Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of a contract, legally authorized to enforce the contract, cannot -be held liable for tortious interference since he is not a stranger to the contract.”); Atlanta Market Center Mgmt. Co. v. McLane, 269 Ga. 604, 503 S.E.2d 278 (1998) ("[I]n order for a defendant to be liable- for tortious interference with contractual relations, the defendant must be a stranger to both the contract and the business relationship giving rise and underpinning the contract.”). 21 . The Couri need not address DIRECTV’s second argument that claim 2 must fail because Plaintiffs cannot show that DIRECTV acted unlawfully. 22 . A violation of "court-made” law is, for example, a violation of a prior court order. See, e.g., Hewlett v. Squaw Valley Ski. Corp., 54 Cal.App.4th 499, 533-35, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 118 (1997) (<HOLDING>). 23 . Here, this would be the alleged breach 
 Holding statements: (A) holding injunction was proper after state court entered a temporary restraining order against defendants many of whom were also defendants in a federal multidistrict action because the restraining order would interfere with the multidistrict courts ability to dispose of the action before it (B) holding that because the order lacked an independent basis it was an abuse of discretion to issue the mutual restraining order (C) holding temporary restraining order void because court waived bond (D) holding that violations of a courts temporary restraining order can be redressed as an unlawful act claim under the ucl (E) holding temporary restraining order void for lack of requirement of separate bond
Output (English): holding injunction was proper after state court entered a temporary restraining order against defendants many of whom were also defendants in a federal multidistrict action because the restraining order would interfere with the multidistrict courts ability to dispose of the action before it