. Cross-Complainants’ opposition also does not offer any argument in support of its probability of prevailing on the claim for intentional interference with contractual relations.

  • Hearing

MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC VS. FROMAN

In fact, Cross-Complainants have not submitted any evidence in support of its cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations to show that a valid contract exists between Cross-Complainants and a third party, that Maxim induced a breach, or that there was an actual breach of the contractual relationship. Cross-Complainants’ opposition also does not offer any argument in support of its probability of prevailing on the claim for intentional interference with contractual relations.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 49     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.