Khurana v. North Central District Health Department

MEMORANDUM

Praveen Khurana appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of the inspections of his restaurant and the suspensions of his food license. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Szajer v. City of Los Angeles, 632 F.3d 607, 610 (9th Cir.2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Khurana’s claims for tortious interference with a prospective economic advantage because Khurana failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ conduct was wrongful or whether defendants had an improper motive. See Syringa Networks, LLC. v. Idaho Dep’t of Admin., 155 Idaho 55 , 305 P.3d 499, 508-09 (2013) (the' elements of a tortious with prospective economic advantage claim); see also Idaho First Nat’l Bank v. Bliss Valley Foods, Inc., 121 Idaho 266 , 824 P.2d 841, 861 (1991) (interference must be “wrongful by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself’) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Khurana’s claims for intentional and…