Opinion ID: 326808
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: elliot's claims against the individual defendants

Text: 36 In Count II of Elliot's complaint, it is alleged that the three individual defendants acting together and in concert . . . wrongfully induced or caused Caribbean to breach the agreement for cancellation of the Construction Contract by nonpayment. The District Court disposed of this allegation on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and, as a result, the scope of our review is well defined. 37 The object of a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is to test the sufficiency of the pleading. Thus, well pleaded facts are taken as true, and the complaint is construed liberally in favor of the party opposing the motion. L'Orange v. Medical Protective Co., 394 F.2d 57, 59 (6th Cir. 1968). Furthermore, such a motion should not be granted unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). 38 In Kentucky, intentional interference with a known contractual relationship gives rise to an action in tort, if the interference is malicious or without justification. Derby Road Building Co. v. Commonwealth, 317 S.W.2d 891, 895 (Ky.1958). Moreover, a corporate officer or agent is personally liable for a tort committed by him although he was acting for the benefit of the corporation. Small v. Bailey, 356 S.W.2d 756 (Ky.1962). Therefore, this Court cannot conclude that appellant's complaint is insufficient or that it shows on its face an insuperable bar to relief as to the tortious interference claim against the individual defendants. Corsican Productions v. Pitchess, 338 F.2d 441, 442-43 (9th Cir. 1964). 39 The last item to be considered on this appeal is Elliot's $1,200 claim against defendant Levas (for wrongful appropriation of a motor vehicle), which was apparently dismissed for insufficiency of amount in controversy. In light of our conclusions with respect to Elliot's other claim against Levas, we need only note here that under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) a plaintiff can aggregate his causes of action against a defendant and it is not required that each claim against a defendant exceed $10,000. Lemmon v. Cedar Point, Inc., 406 F.2d 94, 96 (6th Cir. 1969). 40 Reversed and remanded.