What is interference with prospective economic advantage?

Useful Rulings on Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

Recent Rulings on Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

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

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

ALEXANDER VS GOODMAN JUNE

Intentional and Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage (3rd and 4th causes of action The tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage covers interference with a relationship that is not yet contractual, i.e., it protects the expectation of an advantageous business relationship even in the absence of a legally binding agreement. (Buckaloo v. Johnson (1975) 14 Cal.3d 745, 749, disapproved on other grounds in Della Penna v.

  • Hearing

DEVIN WEISBERG VS JAURIGUE LAW GROUP, ET AL.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY On February 11, 2020, Weisberg filed the Complaint alleging four causes of action: Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage Negligent interference with prospective economic advantage Fraud Conversion On February 18, 2020, Weisberg filed the FAC alleging five causes of action: Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage Negligent interference with prospective economic advantage Fraud Conversion Intentional breach of fiduciary duty On April 1,

  • Hearing

TURMEL WOODS VS CITY OF COMPTON, A MUNICIPALITY

BACKGROUND The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) arises from Plaintiff’s alleged wrongful termination, alleging causes of action for: (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (2) tortious breach of employment contract by termination; (3) wrongful demotion; (4) adverse employment action; (5) tortious breach of good faith and fair dealing; (6) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (8) negligence; and (9) defamation

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

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

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MELBE ZEPEDA VS GUSTAVO RODRIGUEZ

Concurrently, Defendant filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff, Novum CT, Novum VIP, and Paz Sanchez Majano for: (1) fraud; (2) breach of contract; (3) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; (4) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage; (5) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (6) violation of Business & Professions Code, § 17200 et al.; and (7) defamation. B.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LIU V. FAN, ET AL.

The demurrer to the fourth cause of action for intentional interference with economic relations The elements for the tort of 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; and

  • Hearing

BRUCE THUE VS MICHAEL LAINE

The demurrer is OVERRULED. 3rd cause of action for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage “Tortious interference with prospective economic advantage . . . does not depend on the existence of a legally binding contract. A plaintiff asserting this tort must show that the defendant knowingly interfered with an ‘economic relationship between the plaintiff and some third party, [which carries] the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff.’ . . .

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

VENCLOSE INC., ET AL. V. COVIDIEN LP, ET AL. (LEAD CASE) [CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE NO. 18CV327382]

.; (8) Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; 12 (9) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; and (10) Violation of 13 Cartwright Act. 14 On October 28, 2020, the court heard a demurrer by Defendants to the seventh through 15 tenth causes of action in the SAC.

  • Hearing

XERA HEALTH LLC VS SCHEELE

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

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

LESLIE GOULD, ET AL VS. JOEL D. KETTLER, ET AL

In his Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and with contract, Kettler must show that the Goulds intended to disrupt his economic prospects or his employment contract or knew that such a disruption was certain or substantially certain to occur. (CACI 2201 and 2202.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HANS H. KIM, ET AL. VS. CUIL INVESTMENTS LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

economic advantage; (9) breach of fiduciary duty; and (10) unfair business practices.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

ARTS DISTRICT PATIENTS COLLECTIVE INC VS SERGIO TELLEZ ET AL

Shaw case; (viii) revised and Derivative cause of action for Identity Theft based on new and ongoing violations; (ix) Derivative Cause of Action for Accounting based on ongoing misappropriation of assets that must be traced and accounted for; (x) Derivative cause of action for Conversion based on ongoing and post-judgment conversion of assets belonging to ADPC and /or Shaw; (xi) new Derivative cause of action for Unjust Enrichment; (xii) new Direct Cause of Action for Tortious Interference With Prospective Economic

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

RYAN HARPER ET AL VS MANHATTAN INN OPERATING COMPANY LLC

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

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

INCEPTION ALTANOVA, LLC VS NORTH STAR HOLDINGS, INC.

Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage Defendants argue that the conduct underlying the third and fourth causes of action for intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage arising from speech protected under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (e)(2) and (e)(4). North Star points to allegations made in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the FAC.

  • Hearing

ALTERNATIVE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS INC VS WONG HODGEN

The Complaint alleges the following causes of action against the "Sellers": intentional misrepresentation against all defendants; intentional interference with contract; intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; and violation of Bus. & Prof. §17200. These are intentional torts, which generally require more than general or conclusory allegations. See, e.g., Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631; Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59; Ixchel Pharma, LLC v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CHATELAINE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS TERESA MCCLENDON, ET AL

The only remaining causes of action are the 10th cause of action for cancellation of instruments, the 11th cause of action for injunctive relief and the 13th through 15th cause of action for trespass, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Defendant McClendon’s arguments regarding her possession of title are defeated by the Court’s ruling on the motion for summary adjudication.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ALTERNATIVE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS INC VS WONG HODGEN

The Complaint alleges the following causes of action against the "Sellers": intentional misrepresentation against all defendants; intentional interference with contract; intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; and violation of Bus. & Prof. §17200. These are intentional torts, which generally require more than general or conclusory allegations. See, e.g., Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631; Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59; Ixchel Pharma, LLC v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

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

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PAUL ATTEUKENIAN VS MISS WORLD AMERICA, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

In addition, a “plaintiff seeking to recover damages for interference with prospective economic advantage must plead and prove as part of its case-in-chief that the defendant's conduct was ‘wrongful by some legal measure other than the fact of interference itself.’” (Ibid., citation omitted.) In other words, a plaintiff must allege “intentional wrongful acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship.” (Id. at 1154.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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

Indeed, as a matter of practical reality, PMI Westerly cannot be an indispensable party to that cause of action, because a party to a contract cannot be sued for intentionally interfering with its own contract: Our courts recognize four types of claims for interference with contractual rights or expectancies: Intentional or negligent interference with an existing contract and intentional or negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. . . .

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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

That is not sufficient to allege a cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED as to the second cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Generally speaking, leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) Plaintiffs must demonstrate this possibility at the hearing.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MOHAMMED KHODABAKHSH VS TERRY L VECHICK, ET AL.

On September 30, 2020, subsequent to the filing of the motion, Plaintiff filed a FAC against Vechik as the sole named defendant for (1) Conversion, (2) Violation of the California Data Access and Fraud Act, (3) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, (4) Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, (5) Violation of Penal Code Section 496, (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and (7) Violations of Business and Professions Code Section 17200.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

AMAVARA INC VS DUBA

In Advanced Modular Sputtering, an equipment manufacturer sued former employees and their competitor company, alleging causes of action for specific performance of confidentiality agreements and breach of such agreements, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, unfair business practices, interference with prospective economic advantage, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief, all of which depended on foundational allegation

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MYJS, INC, ET AL. VS LONDON EYE, INC, ET AL.

Fourth Cause of Action: Negligent Interference with Contract Defendant Jun contends that there is no cause of action for negligent interference with contract and that this claim is beyond the scope of the leave to amend granted in the previous demurrer. “In California there is no cause of action for negligent interference with contractual relations. [However], there exists a cause of action for negligent interference with prospective economic advantage[.]” (Davis v. Nadrich (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1, 9.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 79     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.