Burke v. Benwith Capital Partners, LLC

to as the JWF first and second contracts and Palisade first contract were not adequately pled. Plaintiff has also not pled any independent wrongfulness on the part of Defendants.

The economic loss rule (“ELR”) does not apply to an interference COA as Plaintiffs are not alleging damages for interference of any contracts between Plaintiffs and Defendants (where the ELR would apply), but rather interference with contract between Plaintiffs and third-party (where ELR does not apply)

The demurrer is SUSTAINED with one final leave to amend.

COA No. 7 – Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage

“Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage has five elements: (1) the existence, between the plaintiff and some third party, of an economic relationship that contains the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the relationship; (3) intentionally wrongful acts designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) economic harm proximately caused by the defendant's action.” (Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. Am. Asphalt S., Inc. (2017) 2 Cal. 5th 505, 512.)

The same analysis as COA No. 6 applies here.

The demurrer is SUSTAINED with one final leave to amend.

Plaintiffs are given leave to file an amended complaint within 15 days of written notice of the ruling.

Case Management Conference is CONTINUED to October 16, 2026 at 9.30 a.m.

Defendants to give notice. 4 Burke v. O/C Benwith Capital Partners, LLC 5 Lawrence v. The motion of plaintiff/cross-defendant, Robert D. Lawrence Chang (Lawrence) for an order fixing amount of appeal bond is GRANTED IN PART.

Lawrence moves for an order fixing the amount of the bond to be given to stay enforcement pending appeal of the Interlocutory Judgment for Partition by Sale entered on February 9, 2026, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 917.4.

As an initial matter, Lawrence cites no authority that would permit the Court to allow Lawrence to use the equity in the subject property in lieu of filing an undertaking as required by section 917.4. The Court therefore declines to do so.