Plasticware, LLC v. Flint Hills Resources, LP
852 F. Supp. 2d 398
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Plaintiff Plasticware, LLC had a business relationship with Flint Hills Resources, LP since 2009, purchasing polypropylene products.
- In June 2010, Plaintiff placed four orders for 800,000 pounds of resin; first shipment began June 17, 2010.
- Plaintiff alleges Defendant instructed CSX to not deliver the June Orders and to hold them at the terminal, then ship elsewhere.
- Defendant allegedly refused to deliver the June Orders, causing Plaintiff to incur production and revenue losses while Customer deadlines were relied upon.
- Plaintiff asserts three claims: breach of contract for the June Orders, tortious interference with business relations, and tortious interference with contracts with customers.
- Defendant moved to dismiss the tortious interference with business relations and tortious interference with contract claims under Rule 12(b)(6), contending lack of specific third-party targets and lack of wrongful conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tortious interference with business relations | Plaintiff claims Defendant interfered with its existing customer relationships by refusing to deliver, causing damages. | Plaintiff fails to identify specific third parties or wrongful actions directed at those parties. | Dismissed; no plausible interference with specific third-party relationships. |
| Tortious interference with contract | Plaintiff alleges Defendant knew of and intentionally procured breaches of Plaintiff's contracts with customers. | Plaintiff fails to identify specific contracts, knowledge of those contracts, or direct interference toward third parties. | Dismissed; deficiencies fatal to claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Catskill Dev., L.L.C. v. Park Place Entm’t Corp., 547 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2008) (elements of interference with business relations; requires interference directed at a third party)
- Carvel Corp. v. Noonan, 3 N.Y.3d 182 (2004) (contractual breach alone is not tortious unless independent legal duty violated)
- G.K.A. Beverage Corp. v. Honickman, 55 F.3d 762 (2d Cir. 1995) (requires direct interference with a plaintiff’s customers)
- Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney Inc., 88 N.Y.2d 413 (1996) (elements of tortious interference with contract; knowledge and intentional procurement required)
- Berman v. Sugo LLC, 580 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (deficiencies in contract-interference claim; need specific third-party contracts and actions toward those parties)