From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Seabury Smith, Inc. v. Payne Financial

United States District Court, E.D. Washington
Sep 13, 2005
No. CV-03-481-JLQ (E.D. Wash. Sep. 13, 2005)

Opinion

No. CV-03-481-JLQ.

September 13, 2005


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


Trial of this matter is set for 9 a.m. on Monday, September 19, 2005. By reason of the matters set forth herein, counsel shall be present in court at 8:30 a.m. on that date for discussion, inter alia, of the following matters.

While the Defendants have not filed a Motion For Summary Judgment as to the applicability of the Washington Consumer Protection Act in this case, the court has previously indicated doubt concerning whether the evidence, as now understood by the court, would warrant the submittal of that claim to the jury. Further briefing by the court indicates that the claims herein involve a private dispute between the parties and the element of "public interest" is lacking. See Hangman Ridge v. Safeco, 719 P. 2d 531 (Wa. Sup. Ct. 1986) and Goodyear v. Whiteman, 935 P. 2d. 628 (Wa. App. Ct. 1997). These views of the court are made known in order for the Plaintiff to determine whether it wishes to inform the jury of that specific claim prior to the court ruling on the efficacy thereof.

In the court's Memorandum Opinion dated July 29, 2005, the court ruled that the first three elements of the tortious interference claim had been established. The finding that the third element of that claim had been established as a matter of law is withdrawn, subject to the further Order of this court. At the present time, and in preparation of draft Jury Instructions, the court understands that the tortious interference claim is only against Payne. The court further views, without ruling that the first element is the existence of a valid contract between the Plaintiff and the individual Defendants, Eugenio and Bulger. That element is not disputed. The second element would appear to be that Payne knew of the existence of the contracts. Again, that is not disputed. The third element would appear to be whether Payne intentionally induced the breach of those contracts, as opposed to the transfer of the insurance accounts as referenced in the July 29, 2005 Memorandum. Whether Payne did so would seem to be a question of fact and thus the withdrawal of the prior ruling. The fourth element in this claim would seem to be subsumed in the "wrongful" aspect of the third element. The last element would be the damage issue.

The foregoing is not intended to be a final ruling on these issues, but is merely intended to alert counsel to the issues which need further discussion.

The Clerk of this court shall enter this Order and forward copies to counsel.


Summaries of

Seabury Smith, Inc. v. Payne Financial

United States District Court, E.D. Washington
Sep 13, 2005
No. CV-03-481-JLQ (E.D. Wash. Sep. 13, 2005)
Case details for

Seabury Smith, Inc. v. Payne Financial

Case Details

Full title:SEABURY SMITH, INC., Plaintiff, v. PAYNE FINANCIAL, et al, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Washington

Date published: Sep 13, 2005

Citations

No. CV-03-481-JLQ (E.D. Wash. Sep. 13, 2005)