Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 22STCV36192, Date: 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV36192    Hearing Date: March 29, 2023    Dept: 76

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the demurrer addressed herein.  As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(2), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue.  Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.  If notice of intention to appear is not given and the parties do not appear, the Court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

If the parties submit on the tentative ruling, the Court will continue the case management conference to May 31, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.

            Plaintiff alleges that, while Defendant was an attorney with Plaintiff law firm, Defendant made comments to Plaintiff’s clients which caused the clients concerns, and even one to terminate Plaintiff’s services.

            Defendant Tiffany McLean in pro per demurs to the Complaint and moves to strike portions thereof.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Tiffany McLean in pro per’s demurrer to the first and second causes of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. 

In light of the ruling on the demurrer, there are no remaining viable causes of action as against Defendant. As such, the motion to strike is MOOT.

Plaintiff is given 30 days’ leave to amend.

ANALYSIS

Demurrer

Meet and Confer

            The Declaration of Tiffany A. McLean reflects hat Defendant satisfied the meet and confer requirement set forth in CCP § 430.41.

Discussion

1.         First Cause of  Action (Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage).

In order to prove a claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, a plaintiff has the burden of proving five elements: (1) an economic relationship between the plaintiff and a third party, with the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the relationship; (3) an intentional act by the defendant, designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) economic harm to the plaintiff proximately caused by the defendant's wrongful act, including an intentional act by the defendant that is designed to disrupt the relationship between the plaintiff and a third party. (Citation omitted.) The plaintiff must also prove that the interference was wrongful, independent of its interfering character. (Citation omitted.) “[A]n act is independently wrongful if it is unlawful, that is, if it is proscribed by some constitutional, statutory, regulatory, common law, or other determinable legal standard.” (Citation omitted.) 

     (Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937, 944 [bold emphasis added].)

            Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to allege that Defendant committed an independently wrongful act. The Court agrees with this argument.

            The Complaint only alleges that Defendant made comments to clients of Plaintiff, but none arise to the level of defamation or other tort which could be committed verbally. (See Complaint, ¶¶ 6 – 12.) To the extent Defendant was attempting to “poach” clients, this is simply the act of interference itself, which does not satisfy the “independently wrongful” element of this tort.

            As such, the court does not address Defendant’s argument that the other elements of the tort are not sufficiently pled.

            The demurrer to the first cause of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

2.         Second Cause of Action (Negligent Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage).

“[A] plaintiff seeking to recover for alleged interference with prospective economic relations has the burden of pleading and proving that the defendant's interference was wrongful "by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself." (Citation omitted.).” (Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 376, 392-93.)  “[T]he element of independent wrongfulness [applies] in analyzing claims for negligent as well as intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. (Citations omitted.)” (Nat'l Medical Transp. Network v. Deloitte & Touche (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 412, 440.) “An act is independently wrongful if it is unlawful, that is, if it is proscribed by some constitutional, statutory, regulatory, common law, or other determinable legal standard.” (Citation omitted.)” (Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937, 944 [italics added].)

              For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff has not pled that Defendants engaged in an independently wrongful act.

            As such, the court does not address Defendant’s argument that the other elements of the tort are not sufficiently pled.

            The demurrer to the second cause of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

            Plaintiff is given 30 days’ leave to amend.

Motion To Strike

            In light of the ruling on the demurrer, there are no remaining viable causes of action as against Defendant. As such, the motion to strike is MOOT.