Syed v. Poulos
2016 Ohio 3168
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In 1998 Kashif Syed and a partner formed Y.A.G., Inc., operating Deli Mart on leased premises owned by the Poulos family; Syed later became 50% owner with Sukhawant Singh.
- Deli Mart operated month-to-month after 2005; Singh managed daily operations and agreed to pay Syed $1,925/month under a verbal arrangement.
- In 2010 Poulos terminated Y.A.G.’s month-to-month tenancy effective October 31, 2010; by mutual agreement Syed and Singh closed Deli Mart in November 2010 and split Y.A.G.’s assets.
- After the closure, Randhawa (Singh’s wife) formed Nishkam One, Inc. and, through agreements with Poulos and later Attwal, became involved in operating a new convenience store (City Mart) at the same location.
- Syed sued (refiled in 2014) for civil conspiracy/collusion, tortious interference with business relationship/prospective economic advantage, and bad faith dealing/breach of fiduciary duty; defendants moved for summary judgment which the trial court granted; Syed’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tortious interference with business relationship / prospective economic advantage | Syed argued defendants schemed to divest him of his interest in Deli Mart without payment by interfering with the business and its relationships | Defendants argued Deli Mart had already closed by mutual agreement; Poulos lawfully terminated the lease and defendants had the right to contract and operate a new store | Summary judgment for defendants: no evidence of interference or improper conduct; Deli Mart’s closure ended the relevant business relationship |
| Bad faith dealing / breach of fiduciary duty against Singh | Syed alleged Singh ran down the business and diverted opportunities after Syed refused to sell his share | Singh (and others) noted lack of any supporting evidence and no specific facts showing breach or bad faith | Summary judgment for defendants: Syed offered no evidence or argument to create a genuine factual dispute |
| Civil conspiracy / collusion | Syed relied on allegations that defendants acted in concert to deprive him of his interest without payment | Defendants argued no unlawful underlying act, no specific fraudulent acts, and insufficient evidence of concerted wrongdoing | Summary judgment for defendants: no underlying unlawful act proved; allegations were conclusory and not supported by admissible evidence |
| Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment | Syed claimed newly discovered evidence and asserted res judicata barred summary disposition because summary judgment was previously denied | Defendants and trial court: prior denial was interlocutory and the new materials were not shown to be undiscoverable earlier; movant failed to meet Civ.R. 60(B) requirements | Denial affirmed: Syed did not show newly discovered evidence that could likely change the result, nor that it could not have been discovered earlier; no meritorious claim shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367, 696 N.E.2d 201 (standard for summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 662 N.E.2d 264 (moving party’s and nonmoving party’s burdens on summary judgment)
- Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A. v. Arter & Hadden, 85 Ohio St.3d 171, 707 N.E.2d 853 (interference actionable only for improper conduct)
- Kenty v. Transamerica Premium Ins. Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 415, 650 N.E.2d 863 (elements of civil conspiracy)