by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) that they were deprived of this protected interest within the meaning of the Due Process Clause; and (3) that the state did not afford them adequate procedural rights prior to depriving them of their protected interest. Med Corp., Inc. v. City of Lima, 296 F.3d 404, 409 (6th Cir.2002). “[I]t is well established that the freedom to choose and pursue a career, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, qualifies as a liberty interest which may not be arbitrarily denied by the State.” R.S.S.W., Inc. v. City of Keego Harbor, 18 F.Supp.2d 738 (E.D.Mich.1998) (internal quotes and citations omitted). See also Parate v. Isibor, 868 F.2d 821 (6th Cir.1989); Sanderson v. Village of Greenhills, 726 F.2d 284, 286-87 (6th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Wilkerson v. Johnson, 699 F.2d 325 (6th
holding that the plaintiff stated a claim for tortious interference holding citys termination of plaintiffs contracts and publishing negative news report did not constitute the deprivation of a liberty interest even though a significant part of plaintiffs business had involved projects for the city holding that the plaintiff owner of a restaurantbar stated a cause of action for deprivation of a liberty interest by alleging that the defendant city engaged in a campaign of harassment that infringed on the plaintiffs constitutional right to pursue an occupation holding that the plaintiff owner of a billiards parlor had stated a claim for deprivation of his liberty interest to engage in whatever legal business he elects to pursue and holding that the defendant citys interference with the plaintiffs business was arbitrary and thus unconstitutional holding that a defendant could not be liable for tortious interference with a business relation where the defendant merely exercised its legal rights