![]() It agreed with AALRR’s argument that submitting a bid to a public entity does not create an existing relationship, but rather the mere hope of one and a desire for future benefit. ![]() ![]() It held that a disappointed bidder on a public works contract cannot demonstrate this relationship. The Court noted that the tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage requires an economic relationship with a third party with a probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff. Justice Carol Corrigan wrote the 19-page decision, which the other six Justices joined. On appeal, the California Supreme Court held that the demurrer and dismissal were proper. The California Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal in a split decision. American vigorously denied the allegations and AALRR filed a demurrer to have the case dismissed. The trial judge granted AALRR’s motion for a demurrer and dismissed the case. The competitors alleged that American had improperly deflated its bids to obtain the contracts. outbid its competitors on six public works contracts in Riverside County, the competitors sued American Asphalt for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. After AALRR’s client American Asphalt South, Inc. The Court ruled on a legal issue it had never decided before and unanimously agreed with AALRR’s interpretation of the law. On February 16th, Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo (AALRR) won an important California Supreme Court case, Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc., et al.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |