A cause of action for tortious interference with economic relations extends to terminable at will relationships. See Kramer v. Mayor of Baltimore, 124 Md.App. 616, 723 A.2d 529, 539 (Md.Ct.Spec.App.1999). Because the alleged interference pertains to what this court has determined to be an at will relationship, the court will construe this count as a claim for intentional interference with economic relations.

This Court has recognized that there exists "a distinction between actions for intentional interference with contract and actions for intentional interference with economic relations." Kramer v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 124 Md. App. 616, 638 (1999) (citations omitted). In Kramer, this Court explained:

The tort of intentional interference with economic relations "pertains to prospective business relations, or to contracts terminable at will[.]" Kramer v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 124 Md. App. 616, 637, 723 A.2d 529, cert. denied, 354 Md. 114, 729 A.2d 405 (1999). Judge Salmon set forth the elements of this tort in Kramer, stating that a plaintiff must prove:

Plaintiff admits that it had an employment at-will relationship with its employees. It is well settled, both in Maryland and Virginia, that parties to at-will economic relationships possess legally cognizable and protectible interests, and that they are entitled to legal redress from those who use improper means to interfere with those relationships. See, e.g., Kramer v. Mayor and City Council, 124 Md.App. 616, 637 (Md. 1999); Cha v. Korean Presbyterian Church, 553 S.E.2d 511, 515 (Va. 2001). Maryland choice of law rules apply the law of the state in which the tort occurred.

This runs afoul of Md. Rule 8–504(a)(6) and we are not required to address the argument. See Kramer v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 124 Md.App. 616, 633 n. 4, 723 A.2d 529 (1999); Md. Rule 8–504(a)(6): (“(a) A brief shall comply with the requirements of Rule 8–112 and include the following items in the order listed: ... (6) Argument in support of the party's position on each issue.”) However, we use our discretion to do so.

Preliminarily, we note that appellant's brief does not comply with Maryland Rule 8-504(a)(5), in that it contains no citations to legal authority in support of appellant's argument. See, e.g., Rollins v. Capital Plaza Assocs., L.P., 181 Md.App. 188, 201, 955 A.2d 869 (holding that the appellant's brief violated Rule 8-504(a)(5) because it did not contain citations to legal authority in support of her position), cert. denied, 406 Md. 746, 962 A.2d 372 (2008); Kramer v. Mayor of Baltimore, 124 Md.App. 616, 633-34 n. 4, 723 A.2d 529 (refusing to address the appellant's contention because the appellant violated Rule 8-504(a)(5) by failing to support his contention with citation to legal authority and argument), cert. denied, 354 Md. 114, 729 A.2d 405 (1999). Notwithstanding this violation, we shall exercise our discretion to address the merits of appellant's argument.

(1) intentional and willful acts; (2) calculated to cause damage to the plaintiff[ ] in [his] lawful business; (3) done with the unlawful purpose to cause such damage and loss, without right or justifiable cause on the part of the defendants (which constitutes malice); and (4) actual damage and loss resulting.Kramer v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 124 Md. App. 616, 637 (1999) (quoting Natural Design, Inc. v. Rouse Co., 302 Md. 47, 71 (1984) (alterations in original)). "The right to be free from interference with prospective economic advantage is broader than the right to be free from interference with contractual relations, as this right 'exists where no contract or a contract terminable at will is involved.'"

(1) intentional and willful acts; (2) calculated to cause damage to the plaintiff[ ] in [his] lawful business; (3) done with the unlawful purpose to cause such damage and loss, without right or justifiable cause on the part of the defendants (which constitutes malice); and (4) actual damage and loss resulting.Kramer v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 124 Md. App. 616, 637 (1999) (quoting Natural Design, Inc. v. Rouse Co., 302 Md. 47, 71 (1984) (alterations in original)). "The right to be free from interference with prospective economic advantage is broader than the right to be free from interference with contractual relations, as this right 'exists where no contract or a contract terminable at will is involved.'"

Capital Meats, Inc. v. Meat Shoppe , LLC, No. CIV. JFM-15-212, 2015 WL 4249166, at *9 (D. Md. July 9, 2015) (citing Kramer v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore , 124 Md.App. 616, 723 A.2d 529, 540 (1999) ). Sufficiently "wrongful or unlawful acts" include common law torts and "violence or intimidation, defamation, injurious falsehood or other fraud, violation of criminal law, and the institution or threat of groundless civil suits or criminal prosecutions in bad faith."

In the context of contracts terminable at will, a cause of action for tortious interference with economic relations "pertains to prospective business relations." Kramer v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 124 Md.App. 616, 637 (1999); see Macklin v. Robert Logan Assocs, 334 Md. 287, 299 (1994). In addition, "[a] broader right to interfere with economic relations exists where . . . a contract terminable at will is involved."