[brief] Plaintiffs’ claims against [...] were wholly predicated on a single innocuous allegation in their Complaint – namely, that plaintiff [...] (“[...]”) “was approached by [...], an employee of defendant [...], and was advised that defendant [...] was going to sell his practices and real estate for $10,000,000 . . . to defendant [...][.]”  Based solely on this allegation, Plaintiffs accused [...] of wrongfully interfering with their alleged “de facto” partnership/joint venture relationship with [...] and his related entities (the “[...]”).  Apparently Plaintiffs theorized that *if* [...] did, in fact, complete a sale to [...], then such a sale could be the predicate for claims against [...].  But of course at the time they filed their Complaint, Plaintiffs admittedly had *no idea* if a sale had occurred and had *no idea* whether [...] somehow had knowledge of Plaintiffs’ alleged “de facto” partnership/joint venture relationship with [...].  To be sure, the Complaint does not include either of these allegations.  Nor did Plaintiffs have any basis, whatsoever, to conclude that [...] had done something wrong *even if a sale had occurred*.  Indeed, Plaintiffs had no idea, when they filed their Complaint, whether [...] and [...] had even *spoken* about Plaintiffs, let alone wrongfully interfered with their alleged “de facto” partnership/joint venture relationship.  From the outset of the case and thereafter [...] presented Plaintiffs with irrefutable evidence -- from sworn certifications to contemporaneous communications between [...] and the [...] -- which confirmed that [...] did not enter into a transaction with [...] and had done nothing wrong.  In fact, [...] did not even sign a letter of intent.  Plaintiffs, however, refused to dismiss their Complaint.  All the while, Plaintiffs repeatedly acknowledged, including in emails and court filings, what was apparent from the Complaint: Plaintiffs did not have *any* basis for suing [...] in the first place.  In fact, even on this appeal, Plaintiffs concede that they filed tortious interference claims against [...] even though [...]’s “knowledge” and “intention” were “missing element[s]” of Plaintiffs’ claims.  Despite all of this, Plaintiffs go so far as to ask this Court to reverse the trial court’s rulings to afford them an opportunity to continue pursuing frivolous claims against [...].  Plaintiffs’ appeal rests largely on a fundamental mischaracterization of the trial court’s ruling: the trial did not rule that a tortious interference claim is unsustainable, as a matter of law, in the absence of a “subsequent transaction” between the alleged tortious interferer and its co-defendant.  Rather, the trial court found that the absence of a transaction between [...] and [...] meant that -- in this case -- Plaintiffs had no basis, whatsoever, to pursue claims against [...].  The frivolousness of Plaintiffs’ claims, in the absence of a transaction, is self-evident.  Indeed, Plaintiffs’ entire case, in the absence of a transaction, boils down to this: [...] considered the purchase of assets of [...]’ practice but no letter of intent was even signed.  Yet, Plaintiffs brought claims against [...] despite not knowing whether a transaction occurred and, worse, they dragged [...] through years of litigation after learning that a transaction did not occur.  In short, Plaintiffs never had a good-faith legal or factual basis to pursue claims against [...].  This Court, therefore, should affirm the trial court’s rulings in all respects.