Lovco Construction v. W.A. Rasic Construction Co. CA2/5
Filed 10/28/15 Lovco Construction v. W.A. Rasic Construction Co. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
LOVCO CONSTRUCTION, INC., B261569
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NC057835) v.
W.A. RASIC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles, Ross M. Klein, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Lane & McGowan, Scott R. Lane, John M. McGowan, for Defendant and Appellant. Sean A. Goodman for Plaintiff and Respondent. ________________________
Defendant and appellant W.A. Rasic Construction Company, Inc. (Rasic) appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff and respondent Lovco Construction, Inc. (Lovco) for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. In order to prevail on the tort, a plaintiff must prove five separate elements, the second of which is defendant’s knowledge of plaintiff’s third party relationships. Because the trial court’s statement of decision made no finding of fact with respect to Rasic’s knowledge of Lovco’s relationships with third party customers, and we find insufficient evidence of such knowledge, we reverse the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Lovco is a company that recycles asphalt and concrete. Rasic is primarily a pipeline construction company, and has previously used Lovco’s concrete and asphalt recycling services. In 2010, Rasic began working on a project in Long Beach called the Termino Drain Project. The City of Long Beach asked Rasic to move its staging area for work on the Termino Drain Project to a location near the Long Beach Airport called Parcel M. Parcel M was a dump site full of construction debris; it was four miles from the Termino Drain Project and seven miles from Lovco’s operations. The city issued a commercial use permit specifying that Rasic could engage in the “allowable use” of “(1) the stockpiling of soil and materials from the Termino Drain Project . . . for relocation to other disposal sites . . . and/or (2) recycling asphalt and concrete during the course of the Termino Drain Project with related equipment.” Rather than paying rent for the exclusive use of Parcel M, Rasic agreed to clear Parcel M of existing debris. After Rasic moved onto Parcel M, it began its own concrete recycling operations using the moniker “Airport Recycling Center,” which operated for 25 months. During that time, Rasic recycled its own asphalt and concrete, but it also charged third parties to dump loads of asphalt and concrete at the Asphalt Recycling Center and sold road base materials to third parties as well. The Termino Drain Project was completed on March
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)