Maxner Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

MEMORANDUM *

Appellant Maxner Co. appeals the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c) of its claim that Costco intentionally interfered with Maxner’s contract with a third party, Chrisha Creations, Ltd. We affirm the district court.

Under Washington law, the tort of intentional interference with a contractual relationship is comprised of five elements:

Leingang v. Pierce County Medical Bureau, Inc., 131 Wash.2d 133 , 930 P.2d 288, 300 (Wash.1997). In dismissing the claim following the presentation of Maxner’s case at trial, the district court ruled that Maxner presented no evidence as to the second and fourth elements of intentional interference with a contractual relationship. Following this ruling from the bench, the court also issued a written order setting out its findings of fact and conclusions of law which mandated a 52(c) judgment in Costco’s favor.

We do not find error with either conclusion. As the district court reasoned, Costco did not act by improper means in rejecting the dancing Easter bunnies it had obtained from Chrisha, which Chrisha had Maxner manufacture to Costco’s specifications. In rejecting the bunnies, Costco acted…

concurring:

I concur in the Court’s judgment, and in that part of the memorandum disposition which holds that there was no evidence that Costco used improper means. The Court correctly states the Washington law elements of the tort of intentional interference with contractual relationship. I part company with the Court’s assessment about the second element, to effect that because Costco’s rejection of the defective bunnies occurred before Costco received Maxner’s letter, there was no knowledge of the contract relationship. In my view, Costco knew that some party had manufactured the bunnies, and I would read the knowledge element more expansively to permit the tort to be assessed after Costco received Maxner’s letter. At that time, I believe Costco had a duty to Maxner.

However, in light of Costco’s contract with Chrisha, and the other evidence adduced at trial by Maxner, I agree with the panel disposition’s reasoning that the fourth element wasn’t met. As I understand the record, and the rights of Costco under its contract, I cannot conclude that the evidence presented by Maxner at trial established either an improper purpose of Costco or that Costco used an improper means.…