Sulu v. Magana
293 Neb. 148
| Neb. | 2016Background
- Kim Magana was a parent and member of the Scottsbluff school board; Patricia Sulu was a long‑time high‑school Spanish teacher who resigned after curriculum concerns were raised.
- A student (S.J.) drafted and circulated a letter to the superintendent and school board criticizing upper‑level Spanish courses for emphasizing culture over language; about 20 students signed it.
- Magana met with S.J. and suggested S.J. could write a letter to the superintendent and board; there was no direct evidence Magana authored or supplied the letter’s content.
- After the letter, Sulu alleges she was pressured to change her curriculum and ultimately tendered her resignation; she sued Magana for tortious interference with a business relationship/expectancy.
- Magana moved for summary judgment; the district court granted it. The appealability of the June 27, 2014 summary‑judgment order turned on a pending motion for costs/fees by the school district, which was later resolved, making the summary judgment final and the appeal timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the summary‑judgment order was final/appealable | Sulu treated June 27 order as appealable | Magana argued appeal time began at June 27 and appeal was untimely | The order was not final until disposition of a pending motion for costs/fees; summary judgment became final when that motion was resolved, and the appeal was timely |
| Whether Magana’s actions constituted unjustified tortious interference | Sulu claimed Magana initiated and helped draft the letter, causing interference with her employment | Magana asserted she only gave truthful information and honest advice (suggesting S.J. write a letter) and did not author or direct content; truthful info/advice is privileged | Giving truthful information and honest advice is not unjustified interference under Restatement §772; Sulu produced no admissible evidence creating a material fact issue, so summary judgment for Magana affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Recio v. Evers, 278 Neb. 405 (recognizing Restatement test and holding truthful information is not tortious interference)
- Roskop Dairy v. GEA Farm Tech., 292 Neb. 148 (summary judgment burden shifting principles)
- Steinhausen v. HomeServices of Neb., 289 Neb. 927 (elements required for tortious interference claim)
- Murray v. Stine, 291 Neb. 125 (treatment of attorney fees/costs as part of a final judgment)