Opinion ID: 698133
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Tortious or Intentional Interference

Text: 19 Air National claims that it had the financing to acquire at least one additional aircraft and that Charter's refusal to make the June 8th escrow payment and provide the promised letters of credit thwarted it negotiations with Guinness Peat. Air National concedes that it had not executed an agreement, but argues that the district court erred by requiring it to establish that a valid contract existed. 20 Under California law, in order to state a claim for tortious interference with the existing or prospective contractual rights of another, a plaintiff must establish: (1) an economic relationship containing the probability of future economic benefits; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the existence of the relationship; (3) the defendant's intentional commission of acts designed to disrupt this relationship; (4) actual disruption; and (5) damages. See C. Pappas Co. v. E & J Gallo Winery, 610 F.Supp. 662, 667 (E.D.Cal.1985), aff'd, 801 F.2d 399 (9th Cir.1986). 21 Air National was in preliminary discussions with Guinness Peat and had received a non-binding proposal. A Guinness Peat representative testified that Air National's good faith check had bounced and that we [were] miles apart from ever coming to a fruitful agreement. We conclude that Air National has failed to establish that it had successfully entered into an economic relationship containing the probability of future economic benefits. Moreover, even accepting Air National's allegations about its potential for a contractual relationship with Guinness Peat, Air National has not shown that Charter's failure to make the escrow payment or provide the letters of credit was intentionally designed to disrupt Air National's business relationships. 6 See C. Pappas Co., 610 F.Supp. at 668 (In order to prevail on a cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, a plaintiff must plead and prove intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship.) (quotations omitted).