Case Name: Consuelo Maria Mata v. Raytheon Applied Signal Technology, Inc., et al.
Case No.: 1-13-CV-252985
Demurrer by Defendants Raytheon Applied Signal Technology, Inc., Robin Weatherwax, and Michael Woolf to Third and Fourth Causes of Action in First Amended Complaint of Plaintiff Consuelo Maria Mata
- I. Factual and Procedural Background
On September 13, 2013, Mata filed a complaint against defendants Raytheon Applied Signal Technology, Inc., Robin Weatherwax, and Michael Woolf (collectively, “Defendants”). On February 26, 2014, Mata filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) in which she asserts causes of action for: (1) Defamation – Libel; (2) Defamation – Slander/Slander Per Se; (3) Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code §1102.5; (4) Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (6) Injunction; (7) Violation of Labor Code §§510, 1194; and (8) Violation of B&P Code §§17200, 17500.
Mata alleges Raytheon is a government contractor which provides products and services to the United States intelligence and defense communities. (FAC, ¶7.) Employment at Raytheon requires high-level security clearance to access secure departments. (Id.) Mata alleges she worked as a Security Administrative Data Clerk for Raytheon and its predecessor for 24 years. (FAC, ¶8.) During her employment, Mata held multi-level, top-secret clearance in multiple programs, entitling her to earn substantially more than an individual without such clearance. (FAC, ¶9.)
Weatherwax, also a long term employee with Raytheon with security clearance similar to Mata, became the subject of an internal investigation regarding an undisclosed romance with another Raytheon employee Weatherwax had hired and promoted. (FAC, ¶11.) Mata and others were interviewed as part of the investigation. (FAC, ¶12.) As a result of the investigation, Weatherwax lost many of her security clearances and was demoted to Admin./Clerk. (FAC, ¶11.) Mata generally alleges Weatherwax retaliated against her by fabricating and framing Mata for a breach of security policies which then led to Mata’s termination.
On June 4, 2014, Defendants filed this demurrer to the third and fourth causes of action on the ground that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10, subd. (e).)
- II. Legal Discussion
- A. Third Cause of Action for retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5
Plaintiff does not adequately allege protected activity. The demurrer to the third cause of action on the ground that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is SUSTAINED with 10 days’ leave to amend.
- B. Fourth Cause of Action for interference with prospective economic advantage
In the fourth cause of action, Mata alleges, in relevant part, she “had a vested property interest in her top security clearance. By framing Plaintiff for an alleged security breach which did not occur, and by reporting this false accusation as though true, Defendants damaged Plaintiff by reducing the value of the security clearance granted to her by the United States government. [¶] In the absence of a current and ‘unflagged’ top secret security clearance from the United States government, Plaintiff is unable to work in the security field. Accordingly, the actions of Defendants, and each of them, interfered with Plaintiff’s relationship with the United States government by contaminating the security clearance held by MATA during her employment with RAYTHEON.” (FAC, ¶¶50-51.)
The elements for the tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage “are usually stated as follows: (1) an economic relationship between the plaintiff and some third party, with the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the relationship; (3) intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) economic harm to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the defendant.” (Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1153 (Korea).)
“[A]n essential element of the tort of intentional interference with prospective business advantage is the existence of a business relationship with which the tortfeasor interfered. [Citation.] Although this need not be a contractual relationship, an existing relationship is required. [Citation.]” (Roth v. Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 546.) “[A]plaintiff that wishes to state a cause of action for this tort must allege the existence of an economic relationship with some third party that contains the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff. This tort therefore ‘protects the expectation that the relationship eventually will yield the desired benefit, not necessarily the more speculative expectation that a potentially beneficial relationship will arise.’ [Citation.]” (Korea, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 1164.)
Defendants argue that Mata has not alleged the first element of the claim, i.e., the existence of any economic relationship with a third party with the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff. In opposition, Mata argues that she has alleged that she had a relationship with the United States government with which Defendant interfered and the loss of her security clearance has affected what jobs she might get in the future. (FAC, ¶¶9 and 50.) While that may be a damage theory for another claim, it does not amount to the existence of an economic relationship with a third party with the probability of future economic benefit.
The demurrer to the fourth cause of action on the ground that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for interference with prospective economic advantage is SUSTAINED with 10 days’ leave to amend.
Link to this page