Dunn, McCormack & MacPherson v. Connolly
708 S.E.2d 867
| Va. | 2011Background
- Dunn, a Virginia law firm, served as counsel to the Fairfax County Redevelopment and Housing Authority for ~30 years under an at-will contract terminated Sept. 2005.
- Dunn sued Connolly, Chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, on Apr. 2, 2008 for tortious interference with contract.
- The circuit court sustained Connolly's demurrer for failure to state a prima facie claim and gave Dunn 21 days to amend.
- In the amended complaint, Dunn alleged Connolly directed the Authority to terminate Dunn, acted outside his official capacity, and acted from malice.
- Connolly moved to demur again, arguing the amended complaint stated only conclusions and failed to plead improper methods of interference.
- The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the circuit court’s ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended complaint states a prima facie tortious interference claim | Dunn argues Connolly improperly interfered with the at-will contract | Connolly contends the complaints allege mere conclusions and lack improper means | Yes; amended complaint fails to show improper methods required for at-will contract interference |
| Whether Connolly's alleged actions constitute improper interference | Allegations show malice and personal spite guiding termination | Personal spite is insufficient to constitute improper interference under the at-will contract rule | No; spite/malice alone not enough to convert to improper interference under Virginia law |
| Whether Noerr-Pennington doctrine is implicated | Amended complaint implicates petitioning government actions | Dispositive ground was failure to state a claim, not petitioning doctrine | Not implicated; demurrer grounded on failure to state a claim, not Noerr-Pennington |
| What is the proper basis for the circuit court’s ruling | Ruling relied on different grounds to avoid the claim | Ruling was based on failure to plead proper elements | Ruling proper; based on failure to plead improper interference; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Chaves v. Johnson, 230 Va. 112 (1985) (elements of tortious interference with contract rights (Restatement §766))
- DurretteBradshaw, P.C. v. MRC Consulting, L.C., 277 Va. 140 (2009) (prima facie elements; at-will contract requires improper methods)
- Duggin v. Adams, 234 Va. 221 (1987) (improper methods include illegal, tortious, or unfair conduct; Restatement §766 concept)
- Tronfeld v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 272 Va. 709 (2006) (pleadings must state a cause of action; mere conclusions insufficient)
- Abi-Najm v. Concord Condominium, LLC., 280 Va. 350 (2010) (standard for reviewing demurrers; factual allegations accepted as true)
- Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766, Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766 (1977) (clarifies elements of interference and improper methods)