Customer Service e-Trib Login East Valley Tribune| Classifieds| Cars| Jobs| Real Estate

Digg| Save| Print| E-mail| Decrease text size Reset text size Increase text size

Double-click any word or phrase in the story to search this site.
October 5, 2008 - 5:52PM

Judge tosses business interference lawsuit

Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services

Companies can't sue for interfering with their business when the threatened act doesn't materialize, the Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled.

The judges threw out claims by owners of several shops in Tubac who sued that community's chamber of commerce over plans to erect booths for an arts fair. The judges noted that while the location for the booths was laid out, they never were erected.

Judge Garye Vᳱuez writing for the unanimous panel, said the fact that the business owners had to take the time to sue doesn't matter.

The fight surrounds plans for the 2007 Tubac Festival of the Arts, where vendors sell items from booths set up on property in commercial areas.

Several days before the event, the chamber spray painted boundaries and numbers indicating where the booths would be located. Believing their businesses would be blocked, the owners filed suit in Santa Cruz County Superior Court.

A judge refused a temporary restraining order but scheduled a hearing - for after the event - on their request for a permanent injunction and damages.

No booths were placed in the disputed spots. But the owners, contending the action was done to harass them based on prior history, including a different lawsuit, proceeded with the case. They sought not only the injunction but also lost sales and profits because they had to take time away from pre-festivity preparation to deal with the lawsuit.

The trial judge threw the case out, leading to this appeal.

Vᳱuez noted that even if the chamber had put the booths where marked in the public right of way, the organization had obtained the necessary permits.

Nor were the appellate judges persuaded by the argument of economic harm. Vᳱuez pointed out that the claim of having to pursue litigation does not fit within the legal definition of the owner's claim of interfering with business expectations.


Reader comments: This site does not necessarily agree with comments posted below. Responsibility lies solely with the comment author.

Please add your comments, but follow these guidelines to keep this a safe, credible place for discussing the news:

  • Stay on topic.
  • No personal attacks, racial slurs or insults; no vulgar, lewd or threatening comments.
  • Report abusive comments.
Already a member? Sign in here
Publish your stuff
Welcome, Please Log In
To login please enter your username and password in the form below and click on the login button.
Remember me
Retrieve Password
Resend Email
Enter the username and email address for your account to resend you your confirmation email: