A defamatory communication is one that tends to injure a person's reputation. See Orthopaedic Assocs. of S. Delaware, PA. v. Pfaff, 2018 WL 822020, at *5 n.30 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 9, 2018) (citing Black's Law Dictionary 480 (9th ed. 2009)).
Dynamis, 2010 WL 3834405, at *5 (citing Enzo, 295 F. Supp. 2d at 429-30) BIH also erroneously argues that Orthopaedic Associates of S. Delaware, P.A. v. Pfaff, 2018 WL 822020, at *2 (Del. Super. Feb. 9, 2018), a Delaware Superior Court case applying a state law pleading standard to a tortious interference claim, articulates the pleading standard the court should apply here. (D.I. 66 at 16; D.I. 73 at 9-10) Orthopaedic Associates incorporated the holding of this district court in Gunn, a case in which the district court was stating the legal standard for tortious interference at the summary judgment stage, not the Rule 12(b)(6) stage.
"Orthopaedic Assocs. of S. Delaware, P.A. v. Pfaff, No. S17C-07-016 ESB, 2018 WL 822020, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 9, 2018) (internal citations omitted). Because Plaintiff has failed to allege "a specific party who was prepared to enter into a business relationship" with it, it has failed to state a claim, and Count 4 will be dismissed.
Kable Products Services, Inc. v. TNG GP, 2017 WL 2558270, at *10 (Del. Super. June 13, 2017) (quoting DeBonaventura v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 419 A.2d 942, 947 (Del. Ch. 1980)) (stating elements of this claim "must be considered in light of a defendant's privilege to compete or protect his business interests in a fair and lawful manner."); Orthopaedic Assoc. of S. Delaware, PA v. Pfaff, 2018 WL 822020, at *2 (Del. Super. Feb. 9, 2018); Preston Hollow Capital, 2020 WL 1814756, at *12 ("The tort is unusual, in that its application, even if these elements are met, is circumscribed by consideration of competing rights. Thus, the elements of the tort must be considered in light of a defendant's privilege to compete in a lawful manner."); Beard Research, Inc. v. Kates, 8 A.3d 573, 608 (Del. Ch. Apr. 23, 2010) ("The tortious interference with prospective business relations standard is arguably more favorable to a defendant than the tortious interference with contractual relations standard because, under the former standard, a court must consider the defendant's privilege to compete or protect his business interests in a fair and lawful manner."); Agilent Technologies v. Kirkland, 2009 WL 119865, at *5 (Del. Super. Jan. 20, 2009); Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 63 P.3d 937, 953 (Cal. 2003) (stating a plaintiff bringing a claim for interference with prospective economic advance must show defendant's conduct was
The elements of a claim of defamation per se are: "(1) a defamatory communication; (2) publication; (3) the communication refers to the plaintiff; (4) a third party's understanding of the communication's defamatory character; and (5) injury." Orthopaedic Assocs. of S. Delaware, P.A. v. Pfaff, 2018 WL 822020, at *5 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 9, 2018); see also Preston Hollow Cap. LLC v. Nuveen LLC, 2022 WL 2276599, at *3 (Del. Super. Ct. June 14, 2022) ("In order to succeed on a claim for defamation, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the defendant made a defamatory statement; (2) concerning the plaintiff; (3) the statement was published; and (4) a third party would understand the character of the communication as defamatory.") (internal quotation marks omitted).
KT4 Partners LLC v. Palantir Tech. Inc., 2021 WL 2823567, at *20 (Del. Super. Ct. June 24, 2021). Orthopaedic Assocs. of S. Delaware, P.A. v. Pfaff, 2018 WL 822020, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 9, 2018). Agilent Tech., Inc. v. Kirkland, 2009 WL 119865, at *7 (Del. Ch. Jan. 20, 2009)(rejecting that a party must supply the names of its potential business affiliates as long as the party provides sufficient allegations permitting the court to reasonably infer specific parties were involved)
Ch. 1980).Orthopaedic Assocs. of S. Del., P.A. v. Pfaff, 2018 WL 822020, at *2 (Del. Super. Feb 9, 2018).Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Kirkland, 2009 WL 119865, at *5 (Del.
To establish a claim for tortious interference with business relationships, the plaintiff must establish: "(1) the reasonable probability of a business opportunity; (2) the intentional interference by the defendant with that business opportunity; (3) proximate causation; and (4) damages, all of which must be considered in light of the defendant's privilege to compete or protect his business interests in a fair and lawful manner."Orthopaedic Assocs. of S. Del., P.A. v. Pfaff, 2018 WL 822020, at *2 (Del. Super. Feb. 9, 2018). To meet the reasonable probability element, "a plaintiff 'must identify a specific party who was prepared to enter into a business relationship with the plaintiff but was dissuaded from doing so by the defendant and cannot rely on generalized allegations of harm.'"
In order to properly allege that a reasonable business opportunity exists, the plaintiff "'must identify a specific party who was prepared to enter into a business relationship with the plaintiff.'" Carney, 2019 WL 5579490, at *2 (Del. Ch. Oct. 29, 2019) (emphasis added) (quoting Orthopaedic Assocs. of S. Del., P.A. v. Pfaff, 2018 WL 822020, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 9, 2018)). F. Counts XIV, XV, XVI, And XVII: Fraud
Malpiede, 780 A.2d at 1099 (quoting DeBonaventura v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 428 A.2d 1151, 1153 (Del. 1981), aff'd, 428 A.2d 1151 (Del. 1981)). DeBonaventura, 419 A.2d at 947; Orthopaedic Assocs. of Southern Del., P.A. v. Pfaff, 2018 WL 922020, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 9, 2018). DeBonaventura, 419 A.2d at 947; Orthopaedic Assocs., 2018 WL 922020, at *2.