Beauty Center, Inc. v. Matrix Essentials, Inc.

MEMORANDUM *

No evidence supports Beauty Center’s claims of civil conspiracy and conspiracy in restraint of trade. Instead, the only plausible explanation for the termination of Beauty Center’s at-will contract is that defendants-appellees intended to enforce the restriction on the resale of certain products.

Beauty Center’s misrepresentation, es-toppel, and breach of contract claims are also without merit. Beauty Center breached the contract by offering to sell and selling Matrix products retail in sizes intended only for salon use.

The claim of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage fails because no evidence suggests that defendants-appellees took “[ijmproper or illegal” actions. Las Vegas-TonopahReno Stage Line, Inc. v. Gray Line Tours, 106 Nev. 283 , 792 P.2d 386 , 388 n. 1 (Nev. 1990). As for the claim of intentional interference with contract, it is undisputed that Phoenix Beauty had agreed not to sell Matrix products to “any salon or individual who has in the past diverted or reasonably has been suspected of diverting” such products. The fact that Matrix asked Phoenix Beauty to honor that agreement does not amount to unlawful interference with…