The motion by Defendant Michael Souza for summary judgment as to Plaintiff Claude Knafo?s Third Amended Complaint is granted.
?[F]rom commencement to conclusion, the party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.?? (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)? ?A prima facie showing is one that is sufficient to support the position of the party in question.?? (Id. at p. 851.)? A defendant moving for summary judgment satisfies his or her initial burden by showing that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.? (Code Civ. Proc., ? 437c, subd. (p)(2).) The scope of this burden is determined by the allegations of the plaintiff?s complaint.? (FPI Development v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382 [pleadings serve as the outer measure of materiality in a summary judgment motion]; 580 Folsom Associates v. Prometheus Development Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1, 18-19 [defendant only required to defeat allegations reasonably contained in the complaint].)
A cause of action cannot be established if the undisputed facts presented by the defendant prove the contrary of the plaintiff?s allegations as a matter of law.? (Brantley v. Pisaro (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1597.)? Alternatively, a moving defendant can show that a cause of action cannot be established by submitting evidence, such as discovery admissions and responses, that plaintiff does not have and cannot reasonably obtain evidence to establish an essential element of his cause of action.? (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra,25 Cal.4th at pp. 854-855; Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 590 [finding moving defendant may show plaintiff?s lack of evidence by factually devoid discovery responses after plaintiff has had adequate opportunity for discovery]; see Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Constr. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 80-81 [finding Union Bank rule only applies where discovery requests are broad enough to elicit all such information].)? Once a defendant meets its prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show by reference to specific facts the existence of a triable issue as to that affirmative defense or cause of action.? (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850.)
Plaintiff asserts only the first cause of action for ?Interference with Business? against Defendant Souza.? To recover for intentional or negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, the interfering conduct must be wrongful by some legal measure other than the fact of the interference itself. (Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 376, 393; National Medical Transp. Network v. Deloitte & Touche (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 412, 440.)
Plaintiff claims in his Third Amended Complaint that after he rejected Defendant Souza?s offer to buy the Julius Erving trading card at issue (the ?Card?), he sent Defendant Souza a scan copy of the Card in response to his request. ?(TAC, at ?11.)? Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Souza then sent the copy to Defendant Collectors Universe, Inc. (?Collectors?), as part of a conspiracy to prevent Plaintiff from receiving his rights under his financial guarantee from Collectors.
Defendant Souza has met his initial burden on summary judgment by demonstrating through Plaintiff?s deposition testimony that Plaintiff does not have and cannot reasonably obtain evidence to establish any ?intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship,? which is the third element of the tort of interference with prospective economic relations.? In opposition, Plaintiff fails to show the existence of a triable fact; he cites testimony in which he admits that when asked how Souza wronged him, ?I don?t know what he was doing. He was very mysterious.?
Based on the record, Defendant Souza?s transmittal of the copy of the Card to Collectors was not wrongful.? (See, e.g., Masoni v. Board of Trade of San Francisco (1953) 119 Cal.App.2d 738, 739 [affirming trial court’s order sustaining demurrer to claim for interference with business relations; defendants did not wrongfully interfere with solvent debtor’s attempt to settle debts with its creditors where defendants truthfully informed creditors of debtor’s ability to pay debt in full and there was no evidence that defendants’ objective was to destroy debtor’s business]; Cal-Medicon v. Los Angeles County Medical Assn. (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 148, 152 [affirming trial court’s order sustaining demurrer; defendant-organization of medical doctors did not wrongfully interfere in corporation’s business of transporting persons from their homes to doctors’ offices for examination where organization sent letters to participating doctors that their participation was a violation of the AMA’s Code of Ethics, as the organization had a special relationship with the doctors “justif[ying] the association’s interference in the conduct of its members”].)
Defendant Souza shall electronically submit a proposed judgment for the Court?s signature.
Defendant Souza shall give notice of the ruling.