alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017
For Educational Use Only
Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 11 Cal.4th 376 (1995)
902 P.2d 740, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 436, 64 USLW 2237, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8056...
106k100In General
106k100(1)In General; Retroactive or Prospective
Operation
KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment
Disagreement Recognized by Data Based Systems Intern., Inc. v.
Hewlett-Packard Co., E.D.Pa., September 26, 2001
Generally, decision of court of supreme
jurisdiction overruling former decision is
retrospective in its operation.
11 Cal.4th 376
Supreme Court of California.
John DELLA PENNA, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.,
Defendant and Respondent.
No. S044053.
|
Oct. 12, 1995.
5 Cases that cite this headnote
[2]
Automobile wholesaler brought suit against American
distributor of Japanese auto manufacturer, alleging
violations of state antitrust statute and intention
interference with economic relations. The Superior Court,
Santa Clara County, No. 709470, Thomas P. Hansen, J.,
granted distributor’s motion for nonsuit with respect to
antitrust claim and rendered judgment on jury verdict for
distributor on interference claim, and wholesaler
appealed. The Court of Appeal, 1994 WL 774509,
reversed, and distributor petitioned for review. The
Supreme Court, Arabian, J., held that plaintiff seeking to
recover for alleged interference with prospective
economic relations has burden of pleading and proving
that defendant’s interference was wrongful by some
measure beyond the fact of the interference itself.
Courts
In General; Retroactive or Prospective
Operation
106Courts
106IIEstablishment, Organization, and Procedure
106II(H)Effect of Reversal or Overruling
106k100In General
106k100(1)In General; Retroactive or Prospective
Operation
Decision requiring proof “wrongful act” as
component of cause of action for interference
with economic relations applied retroactively,
where prospect of modification of rule could
have fairly been foreseen by plaintiffs and legal
profession at time case was tried.
383 Cases that cite this headnote
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Mosk, J., concurred in judgment and filed opinion.
[3]
West Headnotes (3)
[1]
Courts
In General; Retroactive or Prospective
Operation
106Courts
106IIEstablishment, Organization, and Procedure
106II(H)Effect of Reversal or Overruling
Torts
Improper Means; Wrongful, Tortious or
Illegal Conduct
Torts
Pleading
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)1In General
379k218Improper Means; Wrongful, Tortious or
Illegal Conduct
(Formerly 379k10(1))
379Torts
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
1
alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017
For Educational Use Only
Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 11 Cal.4th 376 (1995)
902 P.2d 740, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 436, 64 USLW 2237, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8056...
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)3Actions in General
379k255Pleading
(Formerly 379k26(2))
Plaintiff seeking to recover for alleged
interference with prospective economic relations
has burden of pleading and proving that
defendant’s interference was wrongful by some
measure beyond the fact of the interference
itself. BAJI 7.82.
All Citations
11 Cal.4th 376, 902 P.2d 740, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 436, 64
USLW 2237, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8056, 95 Daily
Journal D.A.R. 13,801
509 Cases that cite this headnote
End of Document
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
2
alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017
For Educational Use Only
Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (2003)
63 P.3d 937, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1825...
KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment
Declined to Follow by Miracle 7, Inc. v. Halo Couture, LLC, S.D.Fla.,
January 17, 2014
29 Cal.4th 1134
Supreme Court of California
KOREA SUPPLY COMPANY, Plaintiff and
Appellant,
v.
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION et. al,
Defendants and Respondents.
West Headnotes (36)
[1]
30Appeal and Error
30XVIReview
30XVI(G)Presumptions
30k915Pleading
30k917Demurrers
30k917(1)In general
No. S100136.
|
March 3, 2003.
Broker for manufacturer that unsuccessfully bid for
military equipment contract with the Republic of Korea
brought action against competitor that was the successful
bidder, asserting claims for intentional interference with
prospective economic advantage and unfair competition.
The Superior Court, Los Angeles County, No. BC209893,
Brett C. Klein, J., sustained a demurrer without leave to
amend, and dismissed action. Broker appealed. The Court
of Appeal reversed. The Supreme Court granted review,
superseding the opinion of the Court of Appeal, and in an
opinion by Moreno, J., held that: (1) nonrestitutionary
disgorgement of profits was not an available remedy in an
individual action under the unfair competition law (UCL);
(2) broker’s requested relief of disgorgement of the profits
realized by competitor was not restitutionary; and (3) tort
of intentional interference with prospective economic
advantage did not require a plaintiff to plead that the
defendant acted with the specific intent, or purpose, of
disrupting the plaintiff’s prospective economic advantage.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal affirmed in part,
reversed in part, and remanded.
Opinion, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 417, superseded.
Kennard, Acting C.J., filed concurring opinion.
Werdegar, J., filed concurring opinion.
Appeal and Error
Demurrers
When a case comes to the Supreme Court after
the sustaining of a general demurrer, the
Supreme Court accepts as true all the material
allegations of the complaint.
Cases that cite this headnote
[2]
Antitrust and Trade Regulation
Source of prohibition or obligation;
lawfulness
29TAntitrust and Trade Regulation
29TIIIStatutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection
29TIII(A)In General
29Tk133Nature and Elements
29Tk135Practices Prohibited or Required
29Tk135(2)Source of prohibition or obligation;
lawfulness
(Formerly 382k862.1 Trade Regulation)
Unfair competition law (UCL) embraces
anything that can properly be called a business
practice and that at the same time is forbidden
by law. West’s Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code §
17200 et seq.
57 Cases that cite this headnote
Chin, J., filed concurring and dissenting opinion in which
Brown, J., joined.
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
1
alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017
For Educational Use Only
Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (2003)
63 P.3d 937, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1825...
[3]
29TAntitrust and Trade Regulation
29TIIIStatutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection
29TIII(E)Enforcement and Remedies
29TIII(E)7Relief
29Tk370In general
(Formerly 382k864 Trade Regulation)
Antitrust and Trade Regulation
Source of prohibition or obligation;
lawfulness
29TAntitrust and Trade Regulation
29TIIIStatutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection
29TIII(A)In General
29Tk133Nature and Elements
29Tk135Practices Prohibited or Required
29Tk135(2)Source of prohibition or obligation;
lawfulness
(Formerly 382k862.1 Trade Regulation)
Unfair competition law (UCL) “borrows”
violations from other laws by making them
independently actionable as unfair competitive
practices. West’s Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code §
17200 et seq.
While the scope of conduct covered by the
unfair competition law (UCL) is broad, its
remedies are limited. West’s Ann.Cal.Bus. &
Prof.Code § 17200 et seq.
21 Cases that cite this headnote
[6]
Antitrust and Trade Regulation
Monetary Relief; Damages
101 Cases that cite this headnote
[4]
29TAntitrust and Trade Regulation
29TIIIStatutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection
29TIII(E)Enforcement and Remedies
29TIII(E)7Relief
29Tk387Monetary Relief; Damages
29Tk388In general
(Formerly 382k864 Trade Regulation)
Antitrust and Trade Regulation
Source of prohibition or obligation;
lawfulness
29TAntitrust and Trade Regulation
29TIIIStatutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection
29TIII(A)In General
29Tk133Nature and Elements
29Tk135Practices Prohibited or Required
29Tk135(2)Source of prohibition or obligation;
lawfulness
(Formerly 382k862.1 Trade Regulation)
Under unfair competition law (UCL), a business
practice may be deemed unfair even if not
specifically proscribed by some other law.
West’s Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 17200 et
seq.
173 Cases that cite this headnote
[5]
Antitrust and Trade Regulation
Relief
An action under the unfair competition law
(UCL) is equitable in nature; damages cannot be
recovered. West’s Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code §
17200 et seq.
68 Cases that cite this headnote
[7]
Statutes
Plain language; plain, ordinary, common, or
literal meaning
361Statutes
361IIIConstruction
361III(C)Clarity and Ambiguity; Multiple Meanings
361k1107Absence of Ambiguity; Application of
Clear or Unambiguous Statute or Language
361k1111Plain language; plain, ordinary, common,
or literal meaning
(Formerly 361k188)
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
2
alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017
For Educational Use Only
Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (2003)
63 P.3d 937, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1825...
If the language of a statute is unambiguous, the
plain meaning governs.
[10]
1 Cases that cite this headnote
[8]
Antitrust and Trade Regulation
Profits
29TAntitrust and Trade Regulation
29TIIIStatutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection
29TIII(E)Enforcement and Remedies
29TIII(E)7Relief
29Tk387Monetary Relief; Damages
29Tk391Profits
(Formerly 382k864 Trade Regulation)
Statutes
History of statute
361Statutes
361IIIConstruction
361III(F)Extrinsic Aids to Construction
361k1182Contemporary and Historical
Circumstances
361k1184History of statute
(Formerly 361k217.1, 361k215)
Under the unfair competition law (UCL), an
individual may recover profits unfairly obtained
to the extent that these profits represent monies
given to the defendant or benefits in which the
plaintiff has an ownership interest. West’s
Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 17203.
If statutory language is ambiguous, court may
look to the history and background of the
statute.
104 Cases that cite this headnote
Cases that cite this headnote
[11]
[9]
Constitutional Law
Intent of and Considerations Influencing
Legislature
92Constitutional Law
92VIEnforcement of Constitutional Provisions
92VI(C)Determination of Constitutional Questions
92VI(C)3Presumptions and Construction as to
Constitutionality
92k998Intent of and Considerations Influencing
Legislature
92k999In general
(Formerly 92k48(2), 92k48(1))
In ascertaining the Legislature’s intent, court
attempts to construe a statute to preserve its
constitutional validity, as the court presumes
that the Legislature intends to respect
constitutional limits.
3 Cases that cite this headnote
Antitrust and Trade Regulation
Profits
29TAntitrust and Trade Regulation
29TIIIStatutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection
29TIII(E)Enforcement and Remedies
29TIII(E)7Relief
29Tk387Monetary Relief; Damages
29Tk391Profits
(Formerly 382k864 Trade Regulation)
Requested relief of disgorgement of the profits
realized by competitor on the sale of military
equipment to the Republic of Korea was not
restitutionary, and thus such relief was not
available to unsuccessful bidder’s broker in its
action against competitor for violation of unfair
competition law (UCL); broker did not have
ownership interest in the money because
competitor did not take any money or property
directly from broker, and broker did not have
vested interest in the money, but instead only
expected a commission payment if unsuccessful
bidder was awarded military equipment
contract. West’s Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code §
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
3
alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017
For Educational Use Only
Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (2003)
63 P.3d 937, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1825...
he or she has an ownership interest. West’s
Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 17203.
17203.
113 Cases that cite this headnote
101 Cases that cite this headnote
[12]
Antitrust and Trade Regulation
Grounds and Subjects
[14]
29TAntitrust and Trade Regulation
29TIIIStatutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection
29TIII(E)Enforcement and Remedies
29TIII(E)7Relief
29Tk387Monetary Relief; Damages
29Tk389Grounds and Subjects
29Tk389(1)In general
(Formerly 382k864 Trade Regulation)
390Trusts
390VIIEstablishment and Enforcement of Trust
390VII(B)Right to Follow Trust Property or Proceeds
Thereof
390k358Identification of Property
390k358(1)In general
(Formerly 390k91)
A constructive trust requires money or property
identified as belonging in good conscience to the
plaintiff which can clearly be traced to particular
funds or property in the defendant’s possession.
An order for restitution under the unfair
competition law (UCL) is one compelling a
UCL defendant to return money obtained
through an unfair business practice to those
persons in interest from whom the property was
taken, that is, to persons who had an ownership
interest in the property or those claiming
through that person. West’s Ann.Cal.Bus. &
Prof.Code § 17203.
13 Cases that cite this headnote
[15]
245 Cases that cite this headnote
[13]
Antitrust and Trade Regulation
Grounds and Subjects
29TAntitrust and Trade Regulation
29TIIIStatutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection
29TIII(E)Enforcement and Remedies
29TIII(E)7Relief
29Tk387Monetary Relief; Damages
29Tk389Grounds and Subjects
29Tk389(1)In general
(Formerly 382k864 Trade Regulation)
The object of restitution under the unfair
competition law (UCL) is to restore the status
quo by returning to the plaintiff funds in which
Trusts
Identification of Property
Antitrust and Trade Regulation
Nature and form
29TAntitrust and Trade Regulation
29TIIIStatutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection
29TIII(E)Enforcement and Remedies
29TIII(E)5Actions
29Tk351Nature and form
(Formerly 382k864 Trade Regulation)
An action under the unfair competition law
(UCL) is not an all-purpose substitute for a tort
or contract action; instead, the act provides an
equitable means through which both public
prosecutors and private individuals can bring
suit to prevent unfair business practices and
restore money or property to victims of these
practices. West’s Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code §
17200 et seq.
68 Cases that cite this headnote
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
4
alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017
For Educational Use Only
Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (2003)
63 P.3d 937, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1825...
[18]
[16]
29TAntitrust and Trade Regulation
29TIIIStatutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection
29TIII(A)In General
29Tk133Nature and Elements
29Tk136Fraud; deceit; knowledge and intent
(Formerly 382k864 Trade Regulation)
Antitrust and Trade Regulation
Monetary Relief; Damages
29TAntitrust and Trade Regulation
29TIIIStatutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection
29TIII(E)Enforcement and Remedies
29TIII(E)7Relief
29Tk387Monetary Relief; Damages
29Tk388In general
(Formerly 382k864 Trade Regulation)
To state a claim under the unfair competition
law (UCL) one need not plead and prove the
element of a tort; instead, one need only show
that members of the public are likely to be
deceived. West’s Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code §
17200 et seq.
While any member of the public can bring suit
under the unfair competition law (UCL) to
enjoin a business from engaging in unfair
competition, individuals may not recover
damages. West’s Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code §
17203.
6 Cases that cite this headnote
[19]
[17]
Antitrust and Trade Regulation
Fraud; deceit; knowledge and intent
62 Cases that cite this headnote
Antitrust and Trade Regulation
Profits
Antitrust and Trade Regulation
Grounds and Subjects
29TAntitrust and Trade Regulation
29TIIIStatutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection
29TIII(E)Enforcement and Remedies
29TIII(E)7Relief
29Tk387Monetary Relief; Damages
29Tk391Profits
(Formerly 382k864 Trade Regulation)
29TAntitrust and Trade Regulation
29TIIIStatutory Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection
29TIII(E)Enforcement and Remedies
29TIII(E)7Relief
29Tk387Monetary Relief; Damages
29Tk389Grounds and Subjects
29Tk389(1)In general
(Formerly 382k864 Trade Regulation)
Nonrestitutionary disgorgement of profits is not
an available remedy in an individual action
under the unfair competition law (UCL). West’s
Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 17203.
108 Cases that cite this headnote
Compensation for a lost business opportunity is
a measure of damages and not restitution to the
alleged victims of unfair competition. West’s
Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 17203.
[20]
9 Cases that cite this headnote
Torts
Pleading
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)3Actions in General
379k255Pleading
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
5
alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017
For Educational Use Only
Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (2003)
63 P.3d 937, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1825...
(Formerly 379k26(1))
Business relations or economic advantage, in
general
The tort of intentional interference with
prospective economic advantage does not
require a plaintiff to plead that the defendant
acted with the specific intent, or purpose, of
disrupting the plaintiff’s prospective economic
advantage; instead, to satisfy the intent
requirement for this tort, it is sufficient to plead
that the defendant knew that the interference
was certain or substantially certain to occur as a
result of its action. Restatement (Second) of
Torts § 766B.
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)5Questions of Law or Fact
379k271Business relations or economic advantage, in
general
(Formerly 379k28)
A defendant’s intent, for purposes of claim of
intentional interference with prospective
economic advantage, is a triable issue of fact.
70 Cases that cite this headnote
[21]
Torts
Prospective advantage, contract or relations;
expectancy
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)1In General
379k213Prospective advantage, contract or relations;
expectancy
(Formerly 379k10(1))
The elements of 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 wrongful acts on the
part of the defendant designed to disrupt the
relationship; (4) actual disruption of the
relationship; and (5) economic harm to the
plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the
defendant.
423 Cases that cite this headnote
[22]
Torts
33 Cases that cite this headnote
[23]
Torts
Contracts
Torts
Prospective advantage, contract or relations;
expectancy
Torts
Knowledge and intent; malice
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)1In General
379k212Contracts
(Formerly 379k10(1))
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)1In General
379k213Prospective advantage, contract or relations;
expectancy
(Formerly 379k10(1))
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)1In General
379k215Knowledge and intent; malice
(Formerly 379k12)
Although the intent requirement is the same for
the torts of intentional interference with contract
and intentional interference with prospective
economic advantage, these torts are distinct.
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
6
alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017
For Educational Use Only
Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (2003)
63 P.3d 937, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1825...
21 Cases that cite this headnote
[26]
[24]
Torts
Contracts
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)3Actions in General
379k251Nature and form of remedy
(Formerly 379k23.1)
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)1In General
379k212Contracts
(Formerly 379k12)
A plaintiff who believes that he or she has a
contract but who recognizes that the trier of fact
might conclude otherwise might bring claims for
both intentional interference with contract and
intentional interference with prospective
economic advantage, so that in the event of a
finding of no contract, the plaintiff might prevail
on a claim for interference with prospective
economic advantage.
The tort of interference with contract is merely a
species of the broader tort of interference with
prospective economic advantage.
4 Cases that cite this headnote
[25]
Torts
Contracts
Torts
Prospective advantage, contract or relations;
expectancy
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)1In General
379k212Contracts
(Formerly 379k12)
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)1In General
379k213Prospective advantage, contract or relations;
expectancy
(Formerly 379k12)
The existence of a contract does not mean that a
plaintiff’s claim must be brought exclusively as
one for intentional interference with contract,
rather than intentional interference with
prospective economic advantage.
16 Cases that cite this headnote
Torts
Nature and form of remedy
32 Cases that cite this headnote
[27]
Torts
Prospective advantage, contract or relations;
expectancy
Torts
Improper means; wrongful, tortious or illegal
conduct
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)1In General
379k213Prospective advantage, contract or relations;
expectancy
(Formerly 379k26(1))
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)1In General
379k218Improper means; wrongful, tortious or
illegal conduct
(Formerly 379k10(1))
While intentionally interfering with an existing
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
7
alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017
For Educational Use Only
Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (2003)
63 P.3d 937, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1825...
contract is a wrong in and of itself, intentionally
interfering with a plaintiff’s prospective
economic advantage is not; therefore, to
establish a claim for interference with
prospective economic advantage, a plaintiff
must plead that the defendant engaged in an
independently wrongful act.
267 Cases that cite this headnote
[28]
interference
amounts
actionable conduct.
to
independently
19 Cases that cite this headnote
[30]
Torts
Improper means; wrongful, tortious or illegal
conduct
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)1In General
379k218Improper means; wrongful, tortious or
illegal conduct
(Formerly 379k10(1))
Torts
Knowledge and intent; malice
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)1In General
379k215Knowledge and intent; malice
(Formerly 379k10(1))
A defendant’s act is independently wrongful, so
as to support claim for intentional interference
with prospective economic advantage, if it is
unlawful, that is if it is proscribed by some
constitutional, statutory, regulatory, common
law, or other determinable legal standard.
A defendant’s act is not independently wrongful,
so as to support claim for intentional
interference
with
prospective
economic
advantage, merely because defendant acted with
an improper motive.
197 Cases that cite this headnote
53 Cases that cite this headnote
[31]
[29]
Torts
Prospective advantage, contract or relations;
expectancy
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)1In General
379k213Prospective advantage, contract or relations;
expectancy
(Formerly 379k10(1))
The tort of intentional interference with
prospective economic advantage is not intended
to punish individuals or commercial entities for
their choice of commercial relationships or their
pursuit of commercial objectives, unless their
Torts
Improper means; wrongful, tortious or illegal
conduct
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)1In General
379k218Improper means; wrongful, tortious or
illegal conduct
(Formerly 379k10(1))
For a defendant’s act to be independently
wrongful, so as to support claim for intentional
interference
with
prospective
economic
advantage, an act must be wrongful by some
legal measure, rather than merely a product of
an improper, but lawful, purpose or motive;
disapproving PMC, Inc. v. Saban Entertainment,
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
8
alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017
For Educational Use Only
Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (2003)
63 P.3d 937, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1825...
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)2Particular Cases
379k241Business relations or economic advantage, in
general
(Formerly 379k10(3))
Inc., 45 Cal.App.4th 579, 603, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d
877.
26 Cases that cite this headnote
[32]
Broker for unsuccessful bidder for military
equipment contract with the Republic of Korea
had an economic relationship with the
unsuccessful bidder that contained the
probability of future economic benefit to broker,
and thus broker could state cause of action
against successful bidder and its agent for
intentional interference with prospective
economic advantage; broker had an agency
relationship with unsuccessful bidder under
which broker’s commission was fixed at 15
percent of the contract price, and broker’s
commission would have exceeded $30 million if
unsuccessful bidder had been awarded the
contract.
Torts
Business relations or economic advantage, in
general
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)2Particular Cases
379k241Business relations or economic advantage, in
general
(Formerly 379k10(3))
Allegations of broker for unsuccessful bidder for
military equipment contract with the Republic of
Korea, stating that agent for the successful
bidder engaged in bribery and offered sexual
favors to key Korean officials in violation of
the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in order to
obtain the contract from Korea, and that
commissions paid by successful bidder to its
agent exceeded the maximum allowable
amounts established by the Act, satisfied
requirement of an independently wrongful act,
for purposes of stating claim against the
successful bidder and its agent for intentional
interference
with
prospective
economic
advantage. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, §
30A(a)(1)(A), as amended, 15 U.S.C.A. §
78dd–1(a)(1)(A); Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
of 1977, § 104(a)(1)(A, B), 15 U.S.C.A. §
78dd–2(a)(1)(A, B).
11 Cases that cite this headnote
[33]
Torts
Business relations or economic advantage, in
general
6 Cases that cite this headnote
[34]
Torts
Prospective advantage, contract or relations;
expectancy
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)1In General
379k213Prospective advantage, contract or relations;
expectancy
(Formerly 379k10(1))
The tort of intentional interference with
prospective economic advantage protects the
expectation that the plaintiff’s economic
relationship with a third party eventually will
yield the desired benefit, not necessarily the
more speculative expectation that a potentially
beneficial relationship will arise.
129 Cases that cite this headnote
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
9
alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017
For Educational Use Only
Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (2003)
63 P.3d 937, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1825...
[35]
Torts
Knowledge and intent; malice
Torts
Improper means; wrongful, tortious or illegal
conduct
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)1In General
379k215Knowledge and intent; malice
(Formerly 379k26(1), 379k10(1))
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)1In General
379k218Improper means; wrongful, tortious or
illegal conduct
(Formerly 379k10(1))
[36]
379III(B)2Particular Cases
379k241Business relations or economic advantage, in
general
(Formerly 379k15)
Allegations of broker for unsuccessful bidder for
military equipment contract with the Republic of
Korea
satisfied
proximate
causation
requirement, for purposes of stating claim
against successful bidder and its agent for
intentional interference with prospective
economic advantage; broker claimed that
unsuccessful bidder would have been awarded
the contract but for the interference of successful
bidder and its agent, that unsuccessful bidder’s
product was superior and its bid was
significantly lower, and that broker lost a 15
percent commission as a direct result of
successful bidder’s tortious acts.
Intent element of an intentional interference
with prospective economic advantage claim
requires a plaintiff to plead (1) that the
defendant engaged in an independently wrongful
act, and (2) that the defendant acted either with
the desire to interfere or the knowledge that
interference was certain or substantially certain
to occur as a result of its action.
All Citations
53 Cases that cite this headnote
29 Cal.4th 1134, 63 P.3d 937, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29, 03 Cal.
Daily Op. Serv. 1825, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2291
3 Cases that cite this headnote
Torts
Business relations or economic advantage, in
general
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
End of Document
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
10
alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017
For Educational Use Only
Lovesy v. Armed Forces Benefit Ass’n, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2008)
2008 WL 4856144
United States District Court,
N.D. California.
Brad LOVESY and Pacific Consolidated
Investments, Inc., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
ARMED FORCES BENEFIT ASSOCIATION,
the 5Star Association, 5 Star Financial, Llc, 5Star
Financial Services Company, and 5Star Life
Insurance Company; Ted Shuey, individually,
doing business as the Shuey Agency, Inc., and TGS
Group, Inc., Defendants.
End of Document
No. C 07-2745 SBA.
|
Docket Nos. 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 48.
|
Nov. 7, 2008.
All Citations
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 4856144
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
1
alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017
For Educational Use Only
Pacific Maritime Freight, Inc. v. Foster, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2010)
KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment
Distinguished by Employees Trust Fund v. American Empire Building
Corporation, N.D.Cal., July 27, 2015
2010 WL 3339432
United States District Court,
S.D. California.
PACIFIC MARITIME FREIGHT, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Sonia L. FOSTER; the Foster Group, Inc.; and
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.
No. 10–cv–0578–BTM–BLM.
|
Aug. 24, 2010.
West KeySummary
1
Torts
Business Relations or Economic Advantage,
in General
Torts
Pleading
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)2Particular Cases
379k241Business Relations or Economic Advantage,
in General
End of Document
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)3Actions in General
379k255Pleading
Contractor’s allegations that it incurred
consequential losses after the negotiator told the
government the negotiator was no longer
representing the contractor were sufficient to
plead intentional interference with prospective
economic advantage claim. The contractor
asserted that it had not yet lost any contracts
with the government, but that it had incurred
additional expenses in an effort to repair its
relationship with the government. The
negotiator had told the government the
contractor was uncooperative, unreliable, and
insolvent and suggested that it was being
investigated.
Cases that cite this headnote
All Citations
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 3339432
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
1
alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017
For Educational Use Only
Youst v. Longo, 43 Cal.3d 64 (1987)
729 P.2d 728, 233 Cal.Rptr. 294, 85 A.L.R.4th 1025
KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment
Declined to Extend by Beckwith v. Dahl, Cal.App. 4 Dist., May 3, 2012
43 Cal.3d 64
Supreme Court of California.
Harlan YOUST, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
Gerald LONGO, Defendant and Respondent.
West Headnotes (11)
[1]
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)1In General
379k219Injury and causation
(Formerly 379k15)
L.A. 32114.
|
Jan. 2, 1987.
Racehorse owner whose horse was allegedly interfered
with during harness race brought action against
competing driver of another horse and other unnamed
defendants, claiming that his horse was prevented from
winning larger cash prize. The Superior Court, Los
Angeles County, Donald W. Pike, J., sustained driver’s
demurrer, and owner appealed. The Court of Appeal, 207
Cal.Rptr. 447, affirmed, and subsequently, vacating its
initial opinion, affirmed with directions in 215 Cal.Rptr.
577. The Supreme Court granted review, superseding the
opinion of the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court,
Lucas, J., held that: (1) allegations were not sufficient to
state claim for interference with prospective economic
advantage, regardless of whether conspiracy between
competitor and noncompetitor existed; (2) cause of action
would not lie for prospective economic loss which arose
between competitors during sporting contest on theory of
interference with prospective economic advantage, and
even conspiracies formed between competitors or
between competitors and noncompetitors would not
justify liability for intentional interference with
prospective economic advantage in sports context; and (3)
although Horse Racing Board had very broad power to
regulate and discipline wrongful conduct which involved
horse racing, statutes did not authorize awarding
affirmative compensatory relief in form of compensatory
or punitive tort damages.
Affirmed.
Reynoso, J., filed concurring opinion in which Bird, C.J.,
concurred.
Grodin, J., filed concurring opinion.
Torts
Injury and causation
Threshold causation requirement of proof that it
is reasonably probable that lost economic
advantage would have been realized but for
defendant’s interference exists for maintaining
cause of action for tort of negligent or
intentional interference with prospective
economic advantage.
96 Cases that cite this headnote
[2]
Torts
Prospective advantage, contract or relations;
expectancy
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)1In General
379k213Prospective advantage, contract or relations;
expectancy
(Formerly 379k10(1))
Elements for intentional interference with
prospective economic advantage are: economic
relationship between plaintiff and some third
party, with probability of future economic
benefit to plaintiff, defendant’s knowledge of
relationship, intentional acts on part of
defendant designed to disrupt relationship,
actual disruption of relationship, and economic
harm to plaintiff proximately caused by acts of
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
1
alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017
For Educational Use Only
Youst v. Longo, 43 Cal.3d 64 (1987)
729 P.2d 728, 233 Cal.Rptr. 294, 85 A.L.R.4th 1025
defendant.
146 Cases that cite this headnote
[5]
[3]
Torts
Injury and causation
Torts
Business relations or economic advantage, in
general
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)2Particular Cases
379k241Business relations or economic advantage, in
general
(Formerly 379k15)
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)1In General
379k219Injury and causation
(Formerly 379k15)
Racehorse owner’s allegation that competing
driver interfered with his horse’s progress in
harness race, thus resulting in lost opportunity to
finish higher in money, was insufficient to state
claim for interference with prospective
economic advantage, regardless of whether
conspiracy
between
competitor
and
noncompetitor might have existed; it was not
reasonably probable that horse would have
finished in better position.
No compelling public policy exists which would
justify ignoring threshold requirement of
reasonable probability of economic gain in
establishing cause of action for interference with
prospective economic advantage in context of
sporting event; departing from Gold v. Los
Angeles Democratic League, 49 Cal.App.3d
365, 122 Cal.Rptr. 732 (2 Dist.); Smith v.
Superior Court, 151 Cal.App.3d 491, 198
Cal.Rptr. 829 (2 Dist.).
16 Cases that cite this headnote
12 Cases that cite this headnote
[6]
[4]
Damages
Certainty as to amount or extent of damage
115Damages
115INature and Grounds in General
115k6Certainty as to amount or extent of damage
Damages should not be allowed in cause of
action for interference with prospective
economic advantage arising out of competitive
contest situation for value of lost chance of
benefit, so as to permit plaintiff to recover value
of lost prize discounted by probability of
winning in absence of interference.
5 Cases that cite this headnote
Pleading
Amendment or Further Pleading After
Demurrer Sustained
302Pleading
302VDemurrer or Exception
302k219Operation and Effect of Decision on
Demurrer
302k225Amendment or Further Pleading After
Demurrer Sustained
302k225(1)In general
Demurrer to action for interference with
prospective economic advantage based on
events occurring during horse race was properly
sustained without leave to amend, in light of
speculative nature of outcome of horse race and
public policy that no recovery should be
available for economic lossoccasioned as result
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
2
alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017
For Educational Use Only
Youst v. Longo, 43 Cal.3d 64 (1987)
729 P.2d 728, 233 Cal.Rptr. 294, 85 A.L.R.4th 1025
of interference during sporting event.
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)2Particular Cases
379k241Business relations or economic advantage, in
general
(Formerly 379k10(1))
5 Cases that cite this headnote
[7]
Torts
Competition
Even conspiracies formed between competitors,
or between competitors and noncompetitors, do
not justify imposing liability for intentional
interference
with
prospective
economic
advantage in sports context.
379Torts
379IIITortious Interference
379III(B)Business or Contractual Relations
379III(B)1In General
379k221Competition
(Formerly 379k10(1))
Cause of action will not lie for prospective
economic loss which arises between competitors
during sporting contest based on interference
with prospective economic advantage.
15 Cases that cite this headnote
[10]
32 Cases that cite this headnote
[8]
Public Amusement and Entertainment
Horse and dog racing
315TPublic Amusement and Entertainment
315TIILicensing and Regulation
315TII(A)In General
315Tk31Racing in General
315Tk35Administrative Agencies and Proceedings
315Tk35(2)Horse and dog racing
(Formerly 376k3.10 Theaters and Shows)
Conspiracy
Nature and Elements in General
Although Horse Racing Board has very broad
power to regulate and discipline wrongful
conduct which involves horse racing, statutes do
not authorize Board to award affirmative
compensatory relief such as compensatory or
punitive tort damages, and Board thus lacks
power to award damages to those who are
injured by violation of horse racing law. West’s
Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 19400 et seq.
91Conspiracy
91ICivil Liability
91I(A)Acts Constituting Conspiracy and Liability
Therefor
91k1Nature and Elements in General
91k1.1In general
(Formerly 91k1)
There is no separate tort of civil conspiracy, but
rather, conspirators must agree to do some act
which is classified as “civil wrong.”.
15 Cases that cite this headnote
10 Cases that cite this headnote
[11]
[9]
Torts
Business relations or economic advantage, in
general
Public Amusement and Entertainment
Horse and dog racing
315TPublic Amusement and Entertainment
315TIILicensing and Regulation
315TII(A)In General
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
3
alshammari, ahmed 3/24/2017
For Educational Use Only
Youst v. Longo, 43 Cal.3d 64 (1987)
729 P.2d 728, 233 Cal.Rptr. 294, 85 A.L.R.4th 1025
315Tk31Racing in General
315Tk35Administrative Agencies and Proceedings
315Tk35(2)Horse and dog racing
(Formerly 376k3.10 Theaters and Shows)
Jurisdiction of Horse Racing Board was
confined to disciplinary and regulatory matters,
and thus, only remedy available from Board in
case in which racehorse owner alleged
competing driver interfered with his horse
during harness race was to reorder finishing
positions of competitors. West’s Ann.Cal.Bus.
& Prof.Code § 19400 et seq.
All Citations
43 Cal.3d 64, 729 P.2d 728, 233 Cal.Rptr. 294, 85
A.L.R.4th 1025
3 Cases that cite this headnote
End of Document
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
4
Purchase answer to see full
attachment