Ronald E. Mabra, Sr. and All-Pro Foodservice, Inc. filed suit against various defendants asserting claims for tortious interference with existing and prospective business and contractual relations, and conspiracy to tortiously interfere with those relations. Mabra and All-Pro appeal from the trial court’s order dismissing their complaint pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-12 b 6 for failure to state a claim. For the following reasons, we affirm. Under OCGA § 9-11-12 b 6, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted should not be sustained unless 1 the allegations of the complaint disclose with certainty that the claimant would not be entitled to relief under any state of provable facts asserted in support thereof; and 2 the movant establishes that the claimant could not possibly introduce evidence within the framework of the complaint sufficient to warrant a grant of the relief sought. In deciding a motion to dismiss, all pleadings are to be construed most favorably to the party who filed them, and all doubts regarding such pleadings must be resolved in the filing party’s favor. Stendahl v. Cobb County, 284 Ga. 525 668 SE2d 723 2008 punctuation and citation omitted. Applying these standards, we find that the trial court properly granted motions by all the named defendants to dismiss the complaint, as amended, for failure to state a claim because the tortious interference and conspiracy claims were predicated on allegations showing that the defendants were engaged in privileged business activity and were not liable as a matter of law.
The three-count complaint a renewal of a previously filed action alleged in counts one and two that defendant Host International, Inc. tortiously interfered with existing and prospective business and contractual relations arising from a contract that Mabra and All-Pro had with Avendra, LLC, under which Mabra and All-Pro distributed fresh produce to various businesses including to Host for Atlanta airport concessionaires. Although the complaint alleged that Host was not a party to Mabra and All-Pro’s distribution contract with Avendra, it alleged that Host interfered with the contract when Host stopped ordering produce for distribution from Mabra and All-Pro and instead ordered produce for distribution from the other named defendants, SF, Inc., d/b/a Collins Wholesale Produce; Collins Brothers Corporation, d/b/a Collins Brothers Produce; and Future Management Corporation, d/b/a Phoenix Wholesale Foodservice collectively referred to as the Collins defendants. According to the complaint, when Host did this, it unfairly took Avendra’s distribution business away from Mabra and All-Pro and gave it to the Collins defendants. The complaint alleged that Mabra and All-Pro received written notice from Host on November 4, 2005, “that their distribution services at the Airport were being terminated within thirty 30 days”; that Host offered no explanation “for unilaterally terminating their distribution services at the Airport without prior authorization, permission or approval from Avendra as the other party to the distribution contract at issue”; and that “on December 6, 2005, Host stopped ordering fresh produce from Mabra and All-Pro for Airport concessionaires despite the fact that Mabra/All-Pro was still under contract with Avendra and performing in good faith.” The complaint further alleged that within a month Host began using the Collins defendants to distribute produce to its airport concessionaires, and that the Collins defendants did not qualify as minority-owned businesses to distribute produce at the airport under the City of Atlanta’s Equal Business Opportunity program. According to the complaint, Host “conspired with the Collins defendants to steal Airport produce business derived from Mabra and All-Pro’s distribution contract with Avendra . . . without legal justification or excuse.” Count three of the complaint alleged that the decision by Host to order produce to be distributed by the Collins defendants instead of by Mabra and All-Pro was a conspiracy undertaken “in concert with the Collins defendants and constitutes a common scheme among all defendants to tortiously interfere with Mabra and All-Pro’s contractual business relationship with Avendra.”
