1.That is nearly your entire defense. "Interference" has a meaning that goes well beyond mere interaction. Your main defense is that she has "dirty hands." Its a principle of Equity (Justice) that a participant in a wrongful act may not recover from a related damage. You did not "interfere" by bringing something that is true to light. Tortious interference is more to keep competition clean. I can't come to your business and try to hire away all your employees just to cripple your business, or I can't pay someone in your employ to do something to hurt your business. By telling her employer of unknown but relevant public records about your ex-wife you were not interfering with her business at all.
If you took her laptop, or her files at home, or you went around to her clients trashing her, even if it was true, or you somehow prevented her from going to work by sabotaging her vehicle everyday that might be tortious interference. She had a duty to her employer to tell them of things in her personal life that might have adversely affect her eligibility to work with them. She has likely hidden or lied about her adverse history to get or keep her job. Therefore she comes to bar with "unclean hands" and can not recover. Read this Tortious Interference Notice this is generally between two businesses or business people.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t061.htm
It is true you had the intent to destroy her business relationship but you did not do anything tortious in the process. Your actions did not "interfere" with her relationship, you simply provided information to them and they chose to act on it. There is a difference.
So to your Answer.
This is not intended to be the entire text of your answer, but an example of how an answer would flow litigation is a complex area of law and is best left to lawyers. Even the best of pro se defendants can not know it all. But this will give you a guideline on what your answer should contain.
Go line by line on their Complaint and deny what you can. Flat denials as much as you can.
Verified Complaint
1. Plaintiff employed.
Affirmed.
2. Defendant aware of employment.
Affirmed.
3. Parties have Dissolution of Marriage case pending (Actually - divorce finalized Nov. 08 by filing attorney - is the attorney intentionally misleading here & for what purpose?).
Denied: Parties are divorced as finalized by Order of the Court filed November 8th, 2009.
Count I - Tortuous Interference with Contract
4. Restate alligations 1-3.
Answers restated.
5. Beginning Aug 07 plaintiff employed.
Admitted.
6. Defendant aware of.
Admitted.
7. Aug 09 Defendent sent letter to employer stating plaintiff fired from previous employment - asks employer to take appropriate action.
Admitted in part, Defendant sent a letter to Plaintiffs employer revealing that Plaintiff lied or misled her employer when she was hired about being fired at a previous employment and urged her employer to take whatever action he/she deemed appropriate with the information.
8. By sending letter - Defendant intentionally interfered with Plaintiff's employment contract. Denied Plaintiff is an at will employee and does not have a contract. Further Defendant did not unlawfully interfere by alerting Plaintiff's employer to lies she had told about her previous employment.
9. Direct result of the letter - Plaintiff fired.
Denied. Plaintiff was fired when her actions to hide her employment past were uncovered by Defendant's letter. The Defendant's letter was not the reason for the firing, the Plaintiff's own actions in lying to her employer in the application process was the reason for her firing.
10. Plaintiff suffered damages incl lost wages.
Denied. Plaintiff is responsible for her own damages because she comes to bar with Unclean Hands.
11. Defendant had no justification.
Denied. Defendant's justification was to right a wrong perpetrated by the Plaintiff when she lied about her past employment to her then current employer.
12. By sending letter listing reasons for past termination - Defendant acted intentionally & without legit business purpose.
Denied. Defendant acted to protect Plaintiff's current employer from her dishonesty. Revealing dishonesty is a proper justification.
13. By sending letter - Defendant acted with malice, fraud, gross negligence & oppressiveness. Wherefore plaintiff requests comp damages, punitive, costs, appropriate.
Denied.
Count II - Tort Interference with a Business Relationship
14. restates 1-13.
Answers restated.
15. Plaintiff had business relationship.
Admitted in part: Plaintiff had a business relationship that she created through deceit and fraud.
16. Defendant had knowledge of.
Admitted.
17. By sending letter - intentionally interfered with.
Denied. Defendant did not unlawfully interfere with the Plaintiff's relationship by revealing that Plaintiff had lied in the application process.
18. Plaintiff suffered damages - wrongful interference - direct result of letter.
Denied. Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of her own lies and deceit.
19. No justification.
Denied. Bringing the truth to light is its own justification.
20. Defendant acted illegally in sending letter to gain advantage in divorce proceedings (again, divorce final Nov 08 - no advantages, possible disadvantages).
Denied as above.
Count III - Injunction
21. restates 1-20.
Answers restated.
22. Defendant contacted employer - intentionally interfered with employment relationship.
Denied.
23. unless restrained - Defendant will continue to contact future employers with intent to interfere.
Denied.
24. actions of Defendant will result in immediate irreperable harm to Plaintiff in that future contracts will be in danger.
Denied. Plaintiff cannot seek Injunctive relief to give her cover so she may lie to future employers to get and maintain a job.
25. Harm to Plaintiff if injunction not granted outweighs harm to Defendant if motion granted.
Denied for reasons in item 24.
26. Plaintifff has no adequate remedy at law. Monetary damages while necessary will not adequately protect Plaintiff.
Denied. Plaintiff comes to bar with unclean hands and is not entitled to relief.
27. Interests of public will not be disserved by granting Plaintiff's motion.
Denied. Revealing the truth is not against the public interest and Injunctive Relief may not lie to protect inequity.
Wherefore Plaintiff prays for permanent injunction from future contact of Plaintiff employers.
Affirmative Defenses:
1. Plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted.
2. Plaintiff has come to bar with "unclean hands" and cannot obtain relief.
3. Defendant did not unlawfully Interfere with the Plaintiff's employment by revealing the truth to her employer.
4. Plaintiff did not have an employment contract to interfere with.
5. Defendant was justified in his actions.
6. Plaintiff was not damaged by the Defendant's actions but by her own actions.
7. Plaintiff has exaggerated her claim in that Count One and Count Two, even if true, would be the same action and damage.
Wherefore the Defendant requests that this honorable Court deny and dismiss the Complaint of the Plaintiff and throw all costs on them. Defendant specifically requests that no injunctive relief should issue as the Plaintiff cannot seek injunctive relief to cover her deceitful actions.
Submitted by: ____________________-
If the Plaintiff had Admissions, deny all that apply and do not fail to answer them before the 30 days are up.
Then I would start with Admissions:
DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
According to Discovery procedures outlined in code section xxx.x the Defendant requests these admissions from the Plaintiff. As stated by statute you have Thirty (30) days to admit or deny these admissions or they become admitted by law.
1. Plaintiff was deceitful in the application process to her recent employer in that she did not fully disclose her past employment record including but not limited to the firing from her previous employment.
2. Plaintiff was deceitful in the application process to her recent employer in that she did not fully disclose her past employment record including but not limited to the reasons she was fired from her previous employment.
3. Plaintiff is or was arrested for XXXX.
4. Plaintiff is or was convicted for XXXX.
5. Plaintiff failed to disclose by deceit or obfuscation these arrests and convictions to employer x in her application process.
6. Plaintiff is responsible for her firing and therefore her damages because she deceived her employer about her past.
7. Defendant does not have any duty to Plaintiff to conceal her lies to her employer.
8. Plaintiff does not have an employment contract but is an At-will employee.
You get the idea. After this you start exercising her attorney. You send her as many Interrogatories as the law allows. You send Requests for production of documents. Ask for anything and everything you can think of. She will file to limit your discovery (more money). Then demand documents of her employer. Then you can schedule depositions (her attorney has to attend $$$$$) Ask her 5000 questions. Schedule depositions with her former employer, ask for documents, etc. Mostly her attorney will want to attend and that is just more (money). At $250 an hour or better a 10 hour deposition is $2500. How long do you think she will keep that up? She has unclean hands if I understand the case right.
Answers must be verified. Which means there should be a statement sworn to before a Notary or the clerk that the contents are true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief. Without a verification your answer can be stricken and you can have a default Judgment entered against you.
Hope that helps.