United Nat'l Maint. v. San Diego Convention Ctr., No. 12-56809 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseUNM, a trade show cleaning company, filed suit against SDC, alleging claims for interference with contract, interference with prospective economic advantage, and antitrust violations. The court reversed the district court's holding that under California law, SDC could not be held liable for the tort of intentional interference with contractual relationship; reversed the grant of judgment as a matter of law on that ground; affirmed the district court's holding that it committed instructional error by not interpreting the terms of the contract and that this error constituted prejudicial error that warranted a new trial; affirmed the district court's holding that SDC possessed state action immunity from UNM's antitrust claim; held that the a new trial is warranted on UNM's claim for intentional interference with contractual relationship; and concluded that, under California law, SDC could not be liable for punitive damages because it is a public entity.
Court Description: Antitrust/California tort law. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s judgment after a jury trial in favor of the San Diego Convention Center Corporation on claims by United National Maintenance, a vendor of trade show cleaning services, for intentional interference with contractual relationship, antitrust violations, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. The panel reversed the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law, which overturned the jury’s verdict in favor of the maintenance company on its claim that the convention center intentionally interfered with contracts between the maintenance company and providers of trade show decorator services when the convention center instituted a policy mandating that it would be the exclusive provider of cleaning services staffing. The panel held that under California law, the tort of intentional interference with contractual relations does not apply only to parties that lack any legitimate interest in the underlying conduct. The panel affirmed the district court’s holding that it committed instructional error by not interpreting the terms of the contracts to enable the jury to understand whether the maintenance company’s performance was disrupted. The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law on the maintenance company’s Sherman Act claim, holding that the convention center possessed state action immunity from this antitrust claim. The panel affirmed the dismissal of the maintenance company’s claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage because this claim turned on the antitrust claim. The panel also affirmed the district court’s holding that under California law, the convention center was excluded from liability for punitive damages. Concurring, Judge Hurwitz wrote separately to emphasize that the judgment as a matter of law as to the antitrust claims also comfortably rested on the district court’s holding that no jury could reasonably find that the convention center engaged either in monopolization or an attempt to monopolize by mandating that its own employees clean its building.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 15, 2014.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.