Opinion ID: 60490
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dismissal of MedQuest’s Tort Claims

Text: MedQuest brought two Florida tort claims against the defendants: one against North Bay for tortiously interfering with the non-competition agreement by 2 North Bay does not appeal the extension of the solicitation prohibition. 8 naming Woolum the Managing Member, the other against both Woolum and North Bay for interfering with its business relationships with its customers. MedQuest sought only injunctive relief, claiming that it had no adequate remedy at law for either tort. The district court granted, without any analysis, the defendants’ motion to dismiss both counts. The district court properly dismissed both of MedQuest’s tort claims. An intentional interference claim under Florida law requires, inter alia, a contract or business relationship “under which the plaintiff has legal rights,” and interference “which induces or otherwise causes the third person not to perform.” Seminole Tribe v. Times Pub. Co., 780 So. 2d 310, 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). The claim against North Bay for interfering with performance of the non-compete was properly dismissed because, as discussed above, Woolum’s involvement with North Bay as Managing Member—the only act on which MedQuest bases the claim—did not constitute a breach of the non-competition agreement. Similarly, the claim against Woolum and North Bay for intentional interference with MedQuest’s customer relationships was properly dismissed because MedQuest did not identify any legal rights at stake, and it did not allege any instances of customers not performing pursuant to those legal rights. “As a general rule, an action for tortious interference with a business relationship 9 requires a business relationship evidenced by an actual and identifiable understanding or agreement which in all probability would have been completed if the defendant had not interfered.” Ethan Allen, Inc. v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 647 So. 2d 812, 815 (Fla. 1994). Absent an allegation of an “identifiable agreement with its past customers that they would return” for future business, MedQuest has failed to state a claim. Id. “The mere hope that some of its past customers may choose to buy again cannot be the basis for a tortious interference claim.” Id.