Cellco Partnership v. Jason Hope

MEMORANDUM

The district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that Verizon was likely to succeed on its claim for tortious interference with contractual relations. Verizon adduced evidence that defendant Eye Level Holdings, LLC (JAWA) took actions (including measures to conceal its actions from Verizon) whose necessary consequence was to burden Verizon’s contracts with its wireless subscribers by making it more costly for Verizon to meet its obligation to prevent unauthorized charges on its subscribers’ bills. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766A (1979); see also Snow v. W. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 152 Ariz. 27 , 730 P.2d 204, 212 (1986); Plattner v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 168 Ariz. 311 , 812 P.2d 1129, 1134 (Ariz.Ct.App.1991). Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in finding that Verizon was likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief because “[e]vidence of threatened loss of prospective customers or goodwill certainly supports a finding of the possibility of irreparable harm.” Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 841 (9th Cir.2001). Thus, the district court did not err in granting Verizon’s motion…