## Facts

- Dan Popescu worked as an at-will aluminum engineering manager for Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLC.
- In 2011, Popescu became project lead for developing aluminum-alloy products potentially used in Apple smartphones.
- Apple and Constellium negotiated a development agreement that allegedly included an exclusivity provision barring Constellium from supplying alloy to other electronics customers for five years.
- Popescu alleged he refused to sign or support the agreement because he believed the exclusivity provision was unlawful and anticompetitive.
- Popescu alleged Apple took steps to cause Constellium to terminate him to remove opposition and secure execution of the development agreement.
- Constellium terminated Popescu’s employment, and Popescu sued Apple (not Constellium) for intentional interference with contractual relations and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff may state a claim for intentional interference with contractual relations based on termination of an at-will employment contract without alleging the defendant engaged in independently wrongful conduct.
2. Whether alleged anticompetitive conduct can constitute the independently wrongful act required for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage even if the plaintiff is not a direct victim of the anticompetitive conduct.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the order sustaining Apple’s demurrer without leave to amend as to the interference claims.
- For interference with contractual relations, the court held an at-will employment relationship is a contract for this tort, and independent wrongfulness need not be pleaded.
- For interference with prospective economic advantage, the court held alleged anticompetitive conduct may supply the independent wrongfulness element even if the plaintiff is not directly harmed in the manner required to sue under antitrust statutes.
- Applying demurrer review standards, the court accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true and concluded Popescu sufficiently alleged both torts.

## Legal Principles

- Intentional interference with contractual relations generally does not require pleading conduct wrongful by a measure beyond the interference itself because contracts receive greater protection from interference.
- An at-will employment agreement is a contractual relationship that can support a claim for intentional interference with contractual relations when a third party intentionally induces termination.
- Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage requires an independently wrongful act—wrongful by some measure beyond the interference itself.
- Alleged anticompetitive or otherwise unlawful business conduct may qualify as independently wrongful for prospective-advantage interference even if the plaintiff is not the direct antitrust victim, so long as the conduct interferes with the plaintiff’s economic relationship.
- On demurrer, courts accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and determine whether they state a viable cause of action under any legal theory.

## Conclusion

The court held that termination of an at-will employee induced by a third party can support a contract-interference claim without alleging independent wrongfulness, and that alleged anticompetitive conduct can satisfy the independent wrongfulness element for business-interference claims even when the plaintiff is not the direct target of the anticompetitive harm.


Popescu v. Apple Inc., 1 Cal. App. 5th 39 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)