17-CIV-04899 LOCUSPOINT NETWORKS, LLC, et al. vs. SAN MATEO COUNTY

COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, et al.

LOCUSPOINT NETWORKS, LLc MARK E. BERGHAUSEN

SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT John C. Beiers

RURAL CALIFORNIA BROADCASTING CORPORATION’S hearing on demurrer

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Demurrer is overruled.

The previous complaint lacked allegations that Defendant RCB had committed acts designed to induce a breach of disruption of District’s contract with LPN. On the present demurrer, neither party provides a definition of “induce” in the context of the tort. The Judicial Council jury instructions likewise do not define the word. The Court finds some persuasion in the Judicial Council Verdict Form for the tort of interference with contract, which asks whether the defendant “intended to cause” a breach of the contract. (CACI VF-2200, Inducing Breach of Contract.)

The First Amended Complaint does not explicitly allege that Defendant RCB “intended to cause” District to breach its contracts with LPN. However, District’s entering into a contract to sell KCMS to RCB would, by definition, cause a breach of District’s contracts with LPN. It follows that any acts of RCB that were “intended to cause” District to contract to sell KCSM to RCB would necessarily “intend to cause” District to breach its LPN contracts. Therefore, in order to allege that RCB “induced” District to breach its contracts with LPN, Plaintiff must allege that RCB induced District to sell KCSM to RCB. An inducement to contract with RCB is equivalent to an inducement to breach the contracts with LPN.

The amended Complaint adds allegations of acts by RCB that were intended to cause District to enter into a contract with RCB. (FAC para. 33, 34, 36 38, 39, 43, 44, 45, 48.) The new allegations do not necessarily compel a conclusion of inducement. On demurrer, however, the Court is required to accept all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. If the allegations are proven, then a trier of fact could conclude that RCB’s acts constituted an inducement to breach the LPN contracts.

RCB argues that it could not have induced District to breach the LPN contracts, since District had already decided to sell KCSM before RCB reached out. Indeed, the Complaint alleges that District’s decision to sell the station was prompted by KCSM being dropped from the auction. (See FAC para. 25, 29, 30) District’s unilateral decision to sell the station, however, did not constitute a breach of the LPN contracts. Entering into contract with RCB did. Inducing District to contract with RCB, thereby forcing District to breach the LPN contracts, is the alleged tort.

Defendant RCB shall file an Answer no later than March 28, 2018, or fourteen calendar days after service of written notice of this order, whichever is later.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Plaintiff LocusPoint Networks shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.