Free Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cv-00178-GIVIS Document 185 Filed 07/30/2008 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DEUTSCHER TENNIS BUND (GERMAN )
TENNIS FEDERATION), ROTHENBAUM )
SPORT GMBH, and QATAR TENNIS )
FEDERATION, )
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. )
) C.A. No. 07-178-GMS
ATP TOUR, INC., ETIENNE DE VILLIERS, )
CHARLES PASARELL, GRAHAM PEARCE, )
JACCO ELTINGH, PERRY ROGERS, and )
IGGY J OVANOVIC, )
)
Defendants. )
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON
PLAINTIFFS’ TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CLAIMS
Defendants submit this memorandum of law in support of their motion pursuant to Rule
50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for judgment as a matter of law as to Plaintiffs’
claims for tortious interference with contract and tortious interference with prospective business
relations (Count VII).
I. Plaintiffs Have Not Proved The Elements Required For A Claim Of Tortious
Interference With Contract
Plaintiffs' claim for tortious interference with contract must fail because they have
presented no evidence of a third party contract breached as a result of Defendants’ acts, let alone
any of the other elements required for this claim. The elements of tortious interference under
Delaware law are well established. "There must be (1) a contract, (2) about which defendant
knew and (3) an intentional act that is a significant factor in causing the breach of such contract
(4) without justification (5) which causes injury." Aspen Advisors LLC v. UA Theater C0., 861
A.2d 1251, 1265-66 (Del. 2004).
{00233025;v1} i

Case 1 :07-cv—00178-GIVIS Document 185 Filed 07/30/2008 Page 2 of 3
Plaintiffs have not offered proof of any of the required elements for a contract
interference claim. Most significantly, Plaintiffs have not put forth any evidence of a contract
between Plaintiffs and any third party that Defendants interfered with or any intentional acts by
Defendants that were a "significant factor" in causing the breach of that contract.}
II. Plaintiffs Have Not Proved The Elements Required For A Claim Of Tortious
Interference With Prospective Business Relations
Plaintiffs’ claim for tortious interference with prospective business relationships also
must fail because they have presented no evidence of a prospective business relationship or
expectancy that Defendants interfered with. A claim for tortious interference with prospective
business relations requires a plaintiff to show: (l) the existence of a valid business relationship
or expectancy; (2) knowledge of the relationship or expectancy on the part of the interferer; (3)
intentional, wrongful interference which induces or causes a breach or termination of the
relationship or expectancy; and (4) resulting damages. Gill v. Del. Park, LLC, 294 F. Supp. 2d
638, 645 (D. Del. 2003) (citing Lucent Info. Mgmt., Inc. v. Lucent Tech., Inc., 5 F. Supp. 2d 238,
243 (D. Del. 1998)) (emphasis added).
Plaintiffs have not put forth any evidence of any valid business relationships or
expectancies. Plaintiffs also have not offered proof of any of the other required elements of this
claim. Testimony that Plaintiffs had a "very big main sponsor" in 2007 and that in 2008 "[w]e
are still asking everyone to be on top" (Waldenfels 327) does not amount to evidence that
Plaintiffs had a valid business relationship or expectancy. Speculation that sponsors and
broadcasters will have "zero" interest in Hamburg as a 500 (Knapper 654-55) also does not
amount to sufficient evidence of a valid business relationship or expectancy. The same is true of
I Insofar as Plaintiffs have presented evidence that they lost sponsorships as a result of the ISL
deal, claims arising from that conduct are barred by the statute of limitations.
{0023302s,r/1} 2

Case 1 :07-cv—00178-GIVIS Document 185 Filed 07/30/2008 Page 3 of 3
Plaintiff Qatar Tennis Federation’s testimony that if they are not a 500 under the Brave New
World plan, they are "born to be dead." (Azmy 906-07). Besides their failure to put forth any
evidence of a business relationship or expectancy, Plaintiffs also have not put forth any evidence
of "intentional or wrongful interference" by Defendants that induced or caused the breach or
termination of that relationship or expectancy.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, this Court should rule as a matter of law that Defendants have
not tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs’ contracts or prospective business relations.
Dated: July 30, 2008 ASHBY & GEDDES
/s/ Philzp Trainer, Jr.
Of Counsel:
Philip Trainer, Jr. (I.D. #2788)
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP Tiffany Geyer Lydon (I.D. #3 950)
Bradley I. Ruskin Toni-Ann Platia (I.D. #5051)
Colin A. Underwood 500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
Jennifer R. Scullion P.O. Box 1150
Evan S. Greene Wilmington, Delaware 19899
1585 Broadway 302-654-1888
New York, NY 1003 6-8299 [email protected]
212-969-3000 [email protected]
— tplatia@ashby—geddes.com
{O0233025;vl} 3