Procedural Posture

Plaintiff partnership sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of Kern County (California), which found in favor of defendant corporation in plaintiff’s action for intentional interference with a prospective economic advantage brought after defendant closed its supermarket in a shopping center partly owned by plaintiffthen renewed its lease in the center’s anchor position but left the position vacantwithout fixturesThe parties consulted with several counsel which included labor law attorney and business counsel.

Table of Contents

Overview

Defendant corporation’s supermarket occupied the anchor position in a shopping center partly owned by plaintiff partnershipAfter defendant closed its supermarketremoved all the fixtures, defendant renewed its lease but left the anchor position vacantUnable to attract a new tenant to the anchor position, plaintiff sold its interest in the property for a lossBecause of its loss, plaintiff brought an action against defendant for intentional interference with a prospective economic advantageThe trial court granted defendant a nonsuit,plaintiff sought reviewThe court affirmedfound that at the time of defendant’s allegedly tortious acts, plaintiff had not been involved in a known economic relationship with which defendant could have intentionally interferedMoreover, the court held plaintiff could not base this relationship on the class of possible but unidentified buyers of the propertyThe court also found that any future losses suffered by plaintiff were unduly speculative because it had not been shown with a reasonable certainty that the losses would have occurredbecause plaintiff’s claim for damages had relied on the existence of a future market.

Outcome

The court affirmed a judgment favoring defendant corporation in plaintiff partnership’s action for intentional interference with a prospective economic advantage brought after defendant renewed its lease in a shopping center but left the anchor position vacant because plaintiff’s potential relationship with a class of future buyers of the shopping center had been too speculative of an expectancy on which to base the action.

Procedural Posture

Appellant, the Regents of the University of California, challenged a summary judgment entered by the Superior Court of the CityCounty of San Francisco, California, in favor of respondents, eight current or former university students, individuallyon behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, in their action for injunctivedeclaratory relieffor damages, which was brought after the university increased various fees.

Overview

The trial court certified three stipulated subclasses: the professional student subclass, the spring 2003 student subclass,the summer 2003 student subclassThe trial court found that enforceable contracts existed between each of the studentsthe universitythat the university breached those contracts by increasing the educational feesthe professional degree feeThe court held that implied contracts were formed between the universityrespondentsAn implied contract was created by the students’ conduct when they accepted the university’s offer of enrollmentThe university breached its contracts with the professional students when it raised the professional educational fees for continuing students after promising on its websitein its catalogues that such fees would not be raised for the duration of the students’ enrollment in the professional programThe university also breached its contracts with the students attending the springsummer session in 2003 by raising the educational fees for those terms after the students had received bills specifying the exact amount to be paidThe court rejected the university’s challenge to the damages award.