Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
The elements of a cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations are:
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.
RELIEF REQUESTED Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint · 1 st Cause of Action: Breach of Fiduciary DutyDuty of Loyalty · 2 nd Cause of Action: Breach of Fiduciary Duty Duty of Care · 3 rd Cause of Action: Intentional Interference with Prospective Business Advantage · 4 th Cause of Action: Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage · 5 th Cause of Action: Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations · 6 th
MONOCENT INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MINA KATEB, AN INDIVIDUAL
22CHCV00236
Dec 30, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
As to the 5th COA (Intentional Interference with Contractual and Prospective Economic Advantage), the Demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. Plaintiff appears to allege within this cause of action two separate claims: (a) intentional interference with contractual relations, and (b) intentional interference with prospective economic relations. These claims are not preempted by CUTSA, because they are based on acts beyond the misappropriation of trade secrets.
JD PROPERTY VS. AGUILA
30-2018-01029785-CU-FR-CJC
Mar 12, 2019
Orange County, CA
If Technologent has failed to properly allege intentional interference with contractual relations, then each of its causes of action fail (the fourth cause of action for injunction is not an independent cause of action, but a request for relief). This is so because Technologent's UCL claim is dependent on the intentional interference with contractual relations claim and the intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim is dependent on the UCL claim.
THOMAS GALLAWAY CORPORATION VS EVOTEK INC
37-2020-00003248-CU-BT-CTL
Jul 22, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
Claim for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations The Court is striking Plaintiffs' cause of action against the Moving Parties for intentional interference with contractual relations. The tort of intentional interference with contractual relations is committed only by strangersinterlopers who have no legitimate interest in the scope or course of the contract's performance. ( PM Group, Inc. v. Stewart (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 55, 65, citing Applied Equip. Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd.
SKYLAR WENZEL, ET AL. VS CAROLWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION, ET AL.
23STCV07767
Jul 03, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations as to Chefs; 13. Negligent Interference with Contractual Relations as to Chefs; 14. Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations as to Plaintiffs’ Agent; 15. Negligent Interference with Contractual Relations as to Plaintiffs’ Agent; 16. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations; 17. Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Relations; and 18. Conversion.
KEVIN FACIANE ET AL VS RICHER VAUDRY ET AL
NC061117
Jan 09, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
The Court holds that for pleading purposes, the complaint states a cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations because it effectively alleges that the property owner is not a party to the contract. The plaintiff shall give notice.
CALIBER PAVING COMPANY, INC. V. STEVE FODOR CONSTRUCTION, INC.
30-2018-00977441-CU-BC-CJC
May 31, 2018
Orange County, CA
Here, the facts alleged are insufficient to support a cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations. This pleading like the last asserts that Go Green violated its Settlement Agreement with Plaintiff. If Go Green breached the Settlement Agreement that would not be tortious or interference with a contractual relationship it would be a breach of contract.
COACHILLIN HOLDINGS LLC VS PAC-VAN INC
PSC2002887
Feb 10, 2021
Riverside County, CA
On August 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants for (1) intentional interference with contractual relations; (2) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; (3) breach of lease; and (4) ejectment. ANALYSIS: This is a demurrer brought by Defendant Bruce Eliot Fishman and motion to strike brought by Defendants Bruce Eliot Fishman, M.D.F.I.C.S., Inc. and Bruce Eliot Fishman as to the causes of action in the Complaint .
WOODLAND HILLS CAPITAL, LLC VS BRUCE ELIOT FISHMAN, M.D. F.I.C.S., INC., ET AL.
21STCV16490
Sep 07, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
As a cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations can only be alleged against a stranger to a contract and as Defendants are parties to each of the contracts in question, this cause of action cannot be pled against Defendants. Neither of the cases cited by Plaintiff in its opposition involve any contracts or a cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations and are therefore irrelevant to this motion.
WILLIAMS V. WILLIAMS, ET AL.
30-2020
Nov 08, 2021
Orange County, CA
Code §§ 17200 et seq; (11) Rescission of the Purchase Agreement; (12) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; (13) Negligent Interference with Contractual Relations; (14) Intentional Interference with Economic Advantage and Contractual Relations; and (15) Negligent Interference with Economic Advantage and Contractual Relations. On April 17, 2023, Defendant Ming Sze Fong dba Studio City Caregivers Cooperative, Inc. filed this instant Demurrer to the Complaint.
CAHUENGA PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, LLC, ET AL. VS EMIL AKOPIAN, ET AL.
23STCV00314
Feb 27, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
First Cause of Action (Intentional interference with contractual relations) As to the First Cause of Action (alleging “intentional interference with contractual relations”), the Demurrer is SUSTAINED. Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 430.10(e). “A stranger to a contract may be liable in tort for intentionally interfering with the performance of the contract.” Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co. (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1118, 1125.
SHORELINE VENTURE PARTNERS III, LP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL VS. DIXON DOLL, JR, ET AL
22-CIV-02948
Apr 02, 2023
San Mateo County, CA
First Cause of Action (Intentional interference with contractual relations) As to the First Cause of Action (alleging “intentional interference with contractual relations”), the Demurrer is SUSTAINED. Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 430.10(e). “A stranger to a contract may be liable in tort for intentionally interfering with the performance of the contract.” Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co. (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1118, 1125.
SHORELINE VENTURE PARTNERS III, LP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL VS. DIXON DOLL, JR, ET AL
22-CIV-02948
Mar 26, 2023
San Mateo County, CA
Plaintiff’s third cause of action for intentional interference of contractual relations is based on Malkin’s and Applegate’s alleged conduct in intentionally inducing the Hartmans’ breach of the same exclusive listing agreement. (See id. ¶¶ 7-16, 23-28, 45-52, Exhs. A-B, D.)
TORELLI REALCORP VS. HARTMAN
30-2019-01081681-CU-CO-CJC
Dec 20, 2019
Orange County, CA
Additionally, Plaintiff sufficiently alleges an independently wrongful act where it alleges intentional interference with contractual relations. Intentional interference with contractual relations is a tortious violation of duties imposed by law in and of itself. (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 55-56 (Quelimane).) Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged this cause of action, including an independently wrongful act.
HAWTHORNE MILL LAND COMPANY, L.P. V. ANDREWS, ET AL.
FCS053119
Feb 05, 2020
Solano County, CA
The demurrer argues that the complaint does not state a cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. That is true. The complaint does, however, state a cause of action meeting each of the above elements for intentional interference with contractual relations. These are, of course, two different and distinct torts.
DANA CARLTON VS KURT SKARIN
56-2018-00516244-CU-PN-VTA
Nov 16, 2018
Ventura County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Weed argues the ninth cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations fails in that it fails to set forth facts showing that Mendes had a contractual relationship with the employees. The demurrer to the ninth cause of action is overruled.
CHRISTINA WEED VS. LISA MENDES
C23-00805
Feb 23, 2024
Contra Costa County, CA
Finally, Plaintiff seeks to allege claims for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, intentional interference with contractual relations claims, negligent interference with prospective economic relations, and defamation per se against new defendants, those claims would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (See Code Civ.
DAVID PARRY VS ANDREW MARC CHRISTENSEN ET AL
BC682854
Mar 16, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Based on the notice of motion, the Court may determine whether summary judgment is proper, or in the alternative, whether summary adjudication as to the second cause of action for intentional interference of contractual relations is proper. The separate statement identifies the sole issue for this motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication – whether the one cause of action asserted against Defendants, the intentional interference of contractual relations, is proper.
REMAX TITANIUM TEAM NUVISION ET AL VS JAMES D OLSON ET AL
BC657788
Feb 05, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
For the following reasons the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. 3rd 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
BUNCH VS LEDUC
PSC 1405890
Sep 15, 2016
Riverside County, CA
This Court granted the Motion with leave to amend as to cause of action 4, which was interference with contractual relations. This Court explained that the problem with the cause of action for interference with contractual relations was that Plaintiff has characterized this cause of action as interference with contractual relations, which covers both negligent as well as intentional interference with contract. This distinction makes a difference.
SPEEDY PIZZA INC. VS PERSHING PLAZA CENTER, LLC
STK-CV-UBC-2019-0004371
Jan 26, 2021
San Joaquin County, CA
Defendant's Demurrer is sustained with 10 days leave to amend as to the 1st Cause of Action (Financial Abuse of an Elder), the 2nd Cause of Action (Unfair Competition), the 3rd Cause of Action (Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations), 5th Cause of Action (Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage), and the 6th Cause of Action(Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage).
JAMES WOHL VS WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
SC123568
Aug 18, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
On November 15, 2023, Defendant Payam Marouni MD, Inc. filed a second amended cross-complaint against Vedres Family Investment Partnership, LP and Quest Screen for (1) Conspiracy to Interfere with Prospective Economic Advantage (2) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations and (3) Negligent Interference with Contractual Relations.
22VECV00777
Apr 11, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
LAW OFFICES OF STEVE QI & ASSOCIATES, A CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, ET AL. VS CMB EXPORT, LLC, A TEXAS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
20STCV06845
Nov 06, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations against Vernacchia; 16. Inducing Breach of Contract against Vernacchia; 17. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage against Vernacchia; 18. Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage against Vernacchia; 19. Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations against Auran; 20. Inducing Breach of Contract against Auran; 21.
CALIFORNIA MANAGED IMAGING MEDICAL GROUP, INC., ET AL. VS ZOTEC PARTNERS, LLC
21STCV26890
Nov 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations against Vernacchia; 16. Inducing Breach of Contract against Vernacchia; 17. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage against Vernacchia; 18. Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage against Vernacchia; 19. Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations against Auran; 20. Inducing Breach of Contract against Auran; 21.
CALIFORNIA MANAGED IMAGING MEDICAL GROUP, INC., ET AL. VS ZOTEC PARTNERS, LLC
21STCV26890
Nov 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations against Vernacchia; 16. Inducing Breach of Contract against Vernacchia; 17. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage against Vernacchia; 18. Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage against Vernacchia; 19. Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations against Auran; 20. Inducing Breach of Contract against Auran; 21.
CALIFORNIA MANAGED IMAGING MEDICAL GROUP, INC., ET AL. VS ZOTEC PARTNERS, LLC
21STCV26890
Nov 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Interference with Contractual Relations, Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, Breach of Contract, and Declaratory Relief.
MONOCENT INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MINA KATEB, AN INDIVIDUAL
22CHCV00236
Sep 25, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion for Summary Adjudication SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION – INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS 1.
JINRO AMERICA INC VS DEUK LEE ET AL
BC558271
Sep 16, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Based on this, Post asserts Plaintiffs causes of action for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations and Inducing Breach of Contract are still time-barred.
MARTORELL LAW APC VS ASHLEN DIAZ, ET AL.
22TRCV00257
Jun 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
First Cause of Action: Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations Defendant demurs to the first cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
GERALD HOPKINS VS JOY ANDERSON
23STCV10121
Nov 27, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Sustain demurrer to the 1st, 3rd and 4th causes of action with leave to amend, with the understanding that the 4th (intentional interference with contractual relations) will not be pursued. The 1st (intentional interference with economic advantage) lacks sufficient allegations of a relationship between plaintiff and a third party with the probability of future economic advantage to Plaintiff.
J&J MARSHALL VS KONETI
56-2013-00445653-CU-NP-VTA
Mar 11, 2014
Ventura County, CA
Overrule Defendants' demurrer to the 3rd (negligent interference with economic advantage), 4th (intentional interference with economic advantage), 5th (intentional interference with contractual relations), 6th (negligence per se) and 7th (negligence) causes of action, based on the economic loss doctrine. It does not apply to these claims. ( Robinson Helicopter, Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988.)
MARK KOHN VS. GMAC HOME MORTGAGE LLC
56-2009-00364806-CU-OR-SIM
Jul 14, 2010
Ventura County, CA
Real Property
other
The Demurrer by Defendants Armando Diaz and Soldavi Realty to the Complaint’s Second Cause of Action for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations on the grounds that such claim fails to state a cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
JOSE LOPEZ, ET AL. VS ARMANDO DIAZ, ET AL.
21CV-03188
Sep 06, 2022
Merced County, CA
On February 24, 2023, Defendant Payam Marouni MD, Inc. filed a cross-complaint against Vedres Family Investment Partnership, LP and Quest Screen for (1) Conspiracy to Interfere with Prospective Economic Advantage (2) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations and (3) Negligent Interference with Contractual Relations.
22VECV00777
Oct 16, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations The elements of a cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations are (1) a valid contract between plaintiff and a third party; (2) defendants knowledge of this contract; (3) defendants 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. ( I-CA Enterprises, Inc. v. Palram Americas, Inc.
LOA INT'L (USA) TRANSPORT CO. INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS GEORGE LIU
22PSCV01611
Jan 23, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations (Seventh Cause of Action) Zhang argues Zhaos seventh cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations is insufficiently pled and uncertain. The court agrees.
GRACE ZHANG VS RANDY ZHAO, ET AL.
20PSCV00579
Nov 21, 2022
12/14/2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court finds that Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint met the elements of intentional interference with contractual relations in the present case. Defendants Demurrer to the First Cause of Action for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e) is OVERRULED. b.
WOODLAND HILLS CAPITAL, LLC VS BRUCE ELIOT FISHMAN, M.D. F.I.C.S., INC., ET AL.
21STCV16490
Nov 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court finds that Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint met the elements of intentional interference with contractual relations in the present case. Defendants Demurrer to the First Cause of Action for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e) is OVERRULED. b.
WOODLAND HILLS CAPITAL, LLC VS BRUCE ELIOT FISHMAN, M.D. F.I.C.S., INC., ET AL.
21STCV16490
Nov 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court finds that Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint met the elements of intentional interference with contractual relations in the present case. Defendants Demurrer to the First Cause of Action for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e) is OVERRULED. b.
WOODLAND HILLS CAPITAL, LLC VS BRUCE ELIOT FISHMAN, M.D. F.I.C.S., INC., ET AL.
21STCV16490
Nov 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court finds that Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint met the elements of intentional interference with contractual relations in the present case. Defendants Demurrer to the First Cause of Action for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e) is OVERRULED. b.
WOODLAND HILLS CAPITAL, LLC VS BRUCE ELIOT FISHMAN, M.D. F.I.C.S., INC., ET AL.
21STCV16490
Nov 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
See Paragraph 12 of the First Amended Complaint.Defendants claim that the 1st Cause of Action (Breach of Contract), the 2nd Cause of Action (Breach of Contract), the 3rd Cause of Action (Breach of Contract), the 4th Cause of Action (Unjust Enrichment), the 6th Cause of Action (Declaratory Relief/Breach of the Corporations Code 17704.10), the 8th Cause of Action (Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage), the 9th Cause of Action (Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations), the 10th
HERTZEL ILLULIAN VS. ZE'EV RAV-NOY ET. AL.
SC123117
Jan 30, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Kovacoglu Demurrer to the Third Cause of Action for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; Fourth Cause of Action for Intentional Interference with Prospective Advantage; Sixth Cause of Action for Breach of The Duty of Loyalty, Seventh Cause of Action for Unlawful and Unfair Business Practices and Eighth Cause of Action for Civil Conspiracy TENTATIVE RULING: The demurrer to the third, fourth, sixth, seventh and eighth causes of action is sustained without leave to amend.
EVOLVE MEDIA, LLC VS EMRAH KOVACOGLU
18STCV01419
Mar 29, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
to Amend. 5 th Cause of Action, Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations: Sustained with Leave to Amend. 6 th Cause of Action, Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200: Sustained with Leave to Amend.
MONOCENT INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MINA KATEB, AN INDIVIDUAL
22CHCV00236
Oct 13, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The court is inclined to sustain cross-defendants’ Demurrer to the 2nd cause of action (intentional interference with contractual relations) with 20-days leave to amend and to overrule the demurrer to the 3rd – 12th causes of action. As to the 2nd cause of action, cross-plaintiff has not alleged the contracts that were interfered with or disrupted. It is not enough that relationships were disrupted. In addition, this cause of action can only be stated against a stranger to the contract.
ARBOR FINANCIAL GROUP VS LIRA
30-2016-00893642-CU-BC-CJC
Apr 04, 2017
Orange County, CA
Causes of actiion 6 (intentional interference with economic relations) and 7 (negligent interference with economic relations): overrule the demurrer Causes of action 8 (intentional interference with contractual relations) and 9 (negligent interference with contractual relations): sustain with leave to amend on the grounds that insufficent facts are alleged, especially in light of the unclear language in paragraph 51 of the complaint.
UNITED BUSINESS & PROPERTY BROKERS INC VS. BAHGAT TADROS
56-2014-00450007-CU-CO-VTA
May 23, 2014
Ventura County, CA
Sustaining a demurrer based on the manager's privilege, an affirmative defense to the tort of intentional interference with contractual relations, may be proper. (Halvorsen v. Aramark Uniform Services, Inc. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1391.) The court in Halvorsen acknowledges "[t]here are three formulations of the manager's privilege: (1) absolute, (2) mixed motive, and (3) predominant motive." (Id. at 1391.)
PETER STARFLINGER VS. WILLIAM LUKE GASKINS
37-2017-00023394-CU-CO-CTL
Feb 08, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Contract - Other
Defendant’s (California Physicians’ Service dba Blue Shield of California) Demurrer to the Second Cause of Action (Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations) in Plaintiff’s Complaint is OVERRULED. The second cause of action for intentional interference with contract is sufficiently pled.
RIZK V. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA
30-2017-00944202-CU-BC-CJC
Jan 23, 2018
Orange County, CA
On August 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Interference with contractual relations. On March 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, International Interference with Prospective Economic Relations, Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, Breach of Contract, Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.
TRISCENIC PRODUCTION SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MAURICE STARRANTINO, ET AL.
22CHCV00674
Apr 20, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The Third Amended 24 Complaint, filed on July 15, 2019, sets forth the following causes of action: (1) Breach of 25 Contract; (2) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) Unfair Business 26 Practices; (4) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; (5) Intentional Interference 27 with Prospective Economic Advantage; (6) Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic 28 TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AND AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT AND/OR DEFENDANT’S
SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD V. SOON, ET AL.
2016-1-CV-301867
Oct 18, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
The FAXC alleges causes of action against Cross-Defendants for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (4) intentional interference with actual contractual relations; (5) negligent interference with actual contractual relations; (6) intentional interference with prospective contractual relations; (7) negligent interference with prospective contractual relations; (8) fraud; (9) conspiracy; (10) aiding and abetting; (11) unfair business
STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD, INC. VS MARCO KHORASANI, ET AL.
19STCV03066
Aug 19, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
with Contractual Relations.
DENEE TYSOL VS UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC.,
VC067146
Dec 11, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
The Court finds that ONeills Complaint successfully alleges the elements of a cause of action for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations as to Defendants Heftel and Miller.
SEAN O'NEILL VS RICHARD D. HEFTEL, ET AL.
21STCV43758
Aug 12, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court finds that ONeills Complaint successfully alleges the elements of a cause of action for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations as to Defendants Heftel and Miller.
SEAN O'NEILL VS RICHARD D. HEFTEL, ET AL.
21STCV43758
Aug 26, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
As to the 1st COA (intentional interference with contractual relations), this cause of action is sufficiently pled in paragraphs 39-50. As to the 2nd COA (intentional interference with prospective economic advantage), this cause of action is sufficiently pled in paragraphs 51-60. As to the 3rd COA (negligent interference with prospective economic relations), this cause of action is sufficiently pled in paragraphs 61-70.
RANDAZZO VS. RUSHMYLIFE, INC
30-2019-01083314
Feb 04, 2020
Orange County, CA
ANALYSIS: First Cause of Action—Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations With respect to the claim for intentional interference with contract, to plead such a claim, cross-complaint must allege the following elements: “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
NANTONG RUNTEY DYEING & PRINTING CO.,LTD. VS DAISY FIELD USA
EC067576
Sep 13, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Motion 1: Watt’s demurrer is overruled Watt demurs to the fourth and fifth causes of action for intentional interference with contractual relations and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Plaintiff pled sufficient facts to constitute its fourth cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations and the cause of action is not uncertain.
6542 VINELAND LLC VS CW COMMUNITIES LLC
30-2015-00791917-CU-BC-CJC
Jun 01, 2017
Orange County, CA
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.
DADSON WASHER SERVICE, INC. VS WASH MULTIFAMILY LAUNDRY SYSTEMS, LLC
20STCV19533
Nov 09, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
The demurrer to the Breach of Fiduciary DutyDuty of Loyalty, Intentional Interference with Prospective Business Advantage, Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, and Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 causes of action are sustained without leave to amend.
MONOCENT INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MINA KATEB, AN INDIVIDUAL
22CHCV00236
Feb 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
(2) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations Matevosian argues that the 2nd COA for intentional interference with contractual relations fails because it does not allege any intentional conduct. This is wrong. The cross-complaint alleges that Matevosian induced “Client One” to contact Kaass and take her case to another firm. It also alleges that Matevosian’s conduct was malicious, intentional and fraudulent. This is sufficient, and the Demurrer is overruled as to the 2nd COA.
VAHAG MATEVOSIAN VS KAASS LAW ET AL
BC657112
Aug 03, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Case Number: 22CHCV00674 Hearing Date: August 9, 2023 Dept: F49 MOVING PARTY: Defendants, Maurice and Karen Starrantino RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Triscenic Production Services RELIEF REQUESTED Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint · 1 st Cause of Action: Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations · 2 nd Cause of Action: Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations · 3 rd Cause of Action: Negligent Interference
TRISCENIC PRODUCTION SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MAURICE STARRANTINO, ET AL.
22CHCV00674
Aug 09, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The First Amended Complaint does not plead facts supporting a conspiracy or any intentional interference with contractual relations.
COACHILLIN HOLDINGS LLC VS PAC-VAN INC
PSC2002887
Oct 29, 2020
Riverside County, CA
Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations (Second Cause of Action) Defendant contends Plaintiffs second cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations fails to plead sufficient facts to state a claim. The court agrees.
LOA INT'L (USA) TRANSPORT CO. INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS GEORGE LIU
22PSCV01611
Apr 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The court finds that the 1 st – 4 th causes of action for Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relationship, Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, Assault, and IIED, do not arise from petitioning activities. The gravamen of the claims concern wrongful conduct that occurred outside the litigation process.
MARIA OTILIA CERNA, ET AL. VS ELIAS PANIAGUA MEJIA, ET AL.
20NWCV00429
Sep 07, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
other
Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations Here, Defendant Post argues that Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action for Intentional Interference because the FAC fails to allege an independently wrongful act.
MARTORELL LAW APC VS ASHLEN DIAZ, ET AL.
22TRCV00257
Nov 14, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Madoni’s Special Motions to Strike are granted as to the third cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations. Defendants have met their initial burden showing the alleged conduct is protected by the provisions of CCP §425.16. Plaintiff cannot meet his now shifted burden of showing he has a probability of prevailing on the merits as the alleged conduct is protected by the litigation privilege set forth in CC § 47. Future Hearings: CMC set for this date.
SORENSEN VS. LEONE
30-2016-00860063-CU-CO-CJC
Oct 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
First Cause of Action for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations It has long been held that a stranger to a contract may be liable in tort for intentionally interfering with the performance of the contract.
HAYK GRIGORYAN VS THE SIMA BIGELSON 2000 REVOCABLE TRUST, ET AL.
23STCV22282
Feb 27, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Here, the facts alleged are insufficient to support a cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations. This pleading like the last asserts that Go Green violated its Settlement Agreement with plaintiff. If Go Green breached the Settlement Agreement that would not be tortious or interference with a contractual relationship it would be a breach of contract.
COACHILLIN HOLDINGS LLC VS PAC-VAN INC
PSC2002887
May 25, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations (Second Cause of Action) Liu contends LOAs second cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations fails to plead sufficient facts to state a claim. The court agrees.
LOA INT'L (USA) TRANSPORT CO. INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS GEORGE LIU
22PSCV01611
Sep 27, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The Providence Defendants demur to the seventh and eight cause of action in the FAC for intentional interference with contractual relations and intentional interference with prospective economic relations on the grounds that they each fail to state facts sufficient to constitute causes of action against the Providence Defendants. (Dem. at p. 2.)
KATY M SETOODEH VS SAINT JOHNS MULTISPECIALTY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., DBA DOCTORS OF ST JOHNS MEDICAL GROUP, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV15343
Oct 17, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
BACKGROUND: Plaintiffs commenced this action on 04/12/17 against defendants for: (1) breach of contract; and (2) intentional interference with contractual relations. On 08/25/17, defendant Golden Land Investment & Financial, Inc. filed a Cross-Complaint against plaintiffs for: (1) inducing breach of contract; and (2) intentional interference with contractual relations. ANALYSIS: Cross-Complainant seeks leave to file a first amended cross-complaint which adds James D. Olson and the Estate of James D.
REMAX TITANIUM TEAM NUVISION ET AL VS JAMES D OLSON ET AL
BC657788
Jun 22, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
ANALYSIS Defendant DCH Thousand Oaks-F, Inc. dba DCH Ford of Thousand Oaks demurs to the fourth cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations on the ground Plaintiffs claim fails to state facts upon which relief can be granted. Defendant also moves to strike the entirety of paragraph four of the Prayer for Relief which reads: For punitive damages related to cause of action four only.
PATRICIA LABORDE VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
22VECV02537
Mar 02, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
RUBIO, MARIA MORALES, ALMA MARTINEZ and Does 1 through 50 to immediately cease their: (a) intentional interference with plaintiffs contractual relations and prospective economic relations; and (b) any other further retaliatory conduct toward plaintiff.
ROGER HERNANDEZ VS SUSAN RUBIO, ET AL.
22PSCV00441
Jan 17, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff brings causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, (3) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations, (4) Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, and (5) Violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200.
HOAG PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS LUIS PALENCIA, ET AL.
23NWCV00879
Nov 01, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Discussion Plaintiff seeks leave to amend to file a new cause of action for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations. Here, the Court has already granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 10 days of notice of the order but did not specify as to whether Plaintiff could file an additional cause of action.
ALAIN JEROME FERNANDEZ VS ERLINDA DAVID
19STCV34998
Feb 05, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
Defendants' Demurrer to the 4th Cause of Action (Breach of Fiduciary Duty), the 6th Cause of Action (Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations), the 7th Cause of Action (Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage), the 8th Cause of Action (Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage), the 9th Cause of Action (Unfair Business Practices), and the 10th Cause of Action (Conspiracy) of the First Amended Complaint is sustained with leave to amend.
WEST COAST DENTAL SERVICES, INC. VS EMILY GARCIA, ET AL
SC129056
Oct 23, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
The fourth cause of action alleged in the SACC is for intentional interference with contractual relations.
CLARK VS LAZZARA
CVRI2105504
Dec 15, 2022
Riverside County, CA
(2) Intentional Interference with Contract Defendants demurs to the third cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations because the Complaint does not describe the existence of any contract with a third-party; however, the Complaint provides that Plaintiff had a contract with its Chinese manufacturer. (Compl. ¶ 43.)
BREAKTHROUGH INC ET AL VS BLIZZARD ETNERTAINMENT INC ET AL
BC686220
Mar 14, 2018
Holly J. Fujie or Michael M. Johnson
Los Angeles County, CA
The demurrer to the causes of action for Intentional Interference with Existing Contractual Relations and Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantages are sustained. "A stranger to a contract may be liable in tort for 'intentionally interfering with the performance of the contract. [Citations.]
THOMAS VS MIRAANDA
37-2018-00020877-CU-BC-CTL
Sep 19, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
The alleged statements appear to be exaggerations and/or overstatements of opinion by Defendant Overton with no specific factual basis (i.e., false statement of fact vs. opinion). 2nd COA (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
VALBUENA VS OVERTON
CVPS2200698
May 29, 2022
Riverside County, CA
The alleged statements appear to be exaggerations and/or overstatements of opinion by Defendant Overton with no specific factual basis (i.e., false statement of fact vs. opinion). 2nd COA (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
VALBUENA VS OVERTON
CVPS2200698
May 31, 2022
Riverside County, CA
The alleged statements appear to be exaggerations and/or overstatements of opinion by Defendant Overton with no specific factual basis (i.e., false statement of fact vs. opinion). 2nd COA (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
VALBUENA VS OVERTON
CVPS2200698
May 28, 2022
Riverside County, CA
The alleged statements appear to be exaggerations and/or overstatements of opinion by Defendant Overton with no specific factual basis (i.e., false statement of fact vs. opinion). 2nd COA (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
VALBUENA VS OVERTON
CVPS2200698
May 30, 2022
Riverside County, CA
An essential element to each of the causes of action for inducing breach of contract, intentional interference with contract, intentional misrepresentation, and fraudulent transfer is resulting damages or harm. (See CACI Nos. 2200 [inducing breach of contract], 2201 [intentional interference with contractual relations], 1900 [intentional misrepresentation] 4200-4203 [fraudulent transfer under Uniform Voidable Transactions Act]; Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v.
LEVEL 3 CONSTRUCTION, INC. VS. URBAN COMMONS RIVERSIDE BLVD., LLC
30-2015-00795018-CU-BC-CJC
Jul 01, 2017
Orange County, CA
With regard to the Fourth Cause of Action for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, the Court notes Plaintiff’s lack of opposition and stated willingness to withdraw this claim. Therefore, the motion is granted, without leave to amend, as to the Fourth Cause of Action against the moving defendant.
THE DYER LAW FIRM VS SAMSIN, KARLA
CV-21-000300
Mar 02, 2024
Stanislaus County, CA
With regard to the Fourth Cause of Action for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, the Court notes Plaintiff’s lack of opposition and stated willingness to withdraw this claim. Therefore, the motion is granted, without leave to amend, as to the Fourth Cause of Action against the moving defendant.
THE DYER LAW FIRM VS SAMSIN, KARLA
CV-21-000300
Mar 04, 2024
Stanislaus County, CA
With regard to the Fourth Cause of Action for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, the Court notes Plaintiff’s lack of opposition and stated willingness to withdraw this claim. Therefore, the motion is granted, without leave to amend, as to the Fourth Cause of Action against the moving defendant.
THE DYER LAW FIRM VS SAMSIN, KARLA
CV-21-000300
Mar 03, 2024
Stanislaus County, CA
With regard to the Fourth Cause of Action for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, the Court notes Plaintiff’s lack of opposition and stated willingness to withdraw this claim. Therefore, the motion is granted, without leave to amend, as to the Fourth Cause of Action against the moving defendant.
THE DYER LAW FIRM VS SAMSIN, KARLA
CV-21-000300
Mar 01, 2024
Stanislaus County, CA
Sixth Cause of Action: Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations Defendants demur to the sixth cause of action on the grounds that Plaintiff has not alleged that a contract existed between Plaintiff and a third party.
ISAM MAAYTAH CORPORATION INC VS MINIACI, MICHAEL
17K08189
Oct 19, 2017
Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
With respect to a cause of action for intentional interference with contract, a prima facie case would require evidence concerning the following elements: 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
LEVET, INC. VS AMIR KACEM
22GDCV00527
Nov 18, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The Demurrer is sustained with 10 days leave to amend as to the 1st Cause of Action (Fraud), 4th Cause of Action (Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations), the 5th Cause of Action (Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage), and the Sixth Cause of Action (Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage). As to the 1st Cause of Action, what is the actionable misrepresentation? To separate someone from his/her wealth is conclusory. What are the specific facts?
JAMES WOHL VS WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
SC123568
Nov 22, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
KATY M SETOODEH VS SAINT JOHNS MULTISPECIALTY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., DBA DOCTORS OF ST JOHNS MEDICAL GROUP, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV15343
Jul 23, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
These causes of action are for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and intentional interference with contractual relations. They appear to assert that Ikonte’s wrongful/actionable conduct is the filing of a lis pendens in this lawsuit. (Cross-Complaint, ¶¶45, 46, 51, and 52.) Challenging the act of filing a lis pendens is “squarely covered by section 425.16, subdivision (e)(1).” Salma v. Capon (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1285.
IKONTE VS NERO
CVRI2000734
Sep 10, 2022
Riverside County, CA
These causes of action are for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and intentional interference with contractual relations. They appear to assert that Ikonte’s wrongful/actionable conduct is the filing of a lis pendens in this lawsuit. (Cross-Complaint, ¶¶45, 46, 51, and 52.) Challenging the act of filing a lis pendens is “squarely covered by section 425.16, subdivision (e)(1).” Salma v. Capon (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1285.
IKONTE VS NERO
CVRI2000734
Sep 11, 2022
Riverside County, CA
These causes of action are for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and intentional interference with contractual relations. They appear to assert that Ikonte’s wrongful/actionable conduct is the filing of a lis pendens in this lawsuit. (Cross-Complaint, ¶¶45, 46, 51, and 52.) Challenging the act of filing a lis pendens is “squarely covered by section 425.16, subdivision (e)(1).” Salma v. Capon (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1285.
IKONTE VS NERO
CVRI2000734
Sep 12, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Under both Silver and Port Med. it is clear that DRMC’s claims for intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional interference with prospective economic relations and interference with prospective economic relations, each of which is based upon explanations of benefits or payment to Evans and DRMC AHMFP which indicated that Evans was not responsible for the balance. FAC ¶¶ 18-20, 46, 48, 52, 54, 58, 60.
DESERT REGIONAL MEDICAL VS AIDS HEALTHCARE
PSC1800948
Dec 10, 2018
Riverside County, CA
See CACI No. 2201 (element number three of a cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations requires that the defendant's conduct prevent performance or make performance more expensive or difficult).
OUTDOOR MEDIA GROUP INC VS SUNREY MEDIA LLC
37-2018-00011561-CU-BC-NC
Oct 11, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
Fourth Cause of Action (Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations). This claim is not preempted by CUTSA to the extent it pleads wrongdoing independent of the alleged misappropriation of confidential information. The TAC fails to adequately plead facts to support a claim for intentional interference by BH-SD Defendants, given that BH-SD Defendants were not in existence until after the relevant agreements had terminated. (Pacific Gas & Electric v. Bear Stearns & Co. (1990) 50 Cal.3d 118, 1126.)
VIZION HEALTH LLC VS. APCO CAPITAL, LLC
30-2016-00869207-CU-BC-CJC
Apr 02, 2018
Orange County, CA
The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. 6 th Cause of Action: Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations 7 th Cause of Action: Intentional Interference With Prospective Contractual Relations 8 th Cause of Action: Negligent Interference With Prospective Contractual Relations Defendants challenge the subject causes of action on grounds of factual specificity, including articulation of actual disrupted contracts for the contractual relations cause of action, and conduct independently
MELODY RANCH MOTION PICTURE STUDIO, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS PLACERITA CANYON CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
20CHCV00595
Aug 03, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
On March 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint for Breach of Settlement Agreement, and Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations. [1] RULING : Sustained without Leave to Amend in Part/Overruled in Part.
MAZAL GROUP, LLC VS Y&E ENTERPRISES, LLC, ET AL.
20CHCV00412
Aug 11, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531). 2nd cause of action for Intentional Interference with Actual and Prospective Contractual Relations, 3rd cause of action for Negligent Interference with Actual and Prospective Contractual Relations, and 4th cause of action for Unfair Business Practices: The Court intends to Sustain demurrer to the 2nd-4th causes of action on grounds that these claims, as alleged, are preempted under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CC §§ 3426-3426.11).
SUNLIGHT PRODUCT TECHNOLOGIES LTD VS MPOWERD INC
56-2013-00444550-CU-BT-VTA
Nov 14, 2014
Ventura County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.