ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT AS TO WHETHER [APPELLEE] RONALD NIPPLE INDIRECTLY SOLD MODULAR HOMES TO CUSTOMERS OF [CBS] AND [PBS] IN VIOLATION OF HIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, WHERE THE RECORD SHOWS THAT [ICON] SOLD MODULAR HOMES TO 28 OF THE RESTRICTED CUSTOMERS DURING THE YEARS OF [APPELLEE] RONALD NIPPLE'S RESTRICTED PERIOD, AND WHERE THE RECORD SHOWS THAT RONALD NIPPLE WAS THE KEY PERSON IN FORMING, FINANCING, AND OPERATING ICON AND HAD DE FACTO CONTROL OF THE COMPANY?
DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHERE IT MADE A FINDING OF FACT THAT ENFORCEMENT OF THE "INDIRECT" SALES RESTRICTION WOULD PROHIBIT [APPELLEE] RONALD NIPPLE FROM CONTINUING HIS CAREER IN "ANY CAPACITY," WHERE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF RECORD TO SUPPORT SUCH A CONCLUSION, AND WHERE THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT APPLIED ONLY TO SELECT CUSTOMERS OF [APPELLANTS]?
DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN
J-A20012-17
DISMISSING THE CLAIM FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS WHERE THERE IS A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT REGARDING WHETHER THE PRIOR CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN [CBS], [PBS], AND THEIR 28 CUSTOMERS DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THESE CUSTOMERS WOULD HAVE PLACED THEIR ORDERS WITH [CBS] OR [PBS], ESPECIALLY IF [ICON] WAS RESTRICTED FROM SELLING TO THESE CUSTOMERS?
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT [APPELLEES] DID NOT COMMIT CIVIL CONSPIRACY EVEN THOUGH THE RECORD ESTABLISHES THAT ALL [APPELLEES] WERE AWARE OF RONALD NIPPLE'S RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, HELPED CONCEAL HIS INITIAL INVOLVEMENT WITH [ICON], AND HIRED SALESMEN WITH CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS FROM CBS AND PBS IN ORDER TO SELL MODULAR HOMES TO THE VERY CUSTOMERS TO WHOM RONALD NIPPLE WAS PROHIBITED FROM SELLING?
DID THE COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT [CBS] AND [PBS] DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PROBABLE, INFERENTIAL, OR DIRECT PROOF OF THEIR LOSS WHERE THEY PRODUCED PRECISE CALCULATIONS OF REVENUE, LABOR, MATERIAL, AND OTHER COSTS, AND PROJECTED PROFIT FOR THE SALE OF MODULAR HOMES?
(Appellants' Brief at 3-5).
In reviewing a trial court's grant of summary judgment,
[W]e apply the same standard as the trial court, reviewing all the evidence of record to determine whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact. We view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party. Only where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and it is clear that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law will summary judgment be entered. All doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of a material fact must be resolved against the moving party.
J-A20012-17
Motions for summary judgment necessarily and directly implicate the plaintiff's proof of the elements of [a] cause of action. Summary judgment is proper if, after the completion of discovery relevant to the motion, including the production of expert reports, an adverse party who will bear the burden of proof at trial has failed to produce evidence of facts essential to the