The Bar at the Yard, LLC v. Friends Family, LLC, and Yin Family, LLC

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Friends Family, LLC, and Yin Family, LLC, in claims brought by The Bar at the Yard, LLC, alleging tortious interference with contract and business expectancy. The court held that Nebraska does not recognize the tortious-interference theory described in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766A and that the record lacked evidence that the defendants induced a breach under § 766. It also held that the defendants’ conduct constituted valid competition and addressed the district court’s decision to strike portions of an affidavit.

Holdings

1. Nebraska does not recognize the theory of tortious interference described in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766A, which concerns making another party's contractual performance more costly or burdensome. Longwells therefore could not maintain a claim based on that theory.
2. A claim for tortious interference with contract requires proof of an intentional act that induces or causes a breach or termination of the contractual relationship, in addition to the elements of tortious interference with a business relationship or expectancy.
3. Longwells could not establish tortious interference with contract because the record contained no evidence that Hiro 88 induced or otherwise caused the landlord to breach the lease's exclusivity provision. Mere knowledge that the landlord could not perform both agreements was insufficient to establish inducement.
4. Longwells could not establish tortious interference with a business expectancy because the evidence showed, at most, valid competition. Valid competition, including inducing customers to do business with the competitor, is privileged unless the competitor uses improper means or otherwise falls outside the competitor's privilege.
5. The district court's exclusion of portions of Marsh's affidavit did not require reversal because, even if the rulings were erroneous, the excluded evidence would not have created a genuine issue of material fact or affected Hiro 88's entitlement to summary judgment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on Longwells' tortious interference with contract claims.
2. Whether Nebraska recognizes tortious interference liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766A.
3. Whether the summary judgment record contained evidence that Hiro 88 induced or otherwise caused the landlord to breach Longwells' lease.
4. Whether the summary judgment record contained evidence that Hiro 88 used improper means rather than engaging in valid competition for purposes of Longwells' tortious interference with business expectancy claim.
5. Whether the district court abused its discretion by striking portions of Marsh's affidavit.

Disposition

affirmed