During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.

Interference with Contract

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

On remand from the US Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Van Buren v. United States (2021) 141 S.Ct. 1648, the Ninth Circuit reaffirms its holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in entering a preliminary injunction barring LinkedIn from preventing HiQ from "scraping" data from public LinkedIn posts by threats of suit or technological blocking… Read More

When an Anti-SLAPP motion attacks a mixed cause of action, the motion must identify the portions of the cause of action that allege protected activity, but when the motion attacks an entire cause of action, it does not need to identify the activity at issue, since by default it claims that all activity mentioned in the cause of action is… Read More

A breach of contract is not "wrongful conduct" sufficient to support a claim for interference with prospective economic relationships.  Here, plaintiff narrowed its claim to interference based on the defendant's breach of a nondisclosure agreement.  Held, the trial court erred in submitting that claim to the jury since it was the court's responsibility to determine whether the alleged conduct was… Read More

The Congress did not show any error in the trial court's conclusion that Center did not improperly seize the Congress' corporate opportunity by running pharmaceutical symposia for the Center's own benefit.  Substantial evidence supported the trial court's factual findings that the Congress was not interested in drugs but rather was devoted solely to reconstructive joint surgery.  That the Center wrongly… Read More

California recognizes the tort of intentional interference with expected inheritance. (Beckwith v. Dahl (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1050-1056.)  There are six elements to the tort.  Here, substantial evidence supported the trial court's findings that each of the elements was satisfied.  The decedent's wife had reason to expect an inheritance from her husband, who had consulted his probate attorney about changing… Read More

A defendant who is not a party to a contract or a party’s agent is liable for interfering with the contract even if the contract contemplated the defendant’s performance of a different agreement with one of the parties. Read More

Though had an economic interest in plaintiff’s contract of employment with its supplier, Apple is not immune from the plaintiff’s complaint that Apple intentionally interfered with that contract by inducing the supplier to terminate plaintiff for resisting Apple’s allegedly wrongful efforts to steal the supplier’s technology.  Read More