Re: Goodfellas v. Macy's

[Carolynn Beck <carolynn.beck@gmail.com>]

When I was referring to the damages, I meant the last element that was  
listed under caselaw for interference w/ business expectation "4. And  
resultant damage to the party whose relationship or expectancy has  
been disrupted." Do we only need to use Wissam's testimony stating  
that his business was damaged, then, and no amounts are needed for  
purposes of this motion?

Thanks,

Carolynn Beck
(202) 316-1367



On May 19, 2010, at 12:54 PM, Haytham Faraj wrote:

Use the caselaw rather than the jury instructions.  I don't need to  
prove
damages at this point.  We only have to prove that a colorable claim  
exists.

-----Original Message-----
From: Carolynn Beck [mailto:carolynn.beck@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:43 PM
To: Haytham Faraj
Subject: Goodfellas v. Macy's

Hi Haytham,

I spoke with Wissam today regarding evidence that we need for opposing
the summary disposition motion. He says he's going to try and get
these affidavits from the people I listed in the other email. He also
mentioned that there's an affidavit from someone named Trevor from
Coogi, but also stated that it wasn't Trevor that spoke directly with
Macy's, and that rather Trevor had heard from management at Coogi
regarding their cancelation of contract with Goodfellas.

I also had a couple questions: the summary disposition motion listed
jury instructions for the interference with business relationships
that included extra factors that aren't listed under other caselaw I
found in Michigan.

Here's the much shorter list I found in Michigan caselaw(which is very
similar, minus the proof of future economic benefit that is required
under the jury instructions listed by Macy's):
1. existence of a valid biz relationship or expectancy
2. Knowledge of relationship/expectancy by the interferor
3. Intentional/Improper interference inducing or causing breach or
termination of the relationship or expectancy
4. And resultant damage to the party whose relationship or expectancy
has been disrupted.

These are the factors for tortious interference with contract:
1. contract existed
2. contract was breached
3. Defendant instigated the breach w/o justification

Based on my discussion with Wissam, if we can get statements from
either Sean John (doubtful because they now have exclusive contract w/
Macy's), Coogi, Academiks, Wayne County Sheriff, and CIT/Wells Fargo,
or ALL of the above, then we'd at least win the summary disposition
motion on the interference w/ contract claim. The only problem I
foresee is the interference w/ business expectancy because of the
timing of what occurred (and the decline of the economy), and problems
with proving damages, as well as the newness of the store when it all
happened. Do you have any suggestions regarding damages, and what
would be "good enough" to pass muster with the judge hearing the
summary disposition motion?

I'll give you a call later this afternoon to see if you got this
email. I didn't want to disturb you while you were in trial. Wissam
also mentioned that he wanted to try to call you this afternoon.

Thanks,

Carolynn Beck
(202) 316-1367