Tortious Interference in Washington, DC

Name: Waxman Litigation — Chevy Chase office
Address: 5425 Wisconsin Ave Ste 600, Chevy Chase, MD, 20815, US

Where a competitor or third party has induced someone to break a contract with you, or has disrupted a business relationship, the claim is tortious interference, and in the District it is largely a creature of decided cases rather than statute. What the D.C. Code does supply is the deadline and the statutory claims that usually travel alongside: trade secret misappropriation, the restrictive-covenant framework, and where money has moved, the fraudulent-transfer remedies.

What is the deadline?

Interference claims are not separately listed in § 12–301, so the catch-all applies unless the claim is characterised otherwise.

Claim	Period	Section
Not otherwise specially prescribed (the usual route)	3 years	§ 12–301(8)
Injury to personal property	3 years	§ 12–301(3)
Libel or slander (if the conduct is a statement)	1 year	§ 12–301(4)
Simple contract (against the contracting party)	3 years	§ 12–301(7)

Source: D.C. Code § 12–301. ⚠️ How a claim is characterised can change the period — a disparaging statement may fall under the one-year libel period.

⭐ That last row matters: framing the same conduct as defamation rather than interference can cut the available time from three years to one.

What statutory claims usually run alongside?

Against the departing employee or the recipient of information: the Trade Secrets Act, which allows even threatened misappropriation to be enjoined (§ 36–402(a)) and provides exemplary damages for willful and malicious conduct (§ 36–403(b)). Against restrictive-covenant conduct: the framework at unfair competition. Where assets have been moved: §§ 28–3104 to 28–3107, at creditor and debtor disputes.

What this page does not do

This page sets out the D.C. statutory framework that surrounds the claim, principally the applicable limitation periods and the related statutory causes of action. The elements of the claim itself are developed in decided cases rather than in the D.C. Code, and this page does not attempt to state them. Nothing here is a prediction of how a court would decide any particular set of facts.

Frequently asked questions

How long do we have to sue for interference?

Interference is not separately listed, so the three-year catch-all generally applies. But characterization matters, and a claim framed around a statement may attract the one-year libel period. See § 12–301 and § 12–301(8).

Can we sue the competitor as well as the employee?

They are separate claims against separate parties. The statutory routes against the employee and the interference claim against the competitor can run together.

Is inducing a breach of an unenforceable clause actionable?

That depends on the clause and the facts. Where the restriction is void under § 32–581.02 the analysis changes, which is why the enforceability question is addressed first.

What is the fastest route to stop it?

The statutory route is usually the fastest. § 36–402(a) allows threatened misappropriation to be enjoined, and § 28–3107 provides injunctions against further disposition of assets.

Who is the right defendant in an interference claim?

The outsider, not the party who broke the contract. That is the whole point of the claim — the contract action reaches only the person who made the promise, so a separate theory is needed to reach whoever induced them to break it.

Why is interference pleaded alongside the contract claim rather than instead of it?

Because the two claims reach different pockets and rest on different proof. The contract claim needs the agreement; the interference claim needs knowledge of that agreement and conduct aimed at disrupting it, and it survives even where the contracting party is insolvent or judgment-proof.

Which court hears an urgent application to stop the conduct?

The Superior Court of the District of Columbia, in the same civil action as the damages claim. Where the conduct also involves a trade secret, D.C. Code § 36–402(a) allows actual or threatened misappropriation to be enjoined, so the application for relief and the claim itself travel together.

How is inducement actually proved?

From contemporaneous records rather than from the departure itself. Communications, calendars, device and system logs and the timing of customer approaches are what show knowledge of the relationship and conduct directed at ending it — which is why preservation matters before anyone is confronted.

How much more is at stake where the conduct was willful?

The exposure can roughly triple. Where a trade secret claim runs alongside the interference claim, the court may add exemplary damages of up to twice the compensatory award if willful and malicious misappropriation exists — on top of the actual loss and unjust enrichment already recoverable. See D.C. Code § 36-403(a), (b).

Sources and legal authorities

General information about D.C. law, not legal advice. Which rule applies depends on the entity, the agreement and the facts.