ii) “harm has been caused to the plaintiff.” Harris v. Brill, 844 A.2d 567, 572 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). Case 3:14-cv-00853-RDM Document 302 Filed 02/27/17 Page 9 of 28 4 Accordingly, courts can and do dismiss abuse of process claims on the pleadings, notwithstanding Bobrick’s suggestion that somehow these allegations are immune from adjudication at this stage. See, e.g., General Refractories Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 337 F.3d 297, 303 (3d Cir. 2003) (affirming dismissal of abuse of process claims on pleadings); Williams v. Borough of Olyphant, No. 3:13- CV-02945, 2016 WL 595394, at *4-5 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2016) (same); Schwartz v. OneWest Bank, FSB, No. 13-0113, 2013 WL 6037078, at *7 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 13, 2013) (same); Sheare v. Borough of Olyphant, No. 3:11-CV-1639, 2012 WL 2527022, at *8 (M.D. Pa. June 29, 2012) (dismissing abuse of process claim based on prelitigation conduct and initiation, rather than use, of process); Sidhu v. Mann, No. 1:10-cv-2311, 2011 WL 900982, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 14, 2011) (same). 1. The Prelitigation Conduct Alleged by Bobrick Is Not Actionable Bobrick’s argument regarding prelitigation conduct is a straw man.

MDL does not allege, for example, that it was engaged in contract negotiations with any provider. See Health Robotics, 2009 WL 5033966, at *8 (dismissing claim where plaintiff had not engaged in any negotiations for extension of existing contract); Sidhu v. Mann, No. 1:10-cv-2311, 2011 WL 900982, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 14, 2011) (dismissing claim for interference with prospective employment contract where plaintiff had not identified any party with which he had entered negotiations); cf. InfoSAGE, Inc. v. Mellon Ventures, L.P., 896 A.2d 616, 628 (Pa. 2006) (prospective financing contract was not reasonably likely where plaintiff was not presently engaged in negotiations with potential investors). Nor does MDL allege any other facts suggesting a reasonable probability of contracting with any provider.

Scanvec Amiable Ltd. v. Chang, 80 F. App’x 171 (3d Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 19 (Attached as Exhibit C) Schmidheiny v. Weber, 164 F. Supp. 2d 484 (E.D. Pa. 2001) .................................................................. 17 Sidhu v. Mann, No. 1:10-CV-2311, 2011 WL 900982 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 14, 2011) ...................... 18 (Attached as Exhibit D) Tudor Dev. Grp., Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 692 F. Supp. 461 (M.D. Pa. 1988) ...................................................................... 10 U.S. Express Lines Ltd. v. Higgins, 281 F.3d 383 (3d Cir. 2002) ............................................................................... 10 York Grp., Inc. v. Pontone, No. 10-1078, 2013 WL 12142353 (W.D. Pa. May 22, 2013) .................. 2, 12, 14 (Attached as Exhibit E) STATE CASES B.V.D. Co. v. Kaufmann & Baer Co., 116 A. 508 (Pa. 1922) ......................................................................................... 18 Cohen v. Gruber, 42 Pa. D. & C.2d 740 (Ct. Com. Pl. 1967) ........................................................... 8 Dumont Television & Radio Corp. v. Franklin Elec. Co. of Phila., 154 A.2d 585 (Pa. 1959) ..................................................................................... 16 Case 3:14-cv-00853-RDM Document