54 Cal.App.5th 175
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Rexford owned a property and retained Steve Fodor Construction (SFC) to make improvements; SFC subcontracted Caliber to repave the parking lot in discrete areas.
- Caliber completed area one and planned to start area two on September 11, 2017 but left when trucks/trailers blocked the site; a disputed “move-on” charge followed.
- SFC later canceled Caliber’s work and hired a different paving subcontractor; Caliber alleged Rexford told SFC to remove Caliber.
- Caliber sued SFC for breach and sued Rexford for intentional interference with contract; Rexford moved for summary judgment arguing it was not a stranger to the contract (economic interest) and that Caliber’s evidence was inadmissible hearsay.
- The trial court granted summary judgment on the non-stranger/economic-interest ground; the Court of Appeal reversed, holding noncontracting parties (not agents) can be liable even if they claim a social or economic interest, and that Caliber produced admissible evidence (Gilchriese) creating a triable issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a noncontracting party that claims a social/economic interest is immune from tort liability for intentional interference with contract | Applied Equipment does not immunize nonparties who are not agents; Caliber may sue Rexford | Rexford: Applied Equipment bars liability where nonparty has legitimate economic interest | A nonparty (not an agent) may be liable despite claiming an economic/social interest; Applied Equipment does not confer such immunity |
| Admissibility of double-hearsay evidence that Rexford told SFC to remove Caliber | Caliber: statements admissible as party-opponent and prior inconsistent statements | Rexford: testimony is inadmissible double hearsay | Gilchriese’s deposition and declaration admissible (party-opponent + prior inconsistent); Neilan’s declaration inadmissible (no foundation for second-level exception) |
| Whether Caliber’s admissible evidence raises a triable issue that Rexford intentionally interfered | Caliber: reasonable inferences from Gilchriese’s evidence show Rexford instructed SFC to replace Caliber and SFC complied | Rexford: evidence is speculative/circumstantial or shows Caliber abandoned the job | Evidence (Gilchriese) permits reasonable inferences that raise a triable issue of material fact on interference |
| Whether respondent may challenge the trial court’s evidentiary rulings without filing a cross-appeal | — | Rexford: could not challenge evidentiary rulings without appealing | Court: respondent may assert an alternative theory that supports affirmance under Code Civ. Proc. § 906; challenge permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd., 7 Cal.4th 503 (Cal. 1994) (contracting parties cannot be held liable in tort for conspiracy to breach their own contract; discusses ‘‘noncontracting parties’’)
- Reeves v. Hanlon, 33 Cal.4th 1140 (Cal. 2004) (elements of intentional interference with contract)
- Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., 11 Cal.4th 376 (Cal. 1995) (protecting established contractual relationships from third-party interference)
- Woods v. Fox Broadcasting Subs., Inc., 129 Cal.App.4th 344 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (Applied Equipment does not immunize noncontracting parties with economic interests)
- Popescu v. Apple Inc., 1 Cal.App.5th 39 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (refusing to extend Applied Equipment to bar suits against nonparties with an economic interest)
- Asahi Kasei Pharma Corp. v. Actelion Ltd., 222 Cal.App.4th 945 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (nonparty that acquired a licensee not immune from interference claim)
- PM Group, Inc. v. Stewart, 154 Cal.App.4th 55 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (outlier: held nonparty whose performance was necessary to contract was immune)
- Redfearn v. Trader Joe’s Co., 20 Cal.App.5th 989 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (rejecting immunity for nonparty whose performance was contemplated by contract; liability depends on tort elements)
- People v. Anderson, 5 Cal.5th 372 (Cal. 2018) (multiple hearsay admissible when each level falls within an exception)
- People v. Zapien, 4 Cal.4th 929 (Cal. 1993) (principles on admissibility of hearsay and exceptions)