the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would adopt and apply the “stranger” rule to a tortious interference claim. In each court decision relied upon by Defendant Clearwire in support of the Motion to Dis miss, the “stranger” rule has been adopted only in that jurisdiction. As noted, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has adopted § 766 the Restatement as the law in Pennsylvania. Section 766 and the commentary accompanying it do not contain a statement of the “stranger” rule as it has been defined in other jurisdictions. Under Pennsylvania law, a claim for tortious interference will survive only if a defendant is not a party to the contract alleged to have been tortiously interfered with. See, e.g., Daniel Adams Assocs., Inc. v. Rimbach Publ’g, 360 Pa.Super. 72, 519 A.2d 997, 1000-02 (1987) (<HOLDING>); Levin, 2001 WL 1807922, at *9 (“[T]he
holding that a tortious interference claim could not be maintained against a corporate officer of a publisher where the underlying agreement was between the publisher and a sales representative because the corporation and its agent are considered one so that there is no party against whom a claim for contractual interference will lie holding that the plaintiff stated a claim for tortious interference recognizing that wrongful or malicious interference with atwill employment contract may give rise to a tortious interference claim the fact that the employment is at the will of the employer and the employee does not make it one at the will of third parties holding that the lmra preempted plaintiffemployees claim under michigan law for tortious interference with contractual relations breach of contract is an essential element of a tortious interference claim and resolution of such claim would require the court to interpret collective bargaining agreement to determine if that agreement had been breached holding that where both defamation and tortious interference claims are pled and are based on same facts minnesota law requires the application of the actual malice standard to tortious interference claims