Maxner Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

MEMORANDUM *

Maxner Co., Ltd. (“Maxner”) appeals the district court’s judgment on the pleadings, dismissing Maxner’s tortious interference with contract action against Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1234 (9th Cir.2001). A judgment on the pleadings is properly granted only when, taking all the allegations in the pleading as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir.2001).

The elements of tortious interference with contract under Washington law are: (1) the existence of a valid contractual relationship or business expectancy; (2) the defendant had knowledge of that relationship or expectancy; (3) an intentional interference inducing or causing a breach or termination of the relationship or expectancy; (4) the defendant interfered for an improper purpose or used improper means; and (5) resultant damage. Monotype Corp. PLC v. Int’l Typeface Corp., 43 F.3d…

Dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. I agree with the district court that Maxner failed to allege a viable claim.

Under Washington law, the elements of tortious interference with contract encompass a requirement that the interference must be “wrongful by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself.” Pleas v. City of Seattle, 112 Wash.2d 794 , 774 P.2d 1158, 1163 (Wash.1989) (en banc). The majority conveniently neglects to mention that Maxner and Costco had no contractual relationship. Costco’s contract was with Chrisha Corporation (“Chrisha”) and not with Maxner. Chrisha never requested an opportunity to cure and Costco had no obligation to allow cure by a non-party to the contract.

The majority cites Cherberg v. Peoples Nat’l Bank of Washington, 88 Wash.2d 595 , 564 P.2d 1137, 1144 (Wash.1977) (en banc), to support its analysis. However, Cherberg is easily distinguished from the facts with which the district court was presented. The majority’s quotation from Cherberg is taken completely out of context. Placed in proper context, the quoted language dictates the opposite conclusion than that advanced by the majority. Immediately prior to the language quoted by the…