The Guide is an invaluable online tool for litigation and transactional attorneys. The Guide provides for more than 70 common law causes of action:

- Each action’s elements;
- The most recent state and federal cases that cite the actions’ elements;
- The applicable statute of limitations for each action; and
- Defenses to each cause of action.
- AND, The Guide is updated annually.

FREE – No credit card or payment required. Testimonials

Interference with Economic Relations - Negligent

1 Elements and Case Citations

“The tort of negligent interference with prospective economic advantage is established where a plaintiff demonstrates that

(1) an economic relationship existed between the plaintiff and a third party which contained a reasonably probable future economic benefit or advantage to plaintiff;
(2) the defendant knew of the existence of the relationship and was aware or should have been aware that if it did not act with due care its actions would interfere with this relationship and cause plaintiff to lose in whole or in part the probable future economic benefit or advantage of the relationship;
(3) the defendant was negligent; and
(4) such negligence caused damage to plaintiff in that the relationship was actually interfered with or disrupted and plaintiff lost in whole or in part the economic benefits or advantage reasonably expected from the relationship.”


Supreme Court of California:  Youst v. Longo, 43 Cal. 3d 64, 71 (1987) (discussing generally existence of cause of action).

California 1st District: Venhaus v. Shultz, 155 Cal. App. 4th 1072, 1078 (2007).

California 2d District:  North American Chemical Co. v. Superior Court, 59 Cal. App. 4th 764, 786 (1997).

California 3d District: Stolz v. Wong Communications Limited Partnership, 25 Cal. App. 4th 1811, 1824-25 (1994).

California 4thDistrict:  Tuchscher Development Enterprises, Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist., 106 Cal. App. 4th 1219, 1242 (2003).

California 5th District:  None.

California 6th District: San Jose Construction, Inc. v. S.B.C.C., Inc., 155 Cal. App. 4th 1528, 1544-45 (2007)


United States Court of Appeal for the 9th CircuitTheme Promotions, Inc. v. News Am. Mktg. FSI, 546 F.3d 991, 1004 (9th Cir. 2008).

Central District: Code Rebel, LLC v. Aqua Connect, Inc., No. CV 13-4539 RSWL (MANx), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137937, at *17-18 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2013).

Eastern District:  Sacramento E.D.M., Inc. v. Hynes Aviation Indus., No. 2:13-cv-00288-MCE-KJN,  2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115791, at *19 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2013).

Northern District:  Damabeh v. 7-Eleven, Inc., No. 5:12-CV-1739-LHK, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66565, at *24-25 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2013).

Southern District:  Blue Dolphin Charters, Ltd. v. Knight & Carver Yachtcenter, Inc., No. 11-cv-565-L(WVG), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127628, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2011).

2 Issues and Defenses to Claim for Negligent Interference With Prospective Business

(1) Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 431.30(b)(2) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses.  See Chapter 1 for all defenses.

(2)   Statute of Limitations: Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 (two years).

(3)   See Chapter 48 for defenses to Negligence.