Abbas v. Martin
689 F. App'x 43
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Abbas, an attorney who had an informal “of counsel” relationship with Handler Thayer (a Chicago firm), was sanctioned in an unrelated suit; Orrick represented the opposing banks and obtained the sanctions.
- On the day the sanctions were imposed, Orrick partner Richard Martin emailed Handler Thayer warning that if Abbas did not pay, Orrick would “look to” Handler Thayer for payment.
- Shortly after the email, Handler Thayer terminated its informal arrangement with Abbas.
- Abbas sued Martin and Orrick in federal court in New York, alleging tortious interference with his business relationship with Handler Thayer.
- The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a plausible tortious-interference claim; Abbas appealed pro se.
- The Second Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed dismissal, concluding Abbas failed to plausibly allege either sole-malice or the use of “wrongful means.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martin’s email plausibly alleged tortious interference with Abbas’s business relationship | Abbas: Martin’s email was malicious and caused Handler Thayer to terminate him, so it is tortious interference | Martin: Email asserted a legitimate collection interest; it did not employ wrongful means or act solely from malice | Dismissal affirmed — pleading insufficient to show sole malice or wrongful means |
| Whether plaintiff plausibly alleged defendant acted “solely out of malice” | Abbas: Martin acted only to harm Abbas’s relationship | Martin: He had legitimate economic self-interest in collecting sanctions for his clients | Held that Abbas did not plausibly allege absence of legitimate economic motive |
| Whether the email constituted “wrongful means” (fraud, extreme pressure, etc.) | Abbas: The threat to look to Handler Thayer was wrongful and coercive | Martin: The communication was a routine collection-related warning, not fraud or extreme/unfair pressure | Court: Email does not resemble wrongful means identified by New York law; not wrongful |
| Whether agency/firm liability made the email improper | Abbas: Handler Thayer’s later termination shows interference | Martin: Under Illinois law, a firm can be liable for sanctions of an attorney acting within scope, so warning was rational | Court: That possible agency basis supports Martin’s legitimate interest and undercuts sole-malice claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. Time Warner, 282 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2002) (standard for reviewing Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Carvel Corp. v. Noonan, 3 N.Y.3d 182 (N.Y. 2004) (elements of tortious interference and definition of "wrongful means")
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Brubakken v. Morrison, 240 Ill. App. 3d 680 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992) (firm liability for sanctions imposed on an attorney acting within scope)