Technology and Supply Management, LLC v. Johnson Controls Building Automation Systems, LLC et al, No. 1:2016cv00303 - Document 136 (E.D. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 97 be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is GRANTED as to plaintiff's claim for contractual damages based on the costs it incurred for transportation and storage associated with the rejected shelters and plaintiffs tortious interference with contractclaim (Count 4); and it is otherwise DENIED. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 1/4/2017. (dvanm, )

Download PDF
Technology and Supply Management, LLC v. Johnson Controls Building Automation Systems, LLC et al Doc. 136 Dockets.Justia.com the existence of the irst and third elements of the tort must meet an objective test; proof of subjective expectations will not suice." Commercial Bus. Sys., Inc. v. Halfx Corp., 484 S.E.2d 892, 897 (Va. 1997). TaSM claims that defendants tortiously interfered with its business expectancy of additional orders under the Prime Conract or more shelters costing the approximately $11 million that remained nder the Prime Contract's ceiling and also or a Combined Aid Station costing approximately $2.5 million. Although the Army ultimately did not buy either additional shelters or the Combined Aid Station rom anyone, TaSM claims that it did not receive those work orders rom the Army because deendants "comitted raud on TaSM and the Army and repeatedly made alse and disparaging statements about TaSM to the Army." The current record relects a concentrated efort on deendants' part to communicate directly with the Army over the subject matter of the Subconract, even though its on contractual relationships pertaining to the shelters were solely with TaSM. Based on the curent record, viewing the evidence and all reasonable inerences in a light most avorable to TaSM, the Court cnnot conclude that as a matter of law that defendants are entitled to judgment on TaSM's totious interference with business expectancy claim. IV. CONCLUSION For these reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that deendants' Motion or Patial Summary Judment [Doc. No. 97] be, and the sme hereby is, GRANTED N PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is GANTED as to plainti's claim or contractual damages based on the costs it incured or ransportation and storage associated with the rejected shelters and plaintifs totious interference with contract claim (Count 4); and it is othewise DENIED. 14 The bench trial will proceed as scheduled on January I 0, 2017. The Clerk is directed to Alexandria, Virginia January 4, 2017 15

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.