33. In 2016, the Defendants' numbers show that Storlie was in the top half of the teamin every area other than PPI (which represented less than 1% of revenue). He was 125% to goal.34. In November 2016, Ted Parker requested that Storlie take Brian Filizetti, a 38-year old External Wholesaler, with him to an upcoming regional convention. Parker did not give a reason.35. Upon information and belief, at that regional convention in November 2016,Filizetti approached one of Storlie's long-time advisors at the convention and announced that he would be purchasing a home in Colorado and taking over Storlie's territory.36. Storlie's streak of entirely positive reviews then came to an abrupt end when he received his January 2017 Performance Review.37. While the Defendants gave him an overall acceptable performance, it took a critical note about his sales acumen and abilities.38. Storlie was shocked and became immediately concerned he was being set up based on the comments in Part III of that review. Ted Parker claimed that Storlie, a 12-year top contributor and member of the exclusive Billion Dollar Club within the Defendants required "the benefit of additional experience, training and/or coaching . . ." despite being one of the leaders typically conducting such training.39. Essentially, Parker began suddenly treating Storlie like a new wholesaler.. . .44. In approximately May 2017, Storlie received a phone call from Brian Filizettidirectly informing Storlie that he had just purchased a $1.5M home in Castle Pines, Colorado saying something like, "I am moving into your territory.". . .65. On November 4, 2017, Storlie received a FedEx package with a termination letterand menial severance offer.66. In January 2018, Brian Filizetti, a 38-year old employee, took over the bulk ofStorlie's territory, including the entirety of Colorado and Wyoming. The other two smaller portions of Storlie's territory (western South Dakota and western Nebraska) were also given to younger employees.
(i) there was a prospective contractual relation with a third party that was reasonably likely to result in the formation of a contract; (ii) Defendant interfered with that prospective relation, thereby preventing the formation of the contract; (iii) such interference was intentional; (iv) the interference was accomplished by the use of improper means; and (v) harm was suffered as a result.
The first required element for a claim of tortious interference with prospective business advantage is the existence of a prospective contractual relationship with a third party. Wolf Auto Ctr. Sterling, LLC, 2016 WL 10570867, at *2. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant engaged in conduct intended to prevent Plaintiff from continuing to work in the annuities industry and that Defendant's conduct was designed to, and actually has, induced or caused third parties not to enter into an employment relationship with Plaintiff. (Doc # 4 ¶¶ 108-09.) However, Plaintiff alleges no facts to suggest the existence of any such prospective contract. Plaintiff makes no mention of a specific third party with whom a prospective contractual relationship existed. Plaintiff makes only a broad assertion that Defendant intentionally interfered with unnamed third parties in order to prevent him from working in the annuities industry. (Id.) Plaintiff's formulaic recitation of this element, without specific factual allegations, is insufficient. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 668 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).Moreover, the second element of a tortious interference claim requires a plaintiff to allege that a defendant interfered with a prospective contractual relationship, thereby preventing the formation of a contract. Wolf Auto Ctr. Sterling, LLC, 2016 WL 10570867, at *2. Plaintiff, unable to demonstrate the existence of a prospective contractual relationship, consequently has not established that Defendant interfered with or prevented any prospective contract. Plaintiff's allegation that Defendant filed Form U5 to harm his chances at finding future work is conclusory and insufficient. Plaintiff fails to allege any specific occurrence in which Defendant's conduct interfered with a prospective contractual relationship between Plaintiff and a third party or prevented the formation of a contract between Plaintiff and a third party. Plaintiff thus fails to satisfy the second element of a tortious interference with business advantage claim