and i represent sold out productions at the heart of this case is a non competition agreement that e g requires all of its artists to sign as a condition of performing at the coachella music festival one of the largest open air music festivals in the class for habitants artist from performing for other concert promoters in two ways st artists who perform at coachella may not perform at any other festival in all of north america for a period of about six months that restriction is not limited to the california area where the festival takes place or even to coachella is market generally festival in that contract is defined broadly to cover any event at which four or more artists perform whether or not they are even on the same stage or in the same location and whether or not the event is even a music festival in the same way as coachella for example concert series or county fairs seem to fall upon their definition of festival yes i think it because your remaining claims in this case all speak of intentional interference with contract or prospective advantage that you believe it must van intentional interference occurs if the means is improper and also the purpose of the enforcement and now i understand that i asked a different question my question is how could selective enforcement trying with respect to caesar is there any allegation in the complaint at all that he was instructed by a e g not to perform at your festival and no there's no allegation in the complaint that he was instructed not do you think it's wrongful conduct under or a good or a california law to just simply remind somebody that you're going to hold him to his contract i don't think that that's it that's an illegal contract and yes i of rico laws based on the sun that a rd party can say that contact you have with this rd party is illegal and i gree with you and let me just tell you what's concerning me were concerns me is that at least with respect to the interference with prospective advantage i'm the other once most you have is somebody who says i have a contract with someone he will let me out of it and therefore i decline to do business with you is that tortious interference i believe so i  don't see that essential and between a contracting party asking for that versus a rd party asking for that as i look at the edwards case that that distinction that was not part of the rationale that was provided in the ever we've explained at the clubs is a legal hole in california and under oregon law which prohibit these types of non computer agreements as contrary to public policy and as i explained to make matters worse they walk these artists out of the market for months every year and then selected little allow them back into the market but only if they perform great e g let me ask you let me ask you a question a little bit different in a little different way let's assume these contracts exist and when you go to performers and ask them to perform it as best as soapy so that production concerts they'll say no thanks i must decline i have a contract with a would you have a c didn't i didn't phrase my question appropriately let's assume that their response was no i can't do that because i've entered into a contract with them which has a clause which prohibits me from performing at this time or place and that's all  read i think simply him stating no i won't do it because of the radios cause i don't think we necessarily have a point in there because so bad because a e g hasn't taken us stats they hadn't taken it won't fall at around that time they're only wrongful act we would alleges entering into the radius cause in the st place and they didn't have knowledge at that time but you do it right it's a wrongful act you do believe it's a wrongful act to remind your performer that he has this signed this contract and that you believe it to be valid you know no further steps yes i believe that's wrongful to remind somebody of their obligations under any legal agreement don't he doesn't have to now all that and he's about to enter into a contract with this particular plaintiff i would have to go back and look at the law to see what i think about that fact pattern i mean you know they would have to know right there has to be in a hotel and then they would have to know that they're about to enter in their contract with somebody else which is the fact that and we have here of course and it back point if they are for purposes of have enough party not perform sure i understand what's actually booked for us as i understand it the district court dismissed this case solely on standing grounds never reached any of the questions that judge charlotte was exploring with your own and so my inclination but i want to hear your not the right place to start so so perhaps this is a semantic question because i'm not suggesting that we get into the merits of the particular radius closet issue whether it's valid i think what the court was considering is the special question and sold out satisfy the elements of the tortious interference claims and there are several of those elements there's intent there's knowledge and there's wrongful conduct and i think this film to allege any of those and we can rticle three analysis but here you have a threshold question whether they're standing to challenge the underlying radius was provision because that the alleged wrongful conduct this isn't a question about generalized questions  trust contacts now i realize the and i trust claims here were dismissed so surely there must be standing for a rd party to claim that a contract between two others injured i think  a rd party injured by a contract entered into two other people can has article three standing to raise that sermon act couldn't have given article three standing where it didn't exist before so i'm having a hard time figuring out why there's any article three standing problem here at all the real question is the one you did i think you put your finger on and i suggest give it troubles me too is that the district judge focus on that at all or do you just simply say because you're complaining about a contract between two other people you have no article three standing so i think with the district i should you have to put this in context for the pursuit of us really case the case was originally in any trust case coupled with a frontal challenge brought by a sold out challenging the validity of these clauses under oregon common law in section sixteen thousand six hundred dollars of the california code and the court dismissed those claims and the subsequent claims that california sixteen thousand six hundred claim an oregon common law claim because the case law is unequivocal so it's quite employers do not have standing to bring that challenge so that's what happened and then on of on a on when the fight was amended and there's a subsequent versions of this mess so that repackages finds a fine will trump our direct challenge because we know we can bring that resume and subtle result is this claim we cannot bring directly n directly through a tort claim and that's why this is related to the wrongful conduct elements because they're the directly well let me let me ask you a question then about your the intentional interference with contract claim we just take in banker's restaurant it's very california law it says no mere interference alone advantage case isn't it for interference with contractual perspectives then age and there are cases that say near invocation of a contract is not enough but when you get to intentional interference with contract the california cases for whatever reason say wrongful interfering act would be because if it's the contract itself that's not suspicious or if you look at this communication that allegedly took place between easy and taking the bankers and merely telling tank in the bank it is no you have exclusivity with us can consider it now for the limited purpose of understand that this is not a presumption please void contract provisions and that's what makes this very different merely declining to waive officially void in all circumstances provision or telling someone that  someone that this is a contractual obligation is not sufficient and that's what puts us in the in the bernard category and we have to imagine a world under a contrary rule a contrary rule would allow any rd party who's incidentally damaged by a said you cannot do its job there's no question about knowledge of the relationship but i'm not contract was for him there's no question about intent that we have it is you here the mere entry into that potentially and no it contract is on  question about whether they're standing and whether whether all the other elements of the tort claim are met our argument is that no it's known that the intent on that and the wrongful conduct element are not met here we're not making a threshold argument about is more easily read the way to judge what for it characterized it at the beginning is that's why i'm asking yes and i go back to what i said earlier that the court was proceeding based on a prior  for reasons that are not expressly written by judge mossman in the opinion and the discussion of this is relatively brief and that opinion i don't prejudge mossman as having ruled out or ruled against us on the arguments that i'm making today but i think there's a distinction there's a clean up between the special article three question of just injury and the separate question of can you satisfy the substantive elements of the court and that's why i don't think the generalized article three you know hazy allegation essential exposing yourself to claims not just from the contract party but for any incidentally harmed or benefit rd party who might be waiting in the wings lysol that was here and that we've seen it can't be the law we don't see any case validity to this contract plan merely asserting the contract right itself is not sufficient wrongful conduct wonder if you can my question is it doesn't matter but that wasn't the question i asked what what claim applies to it what law applies to which claims here so the application group case is the case in the record that has the most information on a choice of was used i think i think we're aware of right now and there here's what i would say to the court about how we did not compete a maryland a contract where maryland was the source of law involving a maryland employer that entered into a not to be with an employee california company but try to are employed for work in california and the court said california has an overarching interest in i think your honor i was just looking at the clock setting and i want to address a couple of points that were raised by my callie st of all he that characterizes what happened as an i trust claim with some tort claims that were repackaged that's not actually what happened procedurally what happened was and we have started an enterprise claim and intentional interference claims and unfair competition claims and we also had t a judgment claim against a rd party contract but the intentional interference claim to an opera competition claims those were all in the original complaint they hadn't been repackaged at all it has been the same complaint the entire time with respect to those claims and the other one i a company could not challenge in and compete agreement for an employee that they would like to hire and and defines hospital did so again new coffee without it like they relied on one supreme court opinion from ohio that had nothing to do with that injury in fact we are seeking relief that can be redressed by the court and i agree that a simple standing analysis here just like an antitrust law or other areas of law shows that we have been injured and we have article three standing to bring those claims  and and the fact that it's not a declaratory judgment case distinguishes all seven of those cases by the way all seven of those cases simply cite each other there's no law that those cases cite they are  an injunction from them preventing artists from forming sold out of the vents in oregon going forward for example i don't i don't that we have specific injunctive relief in there but we are seeking an injunction from them continuing to cause the same type of harm enter into the contract and then also email or telephone from california direct artists not to perform and and refuse to provide a waiver line requested with respect this is a sold out those are acts that were all taken in california