“Conspiracy is not a cause of action, but a legal doctrine that imposes liability on persons who, although not actually committing a tort themselves, share with the immediate tortfeasors a common plan or design in its perpetration.” (Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 503, 510-11; Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Sherwood Partners, Inc. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 802, 823.)

“It is a general and well-settled principle of law that, where two or more persons are sued for a civil wrong, it is the civil wrong resulting in damage, and not the conspiracy, which constitutes the cause of action.” (Mox, Inc. v. Woods (1927) 202 Cal. 675, 677.) In other words, conspiracy is not itself a tort (Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1062.) Thus, to allege a cause of action for a conspiracy to allege a tort, the plaintiff must adequately allege both the underlying tort and the conspiracy. (Pettitt v. Levy (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 484, 491.)

The elements of civil conspiracy are:

1. the formation and operation of the conspiracy,
2. a wrongful act done in the furtherance of the conspiracy, and
3. the resulting damage to the plaintiff.

(Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 503, 510-11; State ex rel. Metz v. CCC Info. Servs., Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 402, 419.)

As to the formation element, two or more persons must agree on a common plan to commit a tortious act. (Kidron v. Movie Acquisition Corporation (1995) 40 Cal. App. 4th 1571, 1582.) Civil conspiracy requires that knowledge of the planned tort must be combined with intent to aid in its commission. (Kidron v. Movie Acquisition Corp. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1571, 1582.) The coconspirators must have “actual knowledge that a tort is planned and concur in the tortious scheme with knowledge of its unlawful purpose.” (Id.) Knowledge and intent may be inferred from the circumstances, including the nature of the acts, the relationship among the parties, and the interest of the conspirators. (Id.) However, mere suspicions without evidence will not support a showing of conspiracy. (Id.)

“It is well settled that ‘“[b]are” allegations and “rank” conjecture do not suffice for civil conspiracy.’ A party seeking to establish a civil conspiracy ‘must show that each member of the conspiracy acted in concert and came to a mutual understanding to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, and that one or more of them committed an overt act to further it. It is not enough that the [conspirators] knew of an intended wrongful act, they must agree—expressly or tacitly—to achieve it.’ It must be recognized, however, that because of the very nature of a conspiracy, ‘its existence must often be inferentially and circumstantially derived from the character of the acts done, the relations of the parties and other facts and circumstances suggestive of concerted action.’ While a complaint must contain more than a bare allegation the defendants conspired, a complaint is sufficient if it apprises the defendant of the ‘character and type of facts and circumstances upon which she was relying to establish the conspiracy.’” (Arei II Cases (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1022; Choate v. County of Orange (2000) 86 Cal.App.4th 312, 333; Schessler v. Keck (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 827, 833.)

Civil conspiracy “allows tort recovery only against a party who already owes the duty and is not immune from liability based on applicable substantive tort law principles.” (Applied Equip. Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 514.) In other words, “before one can be held liable for civil conspiracy, he must be capable of being individually liable for the underlying wrong as a matter of substantive tort law. And that requirement, of course, means he must have owed a legal duty of care to the plaintiff, one that was breached to the latter’s injury.” (Chavers v. Gatke Corp. (2003) 107 Cal. App. 4th 606, 612.)

Statute of Limitations

Since there is no cause of action for conspiracy per se, there is no statute of limitations specifically for conspiracy; the statute of limitations for conspiracy to commit a tort is the statute of limitations applicable to that tort. (McFaddin v. H.S. Crocker Co. (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 585, 591.)

The statute of limitations does not begin to run on a tort until the cause of action has accrued. (Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc. (2013) 55 Cal.4th 1185, 1191.) A cause of action for conspiracy to commit a tort does not accrue any earlier than the last over act. (Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 773, 786.) However, accrual may be delayed if the plaintiff does not discover the tort until later. (Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 808.)