IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

)

MICHAEL CARNEY )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) C.A. No. N19C-06-194 ALR

)

B & B SERVICE CO., MICHAEL )

BLOOM, DAVID BLOOM, and STEEL )

SUPPLIERS ERECTORS, INC. )

)

Defendants. )

Submitted: September 19, 2019

Decided: October 29, 2019

Upon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count III of the Complaint

DENIED

ORDER

Upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count III of the 

Complaint; the opposition thereto filed by Plaintiff Michael Carney (“Plaintiff”); the 

facts, arguments, and authorities set forth by the parties; the Superior Court Civil 

Rules; statutory and decisional law; and the entire record in this case, the Court 

hereby finds as follows:

1. Plaintiff owns a parcel of real estate located on Front Street in 

Wilmington, Delaware (“Property”).

2. On June 21, 2019, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit, setting forth several 

claims of tortious conduct relating to Defendants’ alleged trespass onto the Property. 
2

3. Defendant B & B Service Co. (“B&B”) is a Delaware corporation that 

owns the property adjacent to Plaintiff’s property (“Adjacent Property”). Defendant 

Steel Suppliers Erectors, Inc. (“Steel Suppliers”) is a Delaware corporation that 

operates a business on the Adjacent Property. Defendants Michael Bloom and David 

Bloom are parties to this action in their individual capacities and as officers of B&B 

and Steel Suppliers (B&B, Steel Suppliers, Michael Bloom, and David Bloom, 

collectively “Defendants”).

4. The Complaint alleges that in 2008 Defendants erected a fence that 

encroached upon approximately 75 feet of the Property. The Complaint further 

alleges that Plaintiff has repeatedly demanded that Defendants remove the fence.

5. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff negotiated with a third party to sell 

the Property in 2018. According to the Complaint, Michael Bloom told the third 

party that Defendants refused to remove the fence and that the fence had been in 

place for 30 years. The Complaint alleges that Michael Bloom’s statement to the 

third party was false and designed to interfere with Plaintiff’s ability to market and 

sell the Property.

6. On August 15, 2019, in lieu of an answer, Defendants filed a motion to 

dismiss Count III of the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can 

be granted. Count III of the Complaint sets forth a claim for tortious interference 

with business relationships. Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ Motion.
3

7. On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can 

be granted,1the Court must read the complaint generously, accept all well-pleaded 

allegations contained therein as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in a light 

most favorable to the non-moving party.2 A well-pleaded complaint puts the 

opposing party on notice of the claim being brought against it.3 Dismissal is 

warranted only “when the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover under any 

reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof.”4 Allegations that 

are merely conclusory and lacking factual basis will not survive a motion to dismiss.5

8. To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for tortious 

interference with business relationships, the plaintiff must establish: “(1) the 

reasonable probability of a business opportunity; (2) the intentional interference by 

the defendant with that business opportunity; (3) proximate causation; and (4) 

damages, all of which must be considered in light of the defendant’s privilege to 

compete or protect his business interests in a fair and lawful manner.”

6

 Defendants 

 

1 Super. Ct. Civil R. 12(b)(6).

2

In re Gen. Motors (Hughes) S’holder Litig., 897 A.2d 162, 168 (Del. 2006).

3 Diamond State Tel. Co. v. Univ. of Del., 269 A.2d 52, 58 (Del. 1970).

4 Ridley v. Bayhealth Med. Ctr., Inc., 2018 WL 1567609, at *3 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 

20, 2018) (internal citations omitted).

5 Cornell Glasgow, LLC v. La Grange Props., LLC, 2012 WL 2106945, at *7 (Del. 

Super. Ct. June 6, 2012) (internal citations omitted).

6 Orthopaedic Assocs. of S. Del., P.A. v. Pfaff, 2018 WL 822020, at *2 (Del. Super. 

Ct. Feb. 9, 2018).
4

argue that the Complaint does not adequately plead the “reasonable probability” and 

“intentional interference” elements.

9. To meet the reasonable probability element, “a plaintiff ‘must identify 

a specific party who was prepared to enter into a business relationship with the 

plaintiff but was dissuaded from doing so by the defendant and cannot rely on 

generalized allegations of harm.’”7 The complaint need not identify the party by 

name but “must allege enough detail for the Court to be able to infer the existence 

of specific parties who presented an existing or potential business opportunity.”8 

“To be reasonably probable, a business opportunity must be ‘something more than 

a mere hope or the innate optimism of the salesman’ or a ‘mere perception of a 

prospective business relationship.’”9

10. Assuming the well-pleaded facts are true, Plaintiff’s Complaint 

establishes the reasonable probability of a business opportunity. Plaintiff alleges 

that he negotiated the sale of the Property with a third party and that the third party 

has been unwilling to contract with Plaintiff to purchase the property as a result of 

Defendants’ trespass and representations regarding the duration of the trespass. 

 

7

Id. (quoting U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Gunn, 23 F. Supp. 3d 426, 436 (D. Del. 2014)) 

(brackets omitted).

8

Id. at *3.

9 Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Kirkland, 2009 WL 119865, at *7 (Del. Ch. Jan. 20, 2009) 

(quoting Wolk v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 475 F. Supp. 2d 491, 512 (E.D. Pa. 2007); 

Lipson v. Anesthesia Servs. P.A., 790 A.2d 1261, 1285 (Del. Super. Ct. 2001)).
5

Accordingly, Plaintiff has adequately pleaded a reasonable probability of a business 

opportunity.

11. To meet the intentional interference element, “a plaintiff must prove 

that the defendant’s interference with the plaintiff’s business opportunity was 

intentional and wrongful or improper.”

10

 “An alleged interference in a prospective 

business relationship is only actionable if it is wrongful.”11

12. Defendants argue that Defendants’ interference with Plaintiff’s sale of 

the Property was not wrongful or improper. Citing Soterion Corp. v. Soteria 

Mazzanine Corp.,

12 Defendants argue that Michael Bloom’s representations to the 

third party merely conveyed a truth—the existence of a dispute over the ownership 

of the Property—and were therefore neither wrongful nor improper. In Soterion 

Corp., the Court of Chancery, in a post-trial memorandum, found that the 

counterclaim defendants did not improperly interfere with the counterclaim 

plaintiff’s sale of a medical imaging center by faxing a copy of a complaint to the 

potential buyers.13 The faxed complaint alleged that the counterclaim plaintiffs had 

engaged in various tortious and other wrongful conduct.14 The Court of Chancery 

found that the counterclaim defendants had not engaged in improper interference by 

 

10 Pfaff, 2018 WL 822020, at *2.

11 Kirkland, 2009 WL 119865, at *8.

12 2012 WL 5378251 (Del. Ch. Oct. 31, 2012).

13 Id. at *14.

14 Id. at *6–7.
6

faxing the complaint because the faxed complaint had been filed and the existence 

of litigation was therefore truthful at the time the complaint was sent.15 

13. Defendants’ reliance on Soterion Corp. is misplaced. In Soterion 

Corp., the Court of Chancery made findings on the merits after trial. The procedural 

posture of the case before this Court requires merely notice of a prima facie case.

14. At this stage in the proceedings, Plaintiff has pleaded sufficient facts to 

support a claim for tortious interference with business relationships.

NOW, THEREFORE, this 29th day of October 2019, Defendants’ Motion 

to Dismiss Count III of the Complaint is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Andrea L. Rocanelli

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Honorable Andrea L. Rocanelli

 

15 Id. at *14.