Court Opinion

ID: 9481485
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:20:19.995003+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:20.478355
License: Public Domain

WELLFORD, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
The following “facts” are recited verbatim from the amended complaint in this case (footnotes are added by this author):
*2845. On or about September 30, 1988, Monette paid approximately $28,000 for the purchase of a bread route. The bread route was purchased from Sam Picarella.1
7. Monette had full proprietary rights to the bread run. Monette had no contractual relationship with International Baking which would require Monette to purchase bread products from International Baking.
8. Monette had a contractual relationship with his customers who were reselling the bread at retail. Such contractual relationships were well established.2
10. On Tuesday, February 21, 1989, Earl and Malandruccolo informed Mon-ette after Monette’s bread truck was loaded for delivery, that International Baking was not going to sell any more bread to Monette,
11. On February 21, 1989, Malandruc-colo asked whether the route was for sale. Monette replied that he would sell it for $15,000.00. Malandruccolo replied that $15,000.00 was too much money.
12. On Tuesday, February 21, 1989, Malandruccolo and Earl stopped at all of Monette’s customers, the names of which Earl had previously written down, and told them that they would be given a reduced price were they to purchase bread from International Baking and that Monette would no longer be delivering their bread. International Baking has begun to service Monette’s bread route with its own truck and driver.
Monette testified that due to a family situation he had not made any deliveries on February 18, 1989. This absence admittedly upset defendants who made their dissatisfaction clear. Monette also testified that “a few weeks before [February 21, 1989] he put it in the paper [an advertisement to sell the route] because it was too much on his nerves.” Monette therefore operated the route for about four and a half months before going out of business. He waited to sell the route before giving it up and offered it for sale, unsuccessfully, for $15,-000. It is obvious, therefore, that a jury award for compensatory relief in the amount of $60,00.0 was grossly excessive and unsupported by the evidence. Without a very substantial remittitur, I would find it an abuse of discretion not to grant defendants a new trial on this account even if it were determined that plaintiff had, in fact, made out a case for damages. See Bahr v. Miller Bros. Creamery, 365 Mich. 415, 428, 112 N.W.2d 463, 470 (1963).
I would further conclude that plaintiff has failed to make out a case. The district court did not commit error in granting a directed verdict on the claims of interference with contractual relations and misuse of trade secrets. The remaining claim was “intentional interference with prospective economic advantage,” a vague and indefinite kind of tort at best.
We look in this diversity case to Michigan law for a definition and analysis of this unusual cause of action. The act of the defendant in interfering must be intentional, done to accomplish an unlawful purpose, and without legal justification. See Bahr, 365 Mich, at 415, 112 N.W.2d at 463; Wilkinson v. Powe, 300 Mich. 275, 1 N.W.2d 539 (1942). That defendants deceitfully obtained knowledge of Monette’s customers is not enough in my view to carry plaintiff’s burden. Plaintiff had other suppliers on his route and there is no showing that he could not have obtained other sources than AM-7-7 Baking Co. if he desired to maintain his route. There is no showing that defendants induced customers away from Monette; they simply exercised a right to discontinue business with an independent routeman they deemed unsatisfactory.
The cases relied upon by plaintiff involve the taking away of a complete source from the complaining party with an unlawful purpose. Monette had other sources and *285was desirous anyway of selling his route if he could obtain a satisfactory price.
Accordingly, I would reverse, or in the alternative, grant a new trial or a remit-titur on the amount of damages.

. Picarella had purchased the route six and a half years previously for $30,000.

. Monette had no written contract assuring any quantity for future delivery.