14
Banuelos alleges that defendants acted in bad faith when they stood by and
allowed him to make improvements on his mobile home, then accepted his $4,200 rent
payment, and later attempted to evict him. We need not decide whether defendants’
conduct would otherwise give rise to a cause of action for bad faith because here
Banuelos cannot show that he suffered any harm. The mobile home belongs to Banuelos
so any improvements he made to it benefited him, not defendants. The $4,200 represents
the amount Banuelos admits was the fair value of 14 months of rent and utilities for
Space 23. The defendants’ attempt to evict Banuelos failed, the court awarded him
$95,000 in attorney fees and the judgment was affirmed on appeal. (Banuelos II.)
IV. THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE
WITH ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE.
Banuelos’s causes of action for intentional and negligent interference with
economic advantage suffer from the same defect. They fail to allege that Banuelos has an
economic relationship with a potential buyer of his mobile home.
The first element in a claim of interference with prospective economic advantage
is the existence of an economic relationship between the plaintiff and a third party with
the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff. (Edwards v. Arthur Andersen
LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937, 944.) Banuelos’s complaint alleges that defendants are
interfering with his ability to one day sell his mobile home to some unidentified buyer.
This claim falls directly into the impermissible category of “‘lost opportunity’” or
“speculative expectation that a potentially beneficial relationship will eventually arise.”
(Westside Center Associates v. Safeway Stores 23, Inc. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 507,
523-524.) Accordingly, Banuelos’s failure to allege an economic relationship with a
prospective buyer dooms his causes of action for intentional and negligent interference
with economic advantage. (Asia Investment Co. v. Borowski (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 832,
840-841 [no cause of action for wrongful interference with prospective economic
advantage when plaintiff’s business relationship was with a class of as yet unknown
purchasers of lots in a subdivision].)