the parties, there can be no breach of a duty that can only exist pursuant to a contract. With regards to its claims against the OIG in Counts Two, Three, and Four; Plaintiff fails “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The OIG is a unit or department within Amtrak. 5 U.S.C. app. § 8G(b). It was established by and is maintained by the chairperson of the Amtrak Board of Directors. See id.; 2004 List of Designated Federal Entities and Federal Entities, 70 FR 4157, 4158 (2005). The Amtrak Inspector General is appointed by and is under the supervision of the ch contract fails because Plaintiff has not alleged the existence of a valid contractual relationship between itself and Amtrak. See Century-21 v. Elder, 239 Va. 637, 641, 391 S.E.2d 296 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Likewise, Plaintiffs claim of tortious
holding that the first element in a prima facie case of tortious interference with contract is the existence of a valid contractual relationship holding that the first element in a prima facie case of tortious interference with prospective business advantage is the existence of business expectancy holding that the plaintiff stated a claim for tortious interference 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 the statute of limitations for a claim of tortious interference with contractual relations begins to run when the contract in question has been breached