![]() Accordingly, as discussed above, rather than alleging the existence of a contractual relationship, Plaintiff must instead allege facts giving rise to some reasonable expectation of economic advantage, and Plaintiff has met this burden. New Jersey recognizes that the tortious interference with prospective economic benefit or advantage cause of action is separate and distinct from tortious interference with an existing contract. The Court is not convinced, however, that such specificity in pleading is required under the notice pleading standard."). May 6, 2005) ("Plaintiff would have the Court read these cases to require a pleading party to name a specific prospective customer or contract with which another party interfered. 29, 2006) (holding that a plaintiff need not identify specific lost business opportunities in its pleading for tortious interference) Syncsort Inc. News America Marketing In-Store Services, Inc., No. Indus., Ltd., 2008 WL 3413862 at *9 ("Rule 8(a) does not require a party to identify a specific prospective customer or contract.") Floorgraphics Inc., v. However, a plaintiff does not need to allege specific prospective customers or contracts to show a reasonable expectation of prospective economic benefit. Nevertheless, Defendant insists that a "plaintiff asserting a tortious interference claim must `allege facts that, if true, would give rise to a reasonable probability that particular anticipated contracts would have been entered into.'" See Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion to Dismiss at 7 (citing Eli Lilly Co.Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Benefit Go to
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |