<p><b>EDWARDS II </b><b>v. </b><b>ANDERSEN LLP</b><b></b></p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <h1>Filed 8/30/06</h1> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"><b><u>CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">*</a></u></b><b><u></u></b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">DIVISION THREE</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p><br /> <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="336" valign="top"> <br /> <p>RAYMOND EDWARDS II,</p> <br /> <p> Plaintiff and Appellant,</p> <br /> <p> v.</p> <br /> <p>ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP,</p> <br /> <p> Defendant and Respondent.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td width="336" valign="top"> <br /> <p> B178246</p> <br /> <p> (Los Angeles County</p> <br /> <p> Super. Ct. No. BC294853)</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table> <br /> <p><b>Continue from Part I ………</b></p> <br /> <p><b> </b></p> <br /> <p>(iv) <i>Requiring execution of the TONC as consideration for release from the <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">noncompetition agreement</a> violated public policy and constituted an independently wrongful act for purposes of the third element of <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">Edwards's intentional interference claim</a>.</i></p> <br /> <p> Having concluded the noncompetition agreement was invalid, we further hold Andersen's action of demanding execution of the TONC as consideration for release of the <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">noncompetition agreement</a> was an independently wrongful act for purposes of the third element of Edwards's intentional interference with <a href="http://www.sandiegohealthdirectory.com/">prospective economic advantage</a> claim.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2"><b>[1]</b></a> We have previously held that an employer â€