Case Notes: Tortious Interference

• » Aktieselskabet AF21 v. Fame Jeans, Inc.
  525 F.3d 8 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation where the plaintiff did not allege detrimental reliance on the misrepresentation.
• » Wright v. Schwebel Baking Co. | 
  2005-Ohio-4475
• » Rawlings v. Breit | 
  Case No. 2003-CA-002785-MR (Ky. App. June 17, 2005)
  Two attorneys sued their former law firm, its sole owner, and another attorney/employee for failing to pay bonuses that they claim they were entitled to receive. The plaintiff attorneys resigned from the firm, claiming they had not been paid bonuses, and sued for breach of contract and tortious interference with contractual relationship.
• » Omicron Systems, Inc. v. Weiner | 
  860 A.2d 554 (Pa. Super. 2004)
  In this case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld an award of liquidated damages to the former employer based on the employee’s violations of both the non-competition and confidentiality provisions of their agreement, and reversed an award of attorney’s fees to the former employer.
• » ATC Dist. Group, Inc. v. Whatever It Takes Transmissions & Parts, Inc. | 
  2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 5059 (6th Cir. March 30, 2005)
  Kenny Hester, an employee of ATC Distribution Group, Inc., left ATC to form his own company. In doing so, Hester hired away several of ATC’s employees, created a transmission parts catalog that was virtually identical to ATC’s catalog, and obtained ATC’s customer list.
• » Cambridge Holdings Group, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co. | 
  2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27009 (D.D.C. 2004)
  the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a claim for tortious interference with contractual relations, finding that the plaintiff had failed to describe the alleged tortious conduct with sufficient particularity.
• » CGB Occupational Therapy, Inc. v. RHA Health Services, Inc. | 
  357 F.3d 375 (3d Cir. 2004)
  Under Pennsylvania law, an employer does not have a cause of action regarding intentional interference with contractual relations against a third party who offers employment to the employer’s at-will employee unless the third party employs “wrongful means.” Such “wrongful means” must be actionable, but need not be actionable by the employer.
• » Pugh v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya | 
  290 F. Supp. 2d 54 (D.D.C. 2003)
  The owner of an airplane destroyed by terrorists could not sue Libya, the state sponsoring the terrorists, or various Libyan government representatives in their official capacities for tortious interference with the lease agreement between the owner and the airline. The suit could go forward against the officials in their individual capacities, however.
• » CASCO Marine Development, L.L.C. v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency | 
  834 A.2d 77 (D.C. App. 2003)
  A claim for tortious interference with contract may lie where a third party is alleged to have canceled a contract, even if there is no claim of breach. In addition, a landlord’s unreasonable withholding of consent to a sublease that fully protects the landlord’s interests may constitute tortious interference with prospective business advantage.
• » Osler Institute, Inc. v. Forde
  333 F. 3d 832 (7th Cir. 2003)
  Under Indiana law, a non-compete agreement is void and a tortious interference claim is unsubstantiated where employee learned only publicly available information and performed administrative tasks.
• » Tana Oil & Gas Corp. v. McCall
  (Tex. 2003)
  One who tortiously interferes with the relationship between an attorney and his client by suing them in the same action is not liable to the attorney for the value of the attorney’s time and expenses that he incurred in defending himself.