What is interference with prospective economic advantage?

Useful Rulings on Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

Recent Rulings on Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

Third Cause of Action: Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage (i.e., Issues Nos. 22-31) “The five elements for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage are: (1) an economic relationship between the plaintiff and some third party, with the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the relationship; (3) intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MED CAFE CORP, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MOSTAFA KARIMBEIK, ET AL.

Fourth Cause of Action: Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage The elements of a claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage include “(1) an economic relationship between the plaintiff and some third party, with the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the relationship; (3) intentional . . . acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; and

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ILAN BITTON VS TYLER THORNTON, ET AL.

On October 9, 2019, Plaintiff Ilan Bitton commenced this action and then on December 18, 2019 filed a first amended complaint ("FAC") against Defendants Tyler Thornton, Sunfire Nutrition, LLC, and Greenfield Organix dba Loudpack Farms for (1) breach of contract; (2) declaratory judgment; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (4) intentional interference with business contracts; and (5) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

ILAN BITTON VS TYLER THORNTON, ET AL.

On October 9, 2019, Plaintiff Ilan Bitton commenced this action and then on December 18, 2019 filed a first amended complaint ("FAC") against Defendants Tyler Thornton, Sunfire Nutrition, LLC, and Greenfield Organix dba Loudpack Farms for (1) breach of contract; (2) declaratory judgment; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (4) intentional interference with business contracts; and (5) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

CR CREATIVE SERVICES INC VS HAROLD BRIONES ET AL

with Contractual Relations Intentional Interference with Prospective Business Advantage Violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200 Misappropriation of Trade Secrets On September 4, 2018, Briones and B&R filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FAXC”) alleging four causes of action: Defamation Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage Misappropriation of Trade Secrets.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS INC VS KMC LANDSCAPING SERVICES

The FAC asserts causes of action for (1) slander of title against KMC and Cohick, (2) fraud against KMC and Cohick, (3) negligent misrepresentation against KMC and Cohick, (4) unfair business practices against KMC and Cohick, (5) intentional interference with a prospective economic advantage against KMC and Cohick, and (6) foreclosure on contractor’s bonds against KMC, SIC, and ACIC. The FAC alleges in pertinent part as follows.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

SKYVIEW CAPITAL, LLC VS MATTHEW OEHLMANN

Third Cause of Action: Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CITY OF SAN JOSE V. FALCOCCHIA

However, the newly added fourth and fifth causes of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and private nuisance, respectively, do not fall within this exception because with them the Falcocchias seek affirmative relief and these claims do not arise out of the same “collection” event as the City’s Complaint. (See FACC, ¶¶ 51-54, 57, 58, 64.) Accordingly, the fourth and fifth causes of action are subject to the claims presentation requirement.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA VS. EQUALTOX, INC., APC

However, “specific intent is not a required element of the tort of interference with prospective economic advantage.” Id. at 1154. Although 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.” Id.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

JUDITH MANN VS MIKE TOLOUEE, ET AL.

Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage Plaintiff still fails to allege an independently wrongful act. “[W]hile intentionally interfering with an existing contract is a wrong in and of itself, intentionally interfering with a plaintiff’s prospective economic advantage is not. To establish a claim for interference with prospective economic advantage, therefore, a plaintiff must plead that the defendant engaged in an independently wrongful act.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SUPER NATURAL, INC. VS PENROSE, LLC

Procedural History On March 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant for declaratory relief, breach of contract, implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and injunctive relief. On March 17, 2020, Defendant filed an answer. On May 22, 2020, the court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a TRO and OSC re: preliminary injunction.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

DRAKE KENNEDY, ET AL. VS BRIAN KENNEDY, ET AL.

On April 8, 2019, Brian Kennedy (“Brian”) filed a cross-complaint alleging ten causes of actions: (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (2) Breach of Contract; (3) Declaratory Relief; (4) Removal of Drake Kennedy as Director; (5) Financial Elder Abuse; (6) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; (7) Negligent Interference with Economic Advantage; (8) Quantum Meruit; (9) Constructive Trust and (10) Declaratory Relief. On March 6, 2020, Drake filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

GLENDALE FRENCH BAKERY, INC. VS. RICK SALVATORE, ET AL

In the operative complaint, Plaintiff alleged twelve causes of action sounding in (1) Breach of Lease, (2) Breach of covenant of Quiet Use and Enjoyment, (3) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (4) Fraud, (5) Negligent Misrepresentation, (6) Rescission and Restitution based on Fraud or Mistake, (7) Promissory Estoppel, (8) Interference with Contractual Relations, (9) Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, (10) Private Nuisance, (11) Public Nuisance, and (12) Violation of Bus. & Prof

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

ALEXANDRIA EQUITIES NO.7 LLC VS PRECISION AGRITECH INC.,

/Eric Ellestad (“Cross-Complainant”) filed a Cross-Complainant against Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Agtech Accelerator Corporation (“Accelerator”), asserting causes of action for declaratory relief, fraud-intentional misrepresentation, intentional interference with contract, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and unfair competition in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code §17200.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SYLVIA NOLAND VS JOSE LUIS NAZAR

Tenth Cause of Action, Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage: SUSTAINED Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to constitute the cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GEORGE STEPHAN, ET AL. VS LISA ANN BARKETT, ET AL.

with contract; (10) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; (7) money lent; (9) account stated; (10) open book account; and (11) action to set aside fraudulent or voidable transfers.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CHARLES WILLIAMS VS HAO YU

The First Amended Complaint alleged five causes of action: Defamation False Light Intentional and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Intentional and Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage Unfair Competition The causes of action in the First Amended Complaint were based on internet postings which appeared on Google, Tumbler, YouTube and Twitter.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

ANN MARIE STREIBICH VS MARK SHINNICK

.: 19SMCV00919 MOTION: Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial and All Pre-trial Dates BACKGROUND On May 10, 2019, Plaintiff Ann Marie Streibich, individually and as trustee of the Survivor’s Trust under the Mary Frances Gage and Robert Vincent Gage Living Trust (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Mark Shinnick (“Defendant”) alleging the following causes of action: (1) interference with prospective economic advantage, (2) publication of private facts, and (3) trespass.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

CELSO FERNANDEZ VS HO SOUNG WON, ET AL.

“[T]he third element [of the tort of interference with prospective economic advantage] also requires a plaintiff to plead intentional wrongful acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship.” (Id. at p. 1154.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BRYANT VS. ADVANCED M.P. TECHNOLOGY, LLC

The claim for interference with prospective economic advantage were based on an exception of future income from his patients. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that these claims were “wholly independent” from the employment agreement. In Buckhorn, the interference involved the doctor’s patients when he worked with medical group. Therefore, the cause of action was rooted in the contract and not independent. Bono v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

INTELLIGENT SCM LLC ET AL VS RUSSELL W ROTEN ET AL

The 4AC asserts causes of action against the Firm Defendants for constructive fraud/breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice, negligence, fraud, tort of another, intentional interference with contractual relationship, negligent interference with contractual relationship, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, negligent supervision, and conversion.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

AZZE VS. WONG

Negligent or Intentional Interference with Prospective Business Advantage The elements of the tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (business interference) are “(1) an economic relationship between the plaintiff and some third party, with the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant's knowledge of that relationship; (3) intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

CHERYL COLE VS. RICK HAMPTON

Defendant believes Plaintiff is attempting to allege a cause of action for interference with prospective economic advantage. This claim is subject to the two-year statute of limitations set forth at Code Civ. Proc., § 339, subd. 1. (Knoell v. Petrovich (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 164, 168.) Plaintiff maintains she can allege some tolling of the statute. The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

COLOREDGE, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, VS EDIE GELARDI, AN INDIVIDUAL,, ET AL.

As a result of these allegations, Plaintiff filed its Complaint on January 22, 2019, and its operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on June 06, 2019, alleging eight causes of action sounding in (1) Unfair Competition; (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (3) Breach of Duty of Loyalty; (4) Tortuous Interference with At-Will Employment; (5) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; (6) Conversion; (7) Violation of California Penal Code §502; and (8) Unjust Enrichment.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JOSHUA DUBINSKY VS JIM MULHEARN, ET AL.

By way of background, on October 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed his initial complaint against Defendants alleging the following 15 causes of action: (1) fraud, (2) breach of oral partnership agreement, (3) promissory estoppel, (4) breach of fiduciary duty, (5) wrongful interference with prospective economic advantage, (6) invasion of privacy, (7) conversion, (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (9) unpaid wages, (10) unpaid wages, (11) failure to reimburse expenses, (12) failure to provide accurate wage

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 71     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.