California Tort of Intentional interference with the prospective business relations of another company

 Introduction

One serious business tort that companies cannot seem to steer clear from (due to the  nature of business and competition is the tort of interference (either negligently or intentionally) with the prospective business advantage of another company, in other words, trying to steal or interrupt their business.  This blog talks about the Cal jury instructions and what a Plaintiff has to prove to meet their “burden of proof” in a civil case.  If you need help, either as a potential Plaintiff or Defendant, call us for a free initial consultation at (877) 276-5084.

California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) 2202.

Here is what the Cal jury instructions CACI 2202 require a Plaintiff to prove to WIN their case against their competitor or another person or entity who is interfering with their business.

Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Relations [Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] intentionally interfered with an economic relationship between [him/her/it] and [name of third party] that probably would have resulted in an economic benefit to [name of plaintiff]. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:

1. That [name of plaintiff] and [name of third party] were in an economic relationship that probably would have resulted in an economic benefit to [name of plaintiff];

2. That [name of defendant] knew of the relationship;

3. That [name of defendant] intended to disrupt the relationship;

4. That [name of defendant] engaged in wrongful conduct through [insert grounds for wrongfulness, e.g., misrepresentation, fraud, violation of statute];

5. That the relationship was disrupted;

6. That [name of plaintiff] was harmed;

and

7. That [name of defendant]'s wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]'s harm.

Listen to Attorney Steve explain this legal concept in this VIDEO from our legal youtube channel

VIDEO:  Click on the picture above to watch our helpful video on this legal topic.  Make sure to SUBSCRIBE to our popular legal channel and join over 41,000 other people who love our free videos!!  Simply click on the Red “V” for Victory!

Contrast this with Intentional interference with existing contract

To state a claim for tortious interference with contract under California law, a plaintiff must prove:

"(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." 

Reeves v. Hanlon, 33 Cal. 4th 1140, 1148, 17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 289, 95 P.3d 513 (2004).  See. Extreme Reach, Inc. v. Spotgenie Partners, LLC (C.D.Cal. Apr. 14, 2014, No. CV 13-07563 DMG (JCGx)) 2014 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 200550, at *9-10.)

A cause of action for interference with contractual relations is governed by the two-year limitations period of [California's Code of Civil Procedure] section 339, subdivision 1". Richardson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 117 Cal. App. 3d 8, 11-12, 172 Cal. Rptr. 423 (1981). "In general, a cause of action for wrongfully induced breach occurs at the date of the wrongful act." Trembath v. Digardi, 43 Cal. App. 3d 834, 836, 118 Cal. Rptr. 124 (1974). In Trembath, supra, the California appeals court acknowledged the possibility, however, that the statute of limitations began to run when the contract was actually breached rather than when the wrongful act inducing the breach occurred. See id. ("Clearly, the accrual date could not be later than the actual breach of the contract by the party who was wrongfully induced to breach"). Thus, "[plaintiffs] possessed a claim no later than the date of the alleged breach of contract." Charles Lowe Co. v. Xomox Corp., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20308, at *31 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 3, 2000) (relying on Trembath, supra, 43 Cal. App. 3d at 836).  See Forcier v. Microsoft Corp. (N.D.Cal. 2000) 123 F.Supp.2d 520, 530.)

Types of sample cases our law firm might handle in this area

Here are some types of interferences that we might be able to handle

1.  Businesses interfering with each-other online (Digital Disputes)
2.  Disputes between fashion designers
3.  Internet disputes (ex. youtube, twitter, facebook, pinterest, eBay, craigslist, instagram, spotify, snapchat, or other disputes)
4. Real estate broker commission disputes (“turf wars”)
5. Disputes between photographers
6. Disputes between bands and musicians
7. Software companies – stealing customers

This is just a short list, if you have a dispute, call us to discuss.

Contact a California Business Interference and Unfair Competition Lawyer

We have offices in San Diego (covering La Jolla,Oceanside, Encintas, Carlsbad areas), Newport Beach (covering Orange County, Anaheim, Fullerton, Yorba Linda, Laguna and Huntington Beach), Beverly Hills (covering Redondo Beach, Hermosa, Manhatten Beach, Santa Monica, Venice, Malibue and Hollywood), San Francisco (covering bay area, Oakland, San Jose, Piedomt, Crocker Highlands, and silicon valley area.  We can be reached at (877) 276-5084 for a free initial evaluation.  You can also email us by sending an email to the address on the RIGHT side of this sidebar.