White v. IH Services, Inc ( 2004 )

BENCH MEMORANDUM

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

---

Mike White, Appellant,

v.

IH Services, Inc., Respondent.

---

Appeal from Greenville County
Charles B. Simmons, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

---

Memorandum Opinion No. 2004-MO-022
Heard March 16, 2004 - Filed May 17, 2004

---

AFFIRMED

---

W. Andrew Arnold, of Arnold & Arnold, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Thomas L. Stephenson, of Nexsen, Pruet, Jacobs & Pollard, of Greenville, for Respondent.

---

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Issue 1: Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 567, 549 S.E.2d 591, 596 (2001) (citing Mathis v. South Carolina State Hwy. Dept., 260 S.C. 344, 347, 195 S.E.2d 713, 715 (1973)) (a case becomes moot when judgment, if rendered, will not have a practical legal effect on the existing controversy); Issue 2: Crandall Corp. v. Navistar Int’l Transp. Corp., 302 S.C. 265, 266, 395 S.E.2d 179, 180 (1990) (to recover for intentional interference with prospective contractual relations, plaintiff must prove the defendant intentionally interfered for an improper purpose or by improper methods, causing injury to the plaintiff); see United Educ. Distrib., LLC v. Educ. Testing Serv., 350 S.C. 7, 14, 564 S.E.2d 324, 328 (Ct. App. 2002) (action does not lie when there is no evidence to suggest any purpose or motive other than the defendant’s proper pursuit of his own contractual rights with a third party); Centel Cellular Co. v. Light, 899 S.W.2d 343, 345-46 (Tex. Ct. App. 1995) (acts associated with enforcing what the employer assumed was a valid non-compete agreement are insufficient to support a claim); Luketich v. Goedecke, Wood & Co., Inc., 835 S.W.2d 504, 508-09 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992) (employer justified in attempting to enforce the agreement since employer had a reasonable, good faith belief that the agreement was valid); Issue 3: Davenport v. Island Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Inc., 320 S.C. 424, 428, 465 S.E.2d 737, 740 (Ct. App. 1995) (citation omitted) (South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act does not apply to disputes arising out of the employer-employee relationship).

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur.