This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Intentional Interference
Contractual Relationship

Mara M. Farah v. United Way International Inc., Forever 21 Inc.

Published: Sep. 1, 2012 | Result Date: Aug. 3, 2012 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC439930 Verdict –  Defense

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Kousha Berokim


Defendant

Wayne I. Jeung

Arthur J. McKeon III


Facts

Plaintiff Mara M. Farah, an independent sales representative of United Way International Ltd. (a garment manufacturer located in Guangzhou China) claimed that she entered into a written contract with United Way in December 2004 to serve as United Way's exclusive United States sales representative entitling her to a commission from United Way for all orders placed by Forever 21 in perpetuity. Pursuant to Plaintiff's purported contract with United Way, she began soliciting orders from Forever 21, an international clothing retailer, and submitting orders from Forever 21 to United Way.

Plaintiff claimed that at some time in June 2008, Forever 21, in an effort to reduce costs, communicated to Plaintiff that it would no longer be ordering garments through her and would begin ordering garments directly from United Way to lower costs. As a result, Plaintiff claimed damages for lost commissions from June 2008 through the present on all orders placed by Forever 21 to United Way.

Plaintiff filed suit against Forever 21 asserting causes of action for intentional interference with Plaintiff's contractual relationship with United Way to breach its contract with Plaintiff.

Contentions

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Forever 21 denied ever having knowledge of any purported contract between Plaintiff and United Way as the scope of Plaintiff's relationship with United Way was never disclosed to Forever 21.

Damages

Plaintiff alleged $1.3 million in lost commissions for orders placed by Forever 21 to United Way.

Result

Defense verdict. The jury found Forever 21 did not intend to cause any disruption or breach of Plaintiff's contractual relationship with United Way.

Other Information

FILING DATE: June 17, 2010.

Deliberation

five hours.

Length

4.5 days


#103787

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390