## Facts

- A nonprofit environmental and public-participation group (EPIC) criticized a local newspaper’s environmental editorial positions in a newsletter.
- The newsletter urged readers not to patronize businesses that advertised in the newspaper until the newspaper changed its editorial stance.
- The newspaper’s publisher sued EPIC and several officers for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, alleging the boycott effort harmed relationships with advertisers.
- The publisher sought injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages.
- EPIC moved for summary judgment, arguing the tort elements were not met and the conduct was constitutionally protected political advocacy.
- The trial court denied summary judgment, and EPIC sought extraordinary writ relief to compel entry of judgment in its favor.

## Issues

1. Whether a publisher stated a viable claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage based on an advocacy group’s call for a politically motivated consumer boycott aimed at the publisher’s advertisers.
2. Whether allowing the tort action to proceed would impermissibly burden protected rights of free speech and petition because the challenged conduct was political advocacy.
3. Whether mandate relief was proper to overturn the denial of summary judgment to prevent chilling effects from continued litigation.

## Decision

- The court granted extraordinary relief and directed issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate.
- The court held there was no triable issue of material fact and EPIC was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
- The trial court was ordered to vacate its order denying summary judgment and to enter an order granting summary judgment for EPIC and its officers.
- The court reasoned that the interference claim failed on its elements and that the lawsuit, if allowed to continue, would burden protected political expression.

## Legal Principles

- Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage requires, among other elements, a probability of future economic benefit grounded in an existing economic relationship with a third party and intentional, wrongful disruption causing damage.
- A defendant’s advocacy urging consumers to withhold patronage for political reasons, without independently unlawful conduct, implicates strong constitutional protection.
- Courts may use writ relief to terminate litigation at an early stage when the litigation itself threatens to chill constitutionally protected speech and petitioning activity.
- Tort doctrines must be applied in a manner consistent with constitutional limits; claims that effectively penalize political advocacy through boycott calls are subject to close scrutiny.

## Conclusion

The court ordered summary judgment for EPIC, holding that the publisher could not proceed on an interference-with-prospective-advantage theory based on a nonviolent, politically motivated boycott call, and that early writ intervention was warranted to prevent the chilling of protected expression through continued litigation.


Envtl. Planning & Info. Council of W. El Dorado Cnty., Inc. v. Superior Court, 36 Cal. 3d 188, 680 P.2d 1086 (Cal. 1984)