Though Plaintiff has failed to indicate what damages he actually incurred as a result of the loss of his license allegedly due to Powell's intervention outside the general assertion that Plaintiff “suffered severe loss of prospective patients/clients and actual loss of revenue, ” such issues of fact are better settled at the damages stage of the litigation than at the motion-to-dismiss stage. See Sidhu v. Mann, 2011 WL 900982, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 14, 2011) (“Defining a ‘prospective contractual relation' is admittedly problematic .... [i]t is something less than a contractual right, something more than a mere hope.” (quoting Thompson Coal Co. v. Pike Coal Co., 412 A.2d 466, 471 (Pa. 1979))). As such, the Plaintiff has sufficiently pled facts to support a claim for tortious interference with economic advantage, and defendant Powell's motion to dismiss this claim will be denied.