RE: Goodfellas v. Macy's

["Haytham Faraj" <haytham@puckettfaraj.com>]

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