Rimkus Consulting Group Inc. v. Cammarata - Ballard Spahr LLP

Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 131 of 139
App.—Austin Dec. 17, 2008, pet. denied) (mem. op.). A cause of action for tortious
interference with a contract will not lie in the absence of a contract. Ski River Dev., Inc. v.
McCalla, 167 S.W.3d 121, 140 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, pet. denied); S&A Marinas, Inc.
v. Leonard Marine Corp., 875 S.W.2d 766, 768 (Tex. App.—Austin 1994, writ denied).
A plaintiff alleging tortious interference with contract must produce some evidence
that the defendant knowingly induced one of the contracting parties to breach its contract
obligations. See John Paul Mitchell Sys. v. Randalls Food Mkts., Inc., 17 S.W.3d 721, 730
(Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. denied); Davis v. HydPro, Inc., 839 S.W.2d 137, 139–40
(Tex. App.—Eastland 1992, writ denied); see also Dunn, 2008 WL 5264886, at *3. The
plaintiff must present evidence that a contract provision was breached. See N.Y. Life Ins. Co.
v. Miller, 114 S.W.3d 114, 125 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, no pet.); Archives of Am., Inc. v.
Archive Litig. Servs., Inc., 992 S.W.2d 665, 667–68 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999, pet.
denied). General claims of interference with a business relationship are insufficient to
establish a tortious interference with contract claim. See Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Editorial
Caballero, S.A. de C.V., 202 S.W.3d 250, 265 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2006, pet.
denied).
Rimkus has failed to present or identify evidence that could support an inference that
the defendants tortiously interfered with an existing contract between Rimkus and a client.
Rimkus has not identified a written or an enforceable oral contract with a client with which
the defendants interfered. There is no evidence that Rimkus’s customers or clients had a
contractual obligation to continue using Rimkus’s services. Nor is there evidence that the
131