Tortious interference case related to a Law 75 breach with novel theories and defenses survives in part in federal court

Hardware Plus v. OmnniMax International, 2025 WL 1426175 (D.P.R. May 15, 2025) discusses jurisdictional and merit-issues of tortious interference claims arising from allegations of a Law 75 breach of an exclusive contract. Exclusive distributor of hardware products in Puerto Rico sued successor of grantor for breach of exclusive dealer’s contract for sales to a competing wholesaler in the exclusive territory. In this Law 75 suit, the distributor joined the grantor, the manufacturer, and the third-party Puerto Rico wholesalers. Essentially, the defendants argued that the infringing sales originated outside Puerto Rico and the grantor could not control the sales of such products. The competing distributor True Value had an ace up its sleeve. It moved to dismiss on grounds that the tortious interference claim could not meet the jurisdictional amount requirement. First, it argued successfully that it had sold only $58,000 worth of the exclusive products and the measure of damages was lost profits and not revenues. The complaint did not plead loss of profits from such sales. Second, attorney’s fees and costs are not part of the jurisdictional amount unless the contract provides for such recovery, and the dealer’s contract is silent here. Third, the request for injunctive relief did not add up to the jurisdictional amount because had plaintiff made those sales the complaint was deficient in alleging that lost profits would have exceeded the jurisdictional requirement. With True Value out of the case, without prejudice, the court turned to the other motion to dismiss by the codefendant Ace asserted for failure to state a claim. The first argument was that the complaint did not plead fault for tortious interference. The court held that plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded defendant's knowledge of the exclusive contract from which fault can be inferred. Defendants argued next that the claims were time barred because the SOL started to run from plaintiff’s discovery of the sales by the infringers in June 2022. Applying the continuing torts theory in a tortious interference case for the first time, it held that plaintiff sufficiently pled allegations of continuous tortious acts, as opposed to injuries, and denied the motion to dismiss. The supplier and manufacturer did not move to dismiss.