Ferraiolo v. Siemens Information

Full title: ANDREA FERRAIOLO, Plaintiff, v. SIEMENS INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS…

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

Date published: Jan 25, 2001

Case No. 99 C 5306 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 25, 2001)

Opinion

Case No. 99 C 5306

January 25, 2001

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

IAN H. LEVIN, Magistrate Judge.

This cause coming on to be heard on Defendants' motion to Dismiss Counts IV and V of Plaintiff's amended complaint, the matter being fully briefed, and the court being duly advised in the premises, the court finds and orders as follows:

FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION (Count V)

1. The amended complaint fails to allege the required who, when, where and how as to the subject promise to hire two hundred consultants. See Hemenway v. Peabody Coal Co., 159 F.3d 255, 261 (7^th Cir. 1998) (contrasting notice pleading with heightened pleading, i.e., "the who, what, when, where and how" required for fraud claims.)

2. Plaintiff has not sought to allege that Defendant's representation concerning the promise of two hundred consultants was the scheme employed to accomplish the fraud. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b); Barille v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 682 N.E.2d 118, 125 (Ill. 1997.)

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE (COUNT IV)

The tort of interference with prospective economic advantage is intended to prohibit instances of "outsiders intermeddling maliciously in the contracts or affairs of other parties." Loewenthal Securities Co. v. White Paving Co., 184 N.E. 310, 315 (Ill. 1932). In order to state a claim for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, a complaint must plead facts sufficient to show inter alia that the defendant unjustifiably and intentionally interfered to prevent fulfillment of the Plaintiff's reasonable expectation of entering into a valid business relationship. Frederick v. Simmons Airlines, Inc., 144 F.3d 500, 502 (7^th Cir. 1998) (citing Anderson v. Van Dorpel, 667 N.E.2d 129611299 (Ill. 1996)).

Here, the amended complaint does not contain the requisite complaint allegation(s) that there was any malicious intermeddling or unjustifiable and intentional interference by Defendants with the subject one hundred fifty contacts/potential clients of the Plaintiffs.¹

1 The Court has reviewed and considered the other points raised by Defendants as to Count IV. And the Court finds, respectfully, and considering notice pleading requirements as to several of the points, that these points don't support a dismissal of this Count.

CONCLUSION

In view of the foregoing, the motion to dismiss Counts IV or V is granted without prejudice. After review by Plaintiff's counsel and Plaintiff, if Plaintiff chooses, she can file an amended Count V or Count IV, or both (or neither).