Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01060/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01060-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Declaratory Judgment

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

TSYS Acquiring Solutions, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Electronic Payment Systems, LLC,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-1060 PHX DGC

ORDER

Defendant Electronic Payment Systems, LLC (“EPS”) moves to amend its answer to

assert a new counterclaim for tortious interference with prospective business. Docs. 86, 86-1.

Plaintiff TSYS Acquiring Solutions, LLC (“TSYS”) opposes on grounds that the

counterclaim fails plausibly to plead breach or termination of contract or expectancy,

improper motive or means, and damages. Doc. 89. The motion has been fully briefed

(Docs. 86, 89, 92), and the parties do not request oral argument. The Court will grant the

motion.

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure declares that courts should “freely

give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “A motion for

leave to amend may be denied if it appears to be . . . legally insufficient.” Miller v. RykoffSexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted).

A claim for tortious interference with prospective business must plead the following

elements: (1) “the existence of a valid contractual relationship or business expectancy”;

(2) the interferor’s “knowledge of the relationship or expectancy”; (3) “intentional

Case 2:10-cv-01060-DGC Document 99 Filed 05/10/11 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

interference inducing or causing a breach or termination of the relationship or expectancy”;

and (4) “resultant damage to the party whose relationship or expectancy has been disrupted.”

Antwerp Diamond Exch. of Am., Inc. v. Better, 637 P.2d 733, 740 (Ariz. 1981) (citations

omitted). The interference must also be improper as to motive or means. Hill v. Peterson,

35 P.3d 417, 420 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).

EPS has alleged that it has a contract with Merrick Bank, that it is negotiating a

renewal, and that TSYS is aware of these facts. Doc. 86-1 at 22. EPS also alleges that TSYS

encouraged Merrick Bank to refrain from renewing the contract. Id. TSYS challenges

plausibility with regard to termination of the contract or expectancy, improper motive or

means, and damages. Doc. 89. EPS does not allege that Merrick Bank did not renew the

contract, but that it did not invite EPS to a conference that would be useful in developing the

contract and in conducting its business. Doc. 86-1 at 22. 

TSYS argues that the breach or termination must actually have happened and that such

occurrence must be pled. Doc. 89 at 4-5. EPS responds that Antwerp recognizes liability as

long as there was an effect of dampening business transactions or sales. Doc. 92 at 4. The

Court finds this sufficient under Antwerp to state a claim.

TSYS argues that EPS has filed sufficiently to allege improper motive, arguing that

the allegation is conclusory. Viewed in the context of the entire answer and counterclaim,

the Court finds sufficient factual allegations to support an allegation of improper motive.

TSYS’ factual arguments are more properly addressed at the summary judgment stage.

Finally, TSYS argues that EPS has not alleged facts showing damages as required by

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). The Court finds that the proposed EPS

counterclaim sufficiently alleges the fact of damages. Doc. 86-1, ¶ 111. Whether EPS can

present evidence in support of that allegation may be addressed at summary judgment.

Applying the liberal amendment policy of Rule 15, EPS’s motion to amend will be

granted.

Case 2:10-cv-01060-DGC Document 99 Filed 05/10/11 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

IT IS ORDERED that EPS’s motion to amend (Doc. 86) is granted. The Clerk shall

file the Proposed Amended Counterclaims lodged as Doc. 87. 

DATED this 10th day of May, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01060-DGC Document 99 Filed 05/10/11 Page 3 of 3