Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 11-2327
JAMES M. DUNLAP,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COTTMAN TRANSMISSIONS SYSTEMS, LLC; TODD P. LEFF,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District
Judge. (2:11-cv-00272-AWA-DEM)
Argued:
Decided:
ARGUED:
Crystal M. Johnson, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA SCHOOL OF
LAW,
Appellate
Litigation
Clinic,
Athens,
Georgia,
for
Appellant. James C. Rubinger, PLAVE KOCH PLC, Reston, Virginia,
for Appellees.
ON BRIEF:
Peter B. Rutledge, Paula Briceno,
Brittany Cambre, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA SCHOOL OF LAW, Appellate
Litigation Clinic, Athens, Georgia, for Appellant.
Benjamin B.
Reed, PLAVE KOCH PLC, Reston, Virginia, for Appellees.
PER CURIAM:
The background of this case is discussed in more detail in
our prior order.
the
second
defendant-appellee,
became
the
Todd
president
of
and
including
Leff,
Joseph
along
with
Truskowski
some
and
of
Robert
local
Biller,
competitors,
conspired
to
resulted
in
irreparable
to
deprived
of
marketing
franchise
agreement.
harm
benefits
his
business
that
Accordingly,
because
typically
Dunlaps
it
flow
from
complaint
was
a
names
business
(2)
conspiracy
tortious
statute,
interference
Va.
with
Code
18.2-499,
contract,
and
(3)
With respect
had
predicate
failed
for
the
to
allege
conspiracy
2
valid
unlawful
because
act
neither
as
tortious
interference
with
contract
nor
tortious
interference
with
8.01-243(A),
governs
them,
not
Virginias
five-year
interference
predicate
unlawful
with
act
for
business
a
claim
expectancy
under
the
as
the
Virginia
claims
of
tortious
interference
with
contract
and
answered
both
questions.
3
See
Dunlap
v.
Cottman
question,
interference
it
with
examine[d]
contract
the
and
nature
tortious
of
the
tortious
interference
with
intentional
torts
predicated
on
the
common
law
duty
to
arise from the contract itself but is, instead, a common law
corollary of the contract, the Court held that both causes of
action qualify as the requisite unlawful act to proceed on a
business conspiracy claim under [Va.] Code 18.2-499 and 500.
determined
that
tortious
interference
[t]he
with
dispositive
contract
and
issue
tortious
is
interference
whether
Id. at
intentional
interference
termination
of
the
expectancy,
the
Court
inducing
or
causing
contractual
relationship
reasoned
[s]uch
that
breach
or
or
business
interference
is
Id. at 221.
[Va.]
Code
interference
with
8.01-243(B)
contract
business expectancy.
applies
and
to
tortious
both
tortious
interference
with
Id. at 222.
the
district
courts
dismissal
of
one
of
Dunlaps
They contend
incapable
intracorporate
district
of
conspiring
immunity
courts
with
doctrine.
dismissal
of
each
Since
claim
on
other
we
the
under
may
affirm
basis
of
the
a
any
intracorporate
immunity
doctrine
originates
in
conspire
with
its
5
officers,
wholly-owned
subsidiaries,
and
commonly-owned
affiliates.
See
Copperweld
Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752, 769, 771 (1984);
Advanced Health-Care Servs., Inc. v. Radford Cmty. Hosp., 910
F.2d 139, 146 (4th Cir. 1990).
and
Leff
along
with
AAMCO,
Truskowski
and
Biller
20.
That
allegation
brings
the
claim
outside
the
therefore
vacate
the
district
courts
judgment