Opinion ID: 59477
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether SBS Committed Willful And Intentional Acts Of Interference

Text: To show tortious interference, a plaintiff is not required to prove intent to injure, but rather only that the actor desires to cause the consequences of his act, or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it. Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. John Carlo Tex., Inc., 843 S.W.2d 470, 472 (Tex.1992) (internal quotations omitted). Moreover, the interfering party must have actual knowledge of the contract or business relation in question, or knowledge of facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe in the existence of the contract or business relationship. Steinmetz & Assocs., Inc. v. Crow, 700 S.W.2d 276, 277-78 (Tex.App.1985). Amigo contends that it produced sufficient evidence that SBS desired to cause Bernal and Garza to quit working for Amigo to work for SBS, and that this was substantially certain to happen given SBS's actions targeted at Bernal and Garza. Specifically, Amigo points to: (1) the Miami meeting between SBS, Hernandez, Garza, and Bernal and (2) SBS's communications and preparation of the SBS Employment Agreements after the Miami meeting.
First, Amigo produced sufficient evidence that Alarcon, SBS's President and Chairman of the Board, invited Hernandez, Garza, and Bernal to the Miami meeting for the purpose of discussing hiring Garza and Bernal to broadcast and syndicate the Show from Los Angeles for SBS. Specifically, Hernandez testified (by deposition summary): in late October/early November 2003, Alarcon contacted Hernandez in response to a proposal Hernandez had sent Alarcon earlier in the year regarding SBS becoming an affiliate of the Show, and Hernandez informed Alarcon that LEN was no longer syndicating the El Chulo Show; after this conversation, Alarcon contacted Hernandez a second time, and this time Alarcon was looking for a new show in Los Angeles and asked if Hernandez could walk him [Alarcon] through the process of how SBS could broadcast the El Chulo Show in Los Angeles at an SBS-owned station; Alarcon then invited Hernandez to visit his offices in Miami, Florida, and he [Hernandez] was made aware that Joaquin Garza and Raul Bernal were going to be present in that meeting as well; and that the purpose of the meeting was that SBS was looking for a morning show for Los Angeles and they wanted to understand how that show would fit in with their current business plan. Furthermore, Garza testified that he received a call from Alarcon in November 2003, during which Alarcon asked for us to go to his office in [Miami], to go to speak with him about the possibility of going back to Los Angeles. Finally, Brooks testified that when he confronted Garza about the Miami meeting shortly after it occurred, Garza told him that they had a meeting with Raul Alarcon, and they [Garza and Bernal] were being offered a job [by SBS]. (emphasis added). Second, Amigo offered sufficient evidence that SBS paid  at the very least  for the expenses Garza incurred for food and hotel in attending the Miami meeting. Garza testified that SBS paid for my hotel, for my food. Finally, Amigo offered sufficient evidence that  at the time of the Miami meeting  SBS knew, or should have known, that Garza and Bernal were under contract with Amigo. Hernandez testified that during his first phone conversation with Alarcon in late October/early November 2003, he informed Alarcon that Garza and Bernal were working for Amigo. Furthermore, Anderson testified that it was common in the radio industry for on-air talent to have employment contracts that bound the talent to a term of years. Even Cueva, SBS's in-house counsel, testified that radio stations have similar needs in preventing on-air talent from leaving and competing with their former employers. Viewed in the light most favorable to Amigo, SBS had actual knowledge of a business relationship between Garza, Bernal, and Amigo, and, because binding employment contracts were common in the radio industry for on-air talent, SBS had knowledge of facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe in the existence of a contract between Garza, Bernal, and Amigo. Crow, 700 S.W.2d at 277-78; see also Top Value Enter., Inc., v. Carlson Mktg. Group, Inc., 703 S.W.2d 806, 810 (Tex.App.1986) (defendant knew or should have known of the existence of a contract because it was common knowledge in the industry that grocers operated under written license agreements). Given this evidence, a reasonable jury could conclude that SBS knew of Garza's and Bernal's Employment Agreements with Amigo and nonetheless set up the Miami meeting for the purpose of attracting Garza and Bernal to perform the El Chulo Show for SBS. Thus, Amigo presented sufficient evidence that SBS's actions regarding the Miami meeting constituted willful and intentional acts of interference. [22]
Amigo presented sufficient evidence that, after the Miami meeting, SBS had actual knowledge of Garza's and Bernal's Employment Agreements with Amigo and nonetheless continued to communicate with and negotiate to employ Garza and Bernal while they were still employed at Amigo. When Brooks learned about the Miami meeting, he asked Anderson to send SBS a letter asking SBS not to interfere with Garza's and Bernal's Employment Agreements with Amigo, which Anderson did on November 12. Thus, after November 12, it is undisputed that SBS definitively knew about Garza's and Bernal's Employment Agreements with Amigo. Given SBS's knowledge, Amigo presented sufficient evidence that on November 18, SBS began to draft employment agreements for Garza and Bernal. Plaintiffs Exhibit 25 shows a string of e-mails between Hernandez, Cueva, and Alarcon's secretary, Ivette Davidson, [23] which indicate that: Hernandez and SBS were in the process of preparing the SBS Employment Agreements for Garza and Bernal to work at SBS, and SBS requested Garza's and Bernal's Employment Agreements with Amigo to help the lawyer who is doing the new contracts. Cueva testified that he requested to see Garza's and Bernal's Employment Agreements with Amigo in order to determine if they existed and if they prevented SBS from employing Garza and Bernal. Upon receiving the agreements, Cueva evaluated them and, with the help of SBS's outside counsel determined that they did not prevent SBS from hiring Garza and Bernal. [24] Amigo then presented sufficient evidence that before Garza and Bernal left Amigo, SBS transmitted the SBS Employment Agreements to Hernandez, thereafter revised them in response to Hernandez's and Bernal's requests, and these agreements were significantly more lucrative than Garza's and Bernal's current Employment Agreements with Amigo. Cueva testified, and the evidence establishes, that on November 24  the day before Garza and Bernal stopped performing the Show  Cueva transmitted what appeared to be final drafts of the SBS Employment Agreements to Hernandez. [25] Furthermore, Cueva testified, and the evidence establishes, that on November 25, SBS revised the SBS Employment Agreements to accommodate for changes that were discussed between Hernandez and Bernal. Finally, Cueva testified that the drafts of the SBS Employment Agreements offered Garza and Bernal $300,000 and $100,000 per year, respectively, for a term of five years, amongst other bonuses. These terms were significantly more attractive to Garza and Bernal than their current agreements with Amigo. Given this evidence, a reasonable jury could conclude that although SBS definitively knew that Garza and Bernal were under contract with Amigo, SBS continued to communicate with and negotiate with them  through Hernandez  in an attempt to lure them away from Amigo. Thus, despite the fact that Garza and Bernal did not sign any employment agreements with SBS until after they left Amigo, Amigo presented sufficient evidence that SBS's actions after the Miami meeting constituted willful and intentional acts of interference. [26]