Opinion ID: 62982
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Relations

Text: The district court dismissed Nano's tortious interference claim, finding that Nano did not identify a contract that was reasonably likely to occur. Nano-Proprietary, Inc. v. Canon Inc., No. A-05-CA-258-SS, slip op. at 9 (W.D.Tex. Oct. 14, 2005). The district court noted that Texas courts have held that to establish a reasonable probability of entering into a contractual relationship, `[m]ore than mere negotiations must have taken place.' [10] Id. at 9-10 (quoting Milam v. Nat'l Ins. Crime Bureau, 989 S.W.2d 126, 132 (Tex. App.1999)). Because the negotiation stage [between Nano and SED or Toshiba] had not even begun at the time of Canon's alleged acts of interference, the district court found that Nano failed to plead a reasonable probability that it would have entered into a contract with Toshiba but for Canon's conduct. Id. at 10. This Court previously noted that [t]he Texas Supreme Court has not yet set out all the elements of a tortious interference with a prospective business contract or relations claim, and the appellate courts have not been uniform in their characterization of such actions. Apani Sw., Inc. v. Coca-Cola Enters., Inc., 300 F.3d 620, 634 (5th Cir.2002). Some [Texas intermediate] courts have found that such a claim requires: (1) a reasonable probability that the parties would have entered into a business relationship, (2) an intentional and malicious act by the defendant that prevented the relationship from occurring, with the purpose of harming the plaintiff, (3) the defendant lacked privilege or justification to do the act, and (4) actual harm or damage resulted from the defendant's interference. Id. (citing Robles v. Consol. Graphics, Inc., 965 S.W.2d 552, 561 (Tex. App.1997)). However, [o]ther [Texas intermediate] courts differ with regard to the first element by demanding that the plaintiff establish a reasonable probability that the parties would have entered into a contractual relationship. Id. (citing Santa Fe Energy Operating Partners, L.P. v. Carrillo, 948 S.W.2d 780, 784 (Tex.App. 1997)). In sum, some cases require a business relationship while others require a contractual relationship. Accordingly, Nano is correct that  under one line of cases  it need not identify a specific contract that would have occurred. However, the business relationship versus contractual relationship distinction is of no consequence here because Nano presented no evidence of a reasonable probability of either an impending business relationship or contractual relationship. Therefore, the district court's dismissal of Nano's tortious interference with prospective business relations claim is affirmed.