Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations in California

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

Therefore, the Court finds that there is no heightened pleading standard for intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and negligent interference with economic advantage claims.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

DEMURRERS Defendants Fong and SCCC demur the 11th (intentional interference with contractual relations), 12th (negligent interference with contractual relations), 13th (intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and contractual relations), and 14th (intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and contractual relations) causes of action (COA) in the FAC, arguing that they are uncertain and fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

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.

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.

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.

Contractual Relations, Breach of Contract, and Declaratory Relief.

Motion for Summary Adjudication SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION – INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS 1.

On July 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC), alleging causes of action for 1) Breach of Contract and 2) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations. On August 19, 2024, Defendants filed a demurrer to the FAC. Plaintiff filed an opposition on December 9, 2024, and Defendants filed a reply on December 13, 2024.

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.

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.

Based on this, Post asserts Plaintiffs causes of action for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations and Inducing Breach of Contract are still time-barred.

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.)

Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; 2. Breach of Duty of Loyalty; 3. Civil Conspiracy; 4. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; and 5. Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage. On February 20, 2026, Cross-Complainants filed a Second Amended Cross-Complaint (SACC) alleging causes of action for: 1. Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; 2.

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.

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.

The elements for the causes of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage are substantially the same as the cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations. Thus, the motion to strike is denied as to the third cause of action for the same reasons as the first cause of action.

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.

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.

Last, Defendants argue that Gu has no claim for intentional interference because Plaintiffs fail to allege that Gu was party to an agreement that was interfered with. This argument is inapplicable because Gu is not asserting a claim for intentional interference. The TAC states that the claim for intentional interference is brought by U&G. Therefore, the motion is DENIED as to the Sixth Cause of Action for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations. C.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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

IBGs demurrer to Plaintiffs claim for intentional interference with contractual relations is OVERRULED. IBGs demurrer to Plaintiffs claim for negligent interference with contractual relations is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. IBGs demurrer to plaintiffs trespass claim is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

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.

(1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 464, does not hold that conduct allegedly impairing Plaintiffs right or ability to collect earned attorney fees is, by itself, independently tortious conduct for purposes of an intentional interference with prospective economic relations claim. More importantly, interference with prospective economic advantage is concerned only with intentional interference with prospective contractual relations, not yet reduced to contract.

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

with Contractual Relations.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Last, Defendants argue that Gu has no claim for intentional interference because Plaintiffs fail to allege that Gu was party to an agreement that was interfered with. This argument is inapplicable because Gu is not asserting a claim for intentional interference. The TAC states that the claim for intentional interference is brought by U&G. Therefore, the motion is DENIED as to the Sixth Cause of Action for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations. C.

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.

On December 12, 2023, Jamgotchian, ESPA, and Theta filed case no. 23STCV31285 against Coastal, Bruce Nye, and Sonja Nye for (1) slander of title, (2) quiet title, (3) defamation, (4) libel per se, (5) intentional interference with contractual relations, and (6) negligent interference with contractual relations. On February 27, 2024, Jamgotchian, ESPA, and Theta filed the instant actioncase no. 24STCV05004against Done!

for (1) slander of title, (2) quiet title, (3) defamation, (4) libel per se, (5) intentional interference with contractual relations, and (6) negligent interference with contractual relations. On June 14, 2024, the Court related case nos. BC674357, 23STCV31285, and 24STCV05004. On September 5, 2024, the Court granted an anti-SLAPP motion filed by Coastal and the Nyes as to the entirety of the Complaint herein.

(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.

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

The First Amended Complaint does not plead facts supporting a conspiracy or any intentional interference with contractual relations.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations 2. Fraud 3. Trespass 4. Nuisance 5. Unjust Enrichment 6. Civil Conspiracy On March 26, 2025, Plaintiff dismissed Morrow Management from the complaint without prejudice. On April 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a FAC asserting the following COAs against the same Defendants, minus Morrow Management: 1. Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations 2.

The Court is sustaining with leave to amend Defendants' demurrer to the second, third, and fourth causes of action for fraud, intentional interference with contractual relations, and unfair business practices, respectively. in Plaintiff's complaint. If counsel wish to be heard on the rulings this morning, the Court will articulate the bases for the rulings.

Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; 7. Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; 8. Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; 9. Breach of Oral Agreement; 10. Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations (Me Quede Sin Nada); 11. Inducing Breach of Contract; and 12.

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.

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.

Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations 2. Fraud 3. Trespass 4. Nuisance 5. Unjust Enrichment 6. Civil Conspiracy On March 26, 2025, Plaintiff dismissed Morrow Management from the complaint without prejudice. On April 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a FAC asserting the following COAs against the same Defendants, minus Morrow Management: 1. Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations 2.

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.

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.)

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.

Case Number: 24STCV32126 Hearing Date: June 18, 2025 Dept: 55 Cross-Defendants Thomas Connelly, DDS and Julia Connelly (Cross-Defendants) filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike from Cross-Complainant South Beach Capital, LLCs (Cross-Complainant) Cross-Complaint the third cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations and the fourth cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.

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.

Accordingly, as the addition of the claim for intentional interference with contract is responsive to the court’s holding on the demurrer, the Court finds that the leave to amend granted in the Court’s January 26, 2021 order encompasses leave to add the proposed claim of Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations. Further, apart from the leave previously granted on January 26, 2021, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to grant the leave requested.

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.

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.

Third Cause of Action: 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) 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. (I-CA Enterprises, Inc. v.

The fourth cause of action alleged in the SACC is for intentional interference with contractual relations.

Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; 4. Conversion; and 5. Declaratory Relief. The FACC contains allegations that Cross-Defendants breached or interfered with the Lease/License Agreement (Complaint, Exhibit 1), including by failing to generate an operating profit of at least $250,000.00 during any six-month period, to control expenses, and to make all monthly payments.

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.]

(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.)

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

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