Opinion ID: 59477
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Miami Meeting

Text: 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]