Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

Supreme Court of California · 1995 · Torts

902 P.2d 740 (1995)

Updated July 23, 2026

Tortsintentional interference with prospective economic relationsprospective economic advantageintentional interferencewrongful actburden of proofcompetitionprospective economic relations

Facts

Toyota introduced Lexus into the American market and sought to prevent reexport of Lexus cars to Japan, fearing harm to its limited American dealer network. It inserted a no-export clause in dealership agreements, reminded dealers of that policy, compiled and distributed an "offenders" list of dealers and others believed involved in foreign resale, and warned dealers that dealing with listed persons could lead to sanctions. Plaintiff Della Penna had profitably bought Lexus cars from dealers, especially Lexus of Stevens Creek, and exported them to Japan, but his sources stopped selling to him after the offenders list circulated. At trial on his interference claim, the court modified the standard instruction to require plaintiff to prove Toyota's conduct was wrongful.

Issue

In an action for intentional interference with prospective contractual or economic relations, must the plaintiff plead and prove as part of the prima facie case that the defendant's conduct was wrongful beyond the interference itself? If so, was the trial court's instruction requiring proof of wrongful conduct proper?

Rule

A plaintiff seeking recovery for alleged interference with prospective contractual or economic relations must plead and prove in the case-in-chief that the defendant not only knowingly interfered with the plaintiff's expectancy, but engaged in conduct that was wrongful by some legal measure other than the fact of interference itself. The burden of proving that wrongfulness rests on the plaintiff, not on the defendant as an affirmative defense of justification or privilege.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Aria Solis runs a specialty coffee wholesaler and had been cultivating likely future supply deals with several neighborhood cafes. A rival wholesaler, Mesa Crest Beverage, contacted those cafes and urged them to buy from it instead; Aria can prove the rival knew about her expected deals and succeeded in diverting them, but she cannot point to any conduct unlawful or improper apart from the diversion itself.

If Aria sues for intentional interference with prospective economic relations, which is the strongest argument for Mesa Crest?

Explanation. For interference with prospective economic relations, the plaintiff must plead and prove in the case-in-chief not only knowing interference with an expectancy, but also conduct wrongful by some legal measure other than the fact of interference itself. Mere intentional diversion of prospective business is insufficient. The burden is on the plaintiff, not the defendant.