Opinion ID: 210965
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Intentional Interference Claim

Text: 41 To establish intentional interference, Optivus must demonstrate: 42 1. the existence of an advantageous business relationship under which that party has legal rights; 43 2. an intentional and unjustified interference with that relationship by the defendant; and 44 3. damage to the plaintiff as a result of the interference with the business relationship. 45 Ahern v. Boeing Co., 701 F.2d 142, 143-44 (11th Cir.1983) (discussing Florida law). The district court concluded that Optivus failed to show the existence of a business relationship with Florida after the letter of intent expired on March 15, 2000. Unfair Competition Claims Order, slip op. at 35. 46 Optivus argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to IBA on the intentional interference claim because issues of fact exist as to whether a business relationship between Optivus and Florida existed at the time of IBA's conduct and as to whether IBA's conduct was legitimate competition. IBA counters that after Optivus's letter of intent expired on March 15, 2000, Optivus had no business relationship with Florida, and thus no legal rights, that would preclude IBA's legitimate competition. 47 The district court's conclusion was not in error. A business relationship is generally evidenced by an actual and identifiable understanding or agreement which in all probability would have been completed if the defendant had not interfered. Ethan Ethan Allen, Inc. v. Georgetown Manor, 647 So.2d 812, 815 (Fla.1994). Optivus's arguments demonstrating a business relationship rely entirely on events and interactions that occurred before March 15, 2000. To the extent these exchanges did create a business relationship, that relationship clearly ended with the expiration of the letter of intent. Optivus points to no evidence of an actual and identifiable understanding or agreement between it and Florida after the letter of intent expired. Moreover, Optivus points to no conduct by IBA before the letter of intent expired that could constitute an intentional and unjustified interference. Accordingly, the district court did not err in awarding summary judgment to IBA on this claim.