Urica, Inc. v. Medline Industries, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

Urica, Inc. (“Urica”) asks us to reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant Medline Industries, Inc. (“Medline”) on Urica’s inducing breach of contract claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm.

Under California law, there are five elements for a claim of intentional interference with contractual relations: “(1) a valid contract between plaintiff and a third party; (2) defendant’s knowledge of this contract; (3) defendant’s intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; (4) actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; and (5) resulting damage.” Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 50 Cal.3d 1118, 1126 , 270 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 791 P.2d 587 (1990). Each element must be established to succeed on the claim. The district court correctly found that Urica failed to offer proof of resulting damages.

“[Djamages for the loss of prospective profits are recoverable where the evidence makes reasonably certain their occurrence and extent.” Grupe v. Glick, 26 Cal.2d 680, 693 , 160 P.2d 832 (1945). During trial, Uri- ca conceded that it could not make an admissible claim for…