Civil Conspiracy in California

What Is Civil Conspiracy?

“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.)

Rulings for Civil Conspiracy in California

The sixth cause of action for civil conspiracy in the proposed second amended complaint appended to the petition, fails to allege a valid cause of action for civil conspiracy to breach fiduciary duty. (See SAC ¶ 68). A fiduciary duty arose between Mr. Runyon (and arguably Mr. Ruyon’s community property estate) by virtue of respondent’s legal representation of Mr. Runyon in the underlying action. However, in order to state a cause of action for civil conspiracy against respondent, Mrs.

  • Case No.

    Runyon vs. Coviello 30-2016-00871765-CU-PT-CJC

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2016

The sixth cause of action for civil conspiracy in the proposed second amended complaint appended to the petition, fails to allege a valid cause of action for civil conspiracy to breach fiduciary duty. (See SAC ¶ 68). A fiduciary duty arose between Mr. Runyon (and arguably Mr. Ruyon’s community property estate) by virtue of respondent’s legal representation of Mr. Runyon in the underlying action. However, in order to state a cause of action for civil conspiracy against respondent, Mrs.

  • Name

    RUNYON VS. COVIELLO

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00871765-CU-PT-CJC

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2016

They argue: (1) a civil conspiracy is not actionable as a tort; (2) plaintiff cannot recover damages from defendants for removing plaintiff as President of the Sikh Center; and (3) plaintiff is seeking damages for the alleged conspiracy, yet damages are not permitted under a conspiracy theory. Issue 1: Is civil conspiracy an actionable tort?

  • Name

    PAVITARJIT SIHOTA V. SUKHPAL DHALIWAL

  • Case No.

    18CECG02846

  • Hearing

    May 13, 2019

Maybruck, Cathy Pattinson, Sarita Freedman, Elizabeth Beltran, Jeanne Way, David Konell, Andrea Maitra, William Wagnon and Linda Andron is sustained with 10 days leave to amend as to the 6th Cause of Action (Civil Conspiracy re Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage), the 9th Cause of Action (Civil Conspiracy re Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress), and the 11th Cause of Action (Civil Conspiracy re Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress).

  • Name

    BRODY VS. FACT, INC

  • Case No.

    SC126735

  • Hearing

    Mar 07, 2017

The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for the 5th cause of action (civil conspiracy) is GRANTED, with 30-days leave to amend. Defendants properly contend that civil conspiracy is not an independent tort. (Favila v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 189, 206 (Favila).) “The essence of the claim is that it is merely a mechanism for imposing vicarious liability; it is not itself a substantive basis for liability.

  • Name

    GILL VS. SONI

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00915449-CU-FR-CJC

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2018

The Demurrers to the 2nd Cause of Action (Civil Conspiracy re Wrongful Termination), the 4th Cause of Action (Civil Conspiracy re Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage), the 5th Cause of Action (Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing), the 7th Cause of Action (Civil Conspiracy re Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress), and the 9th Cause of Action (Civil Conspiracy re Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress) is sustained with 30 days leave to amend; the Demurrer

  • Name

    BRODY VS. FACT, INC

  • Case No.

    SC126735

  • Hearing

    Jun 09, 2017

Code § 1714.10 provides, (a) No cause of action against an attorney for a civil conspiracy with his or her client arising from any attempt to contest or compromise a claim or dispute, and which is based upon the attorneys representation of the client, shall be included in a complaint or other pleading unless the court enters an order allowing the pleading that includes the claim for civil conspiracy to be filed after the court determines that the party seeking to file the pleading has established that

  • Name

    CRYSTAL ROSEBOROUGH, ET AL. VS CANDICE HEIDEN

  • Case No.

    22STCV04908

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Defendant Chase Bank's general demurrer to the sixth cause of action for civil conspiracy based on the argument that Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled the elements of conspiracy is overruled. The Court concludes Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts to allege a claim for civil conspiracy against Defendant Chase.

  • Name

    ROCHA VS. MIRANDA

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00036941-CU-OR-NC

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2017

Twelfth Cause of Action for Civil Conspiracy Defendants demur to Plaintiffs Twelfth Cause of Action for Civil Conspiracy on the ground Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Specifically, defendants argue plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to establish the first and second elements of a cause of action for Civil Conspiracy.

  • Name

    SJARESKA MARTINA KARNI VS DIANA LUA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22VECV01084

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Thirteenth Cause of Action - Civil Conspiracy Solano points out that in deciding the previous Wright demurrer, the court already found there was no civil wrong supporting the claim for civil conspiracy.

  • Name

    HAWK VS WRIGHT

  • Case No.

    SCV-259934

  • Hearing

    Mar 21, 2018

  • Judge

    René Auguste Chouteau

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

The demurrer to the sixth cause of action for civil conspiracy is sustained without leave to amend. Civil conspiracy is not a separate cause of action. (Quelimane Co., Inc. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 47.) The demurrer to the prayer section of the complaint is overruled. Defendants have not established the prayer is so uncertain as to be unintelligible. To the extent Defendants seek an alternative motion to strike, this must be done via a separate motion.

  • Name

    QUIAPO VS FORTUNO

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00000005-CU-DF-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2017

The allegation is that this was part of a civil conspiracy between the first and second purchasers. Whether the facts will support these allegations of fraud and civil conspiracy is unknown; but they are sufficient for pleading purposes. The argument that the pleading is not specific enough carries no weight here. 3. Request for Judicial Notice The request of this defendant for judicial notice of the first amended complaint is GRANTED. 4. Notice The plaintiffs shall give notice.

  • Name

    TAMSEN V. MESSINGER

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01119997

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

Fifth cause of action for Civil Conspiracy. Plaintiffs allege that all Defendants conspired to and received proceeds of the Contract where no work was actually performed (because permits were never obtained). “The elements of a civil conspiracy are [1] the formation and operation of the conspiracy and [2] damage resulting to plaintiff from an act done in furtherance of the common design.” (Stueve Bros. Farms, LLC v.

  • Name

    PADIAL VS SECURED INCOME GROUP I INC

  • Case No.

    RIC2001353

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2021

There are insufficient facts alleged to constitute a cause of action for civil conspiracy. "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. By participation in a civil conspiracy, a coconspirator effectively adopts as his or her own the torts of other coconspirators within the ambit of the conspiracy.

  • Name

    WHITE VS LAW OFFICES OF FRANCISCO JAVIER ALDANA

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00016495-CU-OE-CTL

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2018

Plaintiff argues in its Opposition that, “[n]o cause of action against an attorney for a civil conspiracy with his or her client arising from any attempt to contest or compromise a claim or dispute, and which is based upon the attorney’s representation of the client, shall be included in a complaint or other pleading unless the court enters an order allowing the pleading that includes the claim for civil conspiracy to be filed….” (Civil Code § 1714.10, subd. (a).)

  • Name

    IN THE MATTER OF JOCELYN ANGUIANO LOPEZ

  • Case No.

    19CV000579

  • Hearing

    May 29, 2019

Defendant demurs to plaintiffs fraud and civil conspiracy causes of action on statute of limitations grounds. Under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §338(d), fraud is subject to a three-year statute of limitations. Recording an interest in real property in the public records grants constructive notice of the interest. First Bank v. East West Bank (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1309, 1314.

  • Name

    GHALIB KANJI VS JOHN MARCEL GRYGA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21SMCV00970

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The causes of action are as follows: (1) civil conspiracy to commit fraud (concealment); (2) civil conspiracy to commit fraud; (3) civil conspiracy to commit trespass to chattel; (4) civil conspiracy to commit conversion; (5) civil conspiracy to commit intentional infliction of emotional distress; (6) fraud (concealment); (7) trespass to chattel; (8) conversion; (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (10) civil conspiracy to commit fraud (concealment); (11) civil conspiracy to commit fraud (reliance

  • Name

    JACKNETT DANESHRAD VS DANIEL TEHRANI VAFA ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC694220

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2019

Defendant Halt Gold Group, LLC dba Patriot Gold demurs to the cause of action for civil conspiracy arguing no duty was alleged. A cause of action for civil conspiracy may not arise if the alleged conspirator was not personally bound by the duty violated by the wrongdoing. Doctors’ Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 39, 43-44. Defendant argues the complaint does not allege Patriot Gold had a duty to refrain from taking and using Wholesale Direct’s customer list.

  • Name

    WHOLESALE DIRECT METALS, INC. VS CHARLEY CHARTOFF, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20SMCV00627

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Nonetheless, the elements of a civil conspiracy are (1) formation and operation of the conspiracy, (2) damage resulting to plaintiff, and (3) from an act done in furtherance of the common design. (I-CA Enterprises, Inc. v. Palram Americas, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 257, fn.2; Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb and Lack (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1105, 1136.)

  • Name

    EMMETT V. TUON, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    17CECG01566

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2017

  • Judge

    Jeff Hamilton

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

Also, the allegations setting forth a civil conspiracy and alter ego (¶¶ 43 - 49) are sufficient when read in context with other allegations within the Complaint. Even assuming the preliminary allegations of a civil conspiracy and alter ego are insufficient, this cause of action alleges active, joint conduct on the part of all Defendants.

  • Name

    BECK VS POINT LOMA PATIENTS CONSUMER COOPERATIVE CORPORATION [E-FILE]

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00037524-CU-BT-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2018

In AREI II Cases (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1022 (internal citations and punctuation omitted), the Court of Appeal further explained the pleading requirements for a civil conspiracy claim: “It is well settled that bare allegations and rank conjecture do not suffice for civil conspiracy.

  • Name

    RHEE VS. NGUYEN

  • Case No.

    30-2020-01153448

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2021

The court overruled the demurrer as to DHR and Plaintiffs’ cause of action for civil conspiracy. Third Cause of Action for Civil Conspiracy: “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.

  • Case No.

    PSC 1601241

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2016

Petitioners argue that there is no cause of action for civil conspiracy in the Petition, and that it is therefore not subject to the strictures of Civil Code section 1714.10. However, the labels of the causes of action are not controlling; the Court must examine the allegations themselves. (Cortese v. Sherwood (2018) 26 Cal. App. 5th 445, 455, citing Berg & Berg (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 802, 824).

  • Name

    IN THE MATTER OF THE MAUREEN E. CROWE TRUST DATED JULY 16, 2016

  • Case No.

    PTR20303964

  • Hearing

    Apr 15, 2021

  • Judge

    ELIF SONMEZ

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

On May 11, 2018 Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, which alleges the following causes of action: Promissory Estoppel Promissory Estoppel Promissory Estoppel Promissory Estoppel Civil Conspiracy Civil Conspiracy Civil Conspiracy; and Civil Conspiracy. Included with the titles of each of these causes of action are violations of numerous California Code of Regulations, Education Code sections, and LACCD Rules.

  • Name

    SIMAALSADAT MASAJEDIAN VS LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18STLC11368

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Merits – Conspiracy Claim “The elements of an action for civil conspiracy are the formation and operation of the conspiracy and damage resulting to plaintiff from an act or acts done in furtherance of the common design. ...

  • Name

    MOHAMMED NASRI VS JUAN LOPEZ

  • Case No.

    19LBCV00161

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2019

As to defendant Patriot Gold’s duty, plaintiff argues “duty is not an element of civil conspiracy.” Plaintiff does not address defendant’s citation from Doctors’ Co., which holds “[a] cause of action for civil conspiracy may not arise, however, if the alleged conspirator, though a participant in the agreement underlying the injury, was not personally bound by the duty violated by the wrongdoing[.]” Doctors’ Co., supra, 49 Cal. 3d at 44.

  • Name

    WHOLESALE DIRECT METALS, INC. VS CHARLEY CHARTOFF, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20SMCV00627

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff concedes that his claim for malicious prosecution parallels his claim for civil conspiracy. Accordingly, the Court applies its anti-SLAPP analysis for Plaintiff's claim for malicious prosecution to Plaintiff's claim for civil conspiracy. As inopportune as Plaintiff's experiences were with Defendants, his claims nonetheless fall within the purview of section 425.15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.

  • Name

    FLORIAN GOETTE VS. FERGUS MORONEY (CCP 170.6 CHALLENGE AGAINST JUDGE KAHN; PENDING CCP170.1 CHALLENGE TO JUDGE QUINN)

  • Case No.

    CGC15546172

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2015

As to the 7th Cause of Action, civil conspiracy is not a cause of action. See Applied Equipment v. Litton (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 510-511.

  • Name

    ROBERT THOMPSON, ET AL., VS SHEILA WELLS, ET AL.,

  • Case No.

    SC127126

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2017

Civil Conspiracy 6. Unfair Business Practices Cross-Complainant Tatum contends that discovery revealed that additional claims for fraud, civil conspiracy, intentional misrepresentation, comparative indemnity, contribution, Penal Code § 496(c), and promissory estoppel may be pled against additional parties Jennifer Roman, Munoz, Wong, Nunez, Civil Financial Services, LLC, and Civil Real Estate Holdings II, LLC.

  • Name

    JUANA ROMAN, A INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS BRANDON WONG, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19NWCV00179

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

Because there is no cause of action for civil conspiracy to commit fraud, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend to permit Plaintiff to properly allege a fraud claim based on a civil conspiracy theory against WCM and Gladstone. The court notes that Plaintiff has already alleged promissory fraud and two fraud causes of action against Gladstone.

  • Name

    LIBERTY PROPERTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP V. 10721 JASMINE LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    30-2015-00805057-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2016

As to the seventh cause of action, Defendants argue the civil conspiracy claim is baseless, as California does not recognize "civil conspiracy" as a separate and distinct cause of action; it is only a theory of vicarious liability.

  • Name

    MUNSON VS. M&M TELECOM INC

  • Case No.

    37-2015-00031284-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2016

The demurrer to the eleventh cause of action for civil conspiracy to commit breach of fiduciary duty is overruled as to defendant Christina Nguyen.

  • Name

    NGUYEN VS. NGUYEN

  • Case No.

    30-2018-01022497-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2019

E) A civil conspiracy claim is not an independent tort, but looks to a common plan or design among tortfeasors, requiring knowledge of the wrongful objective and their intent to participate in that objective. Schick v. Lerner (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1321, 1327. As the only cause of action against the escrow officer here, the TAC lacks some of the required allegations for liability for a civil conspiracy, i.e. the formation and operation of the conspiracy and the wrongful act or acts done. (Wise v.

  • Name

    NAZ SMYTH VS JESSICA FRANCES SHERMAN ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC573346

  • Hearing

    Apr 26, 2017

Civil Conspiracy 1. Legal Standard The elements of a civil conspiracy are (1) the formation of a group of two or more persons who agreed to a common plan or design to commit a tortious act; (2) a wrongful act committed pursuant to the agreement; and (3) resulting damages. ( City of Industry v. City of Fillmore (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 191, 212.)

  • Name

    ROCHELLE STERLING,, AS TRUSTEE OF THE STERLING FAMILY TRUST VS MOHAMMAD M. FAWAZ

  • Case No.

    22STCV15352

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Civil Code section 1714.10, subdivision (b), makes the failure to obtain a court order a defense to any action for civil conspiracy and notes that the defense “shall be raised by the attorney charged with civil conspiracy upon that attorney's first appearance by demurrer, motion to strike, or such other motion or application as may be appropriate. Failure to timely raise the defense shall constitute a waiver thereof.”

  • Name

    YAMBUPAH V. ENGLEBRIGHT

  • Case No.

    17CECG03929

  • Hearing

    Mar 26, 2019

However, nowhere in the FAC is it alleged that AMSS obtained a prefiling order allowing it to assert a claim for civil conspiracy against Rosenberg, as required by Section 1714.10.

  • Name

    DLG FAMILY LIMITED, ETC. V. LOS MEGANOS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    1415519

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2013

First, there is no separate tort of "civil conspiracy." The only significance of a conspiracy charge is that each member may be held responsible as a joint tortfeasor. (Kidron v. Movie Acquisition Corp. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1571, 1581 ["As is well established, civil conspiracy is not an independent tort.

  • Case No.

    37-2022-00025372-CU-PA-CTL

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2023

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Carole Lou Rutter and Albert Harvey Rutter bring this demurer to the third cause of action for civil conspiracy alleged in the Cross-Complaint. In determining whether a complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action, the Court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.

  • Name

    CAROLE LOU RUTTER VS. ANS MACHINE WORKS LLC

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00021553-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2018

Moreover, the first, fourth, and fifth causes of action cannot serve as a basis for civil conspiracy or aiding and abetting liability. See AREI II Cases (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1021 ("A civil conspiracy 'must be activated by the commission of an actual tort.'") (quoting Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 510, 511); Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 154, 189 ("Generally, aiding and abetting requires the commission of an underlying tort.").

  • Name

    ROCHA VS. MIRANDA

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00036941-CU-OR-NC

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

While civil conspiracy is not an independent claim, but rather a basis to be held liable for wrongful conduct, the civil conspiracy allegations are otherwise well pled and there is no prejudice to defendant by those allegations being labeled a separate claim. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

  • Name

    HRD COFFEE SHOP INC. VS. RICHARD TOM

  • Case No.

    CGC15544434

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2015

This court ruled on demurrer on December 20, 2017 that Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for civil conspiracy against the co-Defendants (“the Wright Defendants”). By then, Plaintiffs should have known their action for civil conspiracy against Solano was precluded. This is so because a conspiracy is an agreement by two or more persons to commit a wrongful act. (Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instruction 3600.)

  • Name

    HAWK VS WRIGHT

  • Case No.

    SCV-259934

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2018

  • Judge

    René Auguste Chouteau

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

Schneider's demurrer to the sixth cause of action for "civil conspiracy." There is no separate cause of action for civil conspiracy. It is a remedy which may impose liability on a tortfeasor who commits an identified wrongful act(s) in participation or furtherance of the conspiracy. (Quelimane Co., Inc. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 47; Applied Equipment Corp v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503-10-11.)

  • Name

    JOANNE HEWITT VS. CONNIE PHILLIPS

  • Case No.

    56-2009-00338982-CU-OR-SIM

  • Hearing

    Apr 02, 2010

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. Id. 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., supra, 7 Cal. 4th at 514.

  • Name

    RNS INTERNATIONAL, INC. VS. JEONG

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01086167

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

But as the defects in the other causes of action apply to this cause of action too, the Court will not foreclose a later demurrer. 4th C/A: Civil conspiracy. Citing Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 510-511, Defendants claim that conspiracy is not a separate cause of action. But the Court just held that an actionable cause of action had to be incorporated, and stated the "elements … of a civil conspiracy." Id. at 511. Doctor’s Co. v.

  • Name

    CTS GLOBAL LOGISTICS (GEORGIA) INC. VS DJL MINING, LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00858730-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2016

Discussion Plaintiff Krycler, Ervin, Taubman, & Kaminsky (“KETK”) files a verified petition to amend the First Amended Complaint to add two causes of action for Civil Conspiracy to Breach Contract and Civil Conspiracy to Commit Fraud, each alleged against Defendants Miller, Skarin, and proposed defendant Taylor Wallin. Defendants Feinberg, Mindel, Brandt & Klein, LLP (“FMBK”), and Skarin and proposed defendant Wallin (together “Attorney Defendants”), have opposed.

  • Name

    KRYCLER, ERVIN, TAUBMAN & KAMINSKY, AN ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION VS AIMEE MILLER, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV45431

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Defendant's motion for summary adjudication of the fifth cause of action for civil conspiracy is DENIED. As stated above, Defendant has not met its initial burden of production to establish one or more elements of civil conspiracy cannot be established here. Further, although civil conspiracy is not, by itself, a separate cause of action, a cause of action may be stated when the pleading "alleges the commission of a civil wrong that causes damage." (Okun v. Superior Court (1981) 29 Cal.3d 442, 454.)

  • Name

    NAYSHTUT VS. COMERCIALIZADORA TRAVEL ADVISORY S A DE C V

  • Case No.

    37-2014-00083815-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Mar 07, 2019

Accordingly, “[t]he basis of a civil conspiracy is the formation of a group of two or more persons who have agreed to a common plan or design to commit a tortious act.” ( Kidron v. Movie Acquisition Corp. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1571, 1581 [quoting 1 Levy et al., Cal. Torts (1995) Civil Conspiracy, § 9.03[2], p. 9-12] [citations omitted].) Plaintiff has not alleged facts that indicate that all three defendants agreed beforehand to commit a tort.

  • Name

    KIMBERLY VALENTINE VS BEVERLY HILLS WELLNESS SURGERY CENTER, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV25703

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

Civil conspiracy is not an independent tort.” (City of Industry v. City of Fillmore (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 191, 211.) “Conspiracy . . . is not an independent cause of action.” (Faunce v. Cate (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 166, 172-173.) The Court finds that under Applied Equipment and City of Industry, Plaintiff has not stated a cause of action for civil conspiracy, because civil conspiracy is not an independent tort.

  • Name

    EVELYN LEE VS MARGARET HSU, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV31139

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

Civil conspiracy is not in independent tort: “It must be activated by the commission of an actual tort. A civil conspiracy, however atrocious, does not give rise to a cause of action unless a civil wrong has been committed resulting in damage.” Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 511. Plaintiffs’ civil conspiracy claim is based on their allegation that Big Ticket and CBS Defendants conspired with Judge Sheindlin to breach the contracts. (Compl., ¶ 54.)

  • Name

    (NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

  • Case No.

    BC690

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2018

Similarly, the allegations of constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, civil conspiracy, rescission and breach of promissory note are adequate to survive demurrer. The Court does not address disputed factual issues on demurrer. The allegations of fraud are also sufficient to survive demurrer. The alleged wrong is different in nature from the breach of contract.

  • Name

    GARY B OLITO AND JOAN OLITO AS TRUSTEES OF THE GARY B AND JOAN OLITO FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST VS. PATRICK K SMITH

  • Case No.

    34-2010-00075523-CU-FR-GDS

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2011

Third Cause of Action for Civil Conspiracy to Commit Fraud Civil conspiracy is not an independent tort. Instead, it is 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. [Citation.] By participation in a civil conspiracy, a coconspirator effectively adopts as his or her own the torts of other coconspirators within the ambit of the conspiracy. [Citation.]

  • Case No.

    21STCV033631

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2023

Fourth Cause of Action for Civil Conspiracy The elements of a civil conspiracy are the formation and operation of the conspiracy and damage resulting to plaintiff from an act done in furtherance of the common design. ( Stueve Bros. Farms, LLC v. Berger Kahn (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 303, 323.) Defendants assert Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for civil conspiracy because Plaintiffs have not alleged facts showing a conspiracy, and Defendants acts are protected by agent immunity.

  • Name

    GERALD WHITT, ET AL. VS EDISON NATION, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV41207

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

("Plaintiffs") for leave to amend the Complaint to assert three causes of action for intentional interference with contractual business relations, civil conspiracy and civil extortion as against all Defendants including the two new doe added Defendants, is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are directed to separately file the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") with the Court and promptly effect service of the FAC on Defendants.

  • Name

    AMINPOUR VS CALHOUN

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00054834-CU-BT-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

THE DEMURRER IS SUSTAINED WITH 10 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND AS TO A CAUSE FOR DAMAGES, BUT NOT A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CIVIL CONSPIRACY WHICH WOULD FIRST REQUIRE AN ORDER PURSUANT TO CIVIL CODE SECTION 1714.10. =(302/CWW/VC)

  • Name

    GREGORY CHANDLER VS. HYOUNG OK LEE ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC08479682

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2009

Civil Conspiracy Civil conspiracy is not an independent tort under California law. (Brown v. Professional Community Management, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 532; see also Everest Investors 8 v. Whitehall Real Estate Limited Partnership XI (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1102.) There is no separate tort of civil conspiracy, and there is no civil action for conspiracy to commit a recognized tort unless the wrongful act itself is committed and damage results therefrom. (Richard B. Le Vine, Inc. v.

  • Name

    LAURA ROBITSCHEK V. VIOLA MARTIN

  • Case No.

    19CECG03926

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

The first cause of action is for Civil Conspiracy, but civil conspiracy is not an actionable cause of action on its own; it requires an underlying civil wrong. Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 503, 510-11. The second cause of action is for Property Damage as a Result of Defendants’ Violation of Vehicle Code §22658.

  • Name

    HUNTER VS. THE IRVINE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    30-2018-01009750

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

It is true that civil conspiracy is not an independent cause of action. See Kidron v. Movie Acquisition Corp. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1571, 1581 ("As is well established, civil conspiracy is not an independent tort."). Plaintiff should have alleged the conspiracy theory as a general charging allegation and the court treats the allegations as such. Defendant can be liable on the conversion and UFTA claims by participating in the wrongdoing.

  • Name

    WARREN LEGARIE VS. MAHMOUD ASSAF ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC14542232

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2015

Plaintiffs are entitled to amend the pleading to allege facts, if they exist, to support their claim of civil conspiracy. The success of the punitive damages claim depends on whether Plaintiffs are able to successfully amend the pleading. Because Plaintiffs have not stated a civil conspiracy cause of action against Defendant Simpson, the motion to strike is granted with 20 days leave to amend.

  • Name

    AMAR D. PATEL VS MERIDIAN HEALTH SERVICES

  • Case No.

    VC064751

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

A civil conspiracy is not itself an actionable tort. “The gist of an action charging civil conspiracy is not the conspiracy, but the damage suffered . . . . A civil conspiracy, however atrocious, does not per se give rise to a cause of action unless a civil wrong has been committed resulting in damage.” (Unruh v. Truck Ins. Exchange (1972) 7 Cal.3d 616, 631.)

  • Name

    JUMBO INVESTMENT, INC. ET AL -V - KEVIN ZHANG ET AL PRINT

  • Case No.

    CIVSB2130747

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2023

  • County

    San Bernardino County, CA

“‘A civil conspiracy, however atrocious, does not per se give rise to a cause of action unless a civil wrong has been committed resulting in damage.’” [Citations.] We have summarized the elements and significance of a civil conspiracy: “‘The elements of an action for civil conspiracy are the formation and operation of the conspiracy and damage resulting to plaintiff from an act or acts done in furtherance of the common design....

  • Name

    RESIDUAL INCOME OPPORTUNITIES INC ET AL VS TRIBUL MERCHANT S

  • Case No.

    BC627326

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Defendants' Motion to Strike is DENIED, with the exception of Claim 9 for Civil Conspiracy, to which Plaintiff UCSD agrees.

  • Name

    THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA VS. AISEN

  • Case No.

    37-2015-00022082-CU-BT-CTL

  • Hearing

    May 30, 2019

Civil Conspiracy (Second Cause of Action) Defendant argues Acostas second cause of action for civil conspiracy fails to state a claim. The court agrees. Civil conspiracy is not an independent tort. Instead, it is 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. ( City of Industry v.

  • Name

    JOSHUA ACOSTA VS AURORA CHARTER OAK-LOS ANGELES, LLC

  • Case No.

    20STCV48320

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2022

  • Judge

    12/14/2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Verified Petition For Order Granting Leave To File A Verified Amended Complaint Against Attorneys Containing Allegations Of Damages Arising From Civil Conspiracy Matter on Calendar for Thursday, November 19, 2015, Line 3. PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH KARNAZES' Verified Petition For Order Granting Leave To File A Verified Amended Complaint Against Attorneys Containing Allegations Of Damages Arising From Civil Conspiracy.

  • Name

    ELIZABETH KARNAZES VS. JOHN J. HARTFORD ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC12521174

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2015

Cross-complainant Abe’s AAA Plus, Inc.’s (“AAA”) causes of action for interpleader and civil conspiracy to defraud are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (b)(1); AAA’s Opposition, p. 4.)

  • Name

    KOEHLER V. PAVONE

  • Case No.

    CVCV15-125

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2015

Defendants Kim and Woobo contend that the Sixth Cause of Action for unjust enrichment and the Seventh Cause of Action for civil conspiracy cannot stand because they are based on an allegedly defective claim for conversion. This is represents an unnecessarily myopic view of the case as a whole. The court has previously ruled that plaintiff’s Sixth and Seventh Causes of Action are viable if tied to an underlying tort. (See Minute Order dated 11-27-17.)

  • Name

    XU VS. CHO

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00840156-CU-BT-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2019

Liability Based on Civil Conspiracy DLD Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s causes of action against DLD Defendants are based on Plaintiff’s claim of a civil conspiracy, which Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged. (Demurrer, pg. 15.) Plaintiff failed to allege facts suggesting DLD or Rad participated in the formation and/or operation of the purported civil conspiracy.

  • Name

    ROSEMARY WOODS VS RAZ INVESTMENTS,INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV34490

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

RELIEF REQUESTED: Sustain demurrer to first and second causes of action of First Amended Complaint CAUSES OF ACTION: from First Amended Complaint Fraud Civil Conspiracy to Commit Fraud Breach of Written Contract RULING: Defendant Amaxi Nutrition Products, Inc.’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

  • Name

    SEMCO E&M CORP.,ET AL VS. MARGARET LAU, ET AL

  • Case No.

    EC066936

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2019

“Failure to obtain a court order where required by subdivision (a) shall be a defense to any action for civil conspiracy filed in violation thereof. (Civ. Code, § 1714.10(b).)

  • Name

    CESAR ROMERO ET AL VS FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC656649

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2017

. ; (6) escrow negligence; (7) fraud; (8) civil conspiracy; and (9) declaratory relief. Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff Sam and Defendant Kwan entered into a business venture together to create CAC LLC in 2013, where Kwan and Sam appointed Sam as the managing member of CAC, LLC. (SAC, ¶ 4.)

  • Name

    ANTHONY SAM VS RENEE KWAN ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC721121

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

A civil conspiracy requires an object to be accomplished, a meeting of minds on the object or course of action, one or more overt acts, and damages as the proximate result thereof. Since one cannot agree, expressly or tacitly, to commit a wrong about which he or she has no knowledge, in order for civil conspiracy to arise, the parties must be aware of harm or wrongful conduct at beginning of or in combination with the agreement.

  • Name

    CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC, VS RECALIBRATED PERFORMANCE LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19LBCV00497

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP (2010) 188 Ca.l.Appt4tl1 189, 206 (“Civil conspiracy is not an independent tort”).) The court sustains Defendants‘ demurrer to the fourth cause of action without leave to amend. Because Plaintiff can still pursue a theory of liability based on civil conspiracy, however, his conspiracy allegations in other sections of the First Amended Complaint (e.g., W7, 95, 99 -105, Prayer for Relief (112)) are not affected by the court’s ruling.

  • Name

    ARAM ANTARAMIAN VS. EQUITY BANCORP, INC., ET AL

  • Case No.

    CV2001829

  • Hearing

    Feb 17, 2021

As with the FAC, the SAC fails to sufficiently allege any underlying tort to support a cause of action for civil conspiracy, nor does his opposition address this. He also fails to show how the pleading can be amended to allege civil conspiracy, so as stated above, leave to amend will not be granted.

  • Name

    UMESH PATEL V. PACIFIC LODGING GROUP, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19CV340816

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

Motion denied as to the 5th cause of action for civil conspiracy which is proper under CC section 1714.10. =(302/CWW)

  • Name

    DAVID C. ANDERSON VS. BLAIR ADAMS ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC08476550

  • Hearing

    Apr 20, 2010

Accordingly, Plaintiff may not allege an 11th cause of action for civil conspiracy, but Plaintiff may add specific civil conspiracy allegations to the extent they apply to other underlying causes of action. Defendants also argus that the civil conspiracy allegations are not properly pled. However, this issue is moot because the court cannot properly evaluate the allegations unless they are pled in connection with a specific, underlying causes of action. Defendants shall give notice of this ruling.

  • Name

    MCBAIN VS WALLACE

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00932955-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2018

On December 11, 2014, McKee moved for leave to reinstate the civil conspiracy claim previously dismissed on demurrer. The trial court denied the petition on the ground that the civil conspiracy claim was barred by the litigation privilege. McKee appealed that order and, on November 30, 2015, the Court of Appeal affirmed. Remittitur was filed in this court on February 24, 2016.

  • Name

    JONATHAN MCKEE VS KEVIN MAUSETH ET AL

  • Case No.

    16CV02103

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2016

Plaintiff did not satisfy CRC, Rule 3.1324 in regards to the causes of action for aiding and abetting or civil conspiracy. Plaintiff shall file and serve the amended complaint, which includes the additional cause of action for breach on contract, on all parties who have appeared in this action within 10 days. Plaintiff to give notice unless notice is waived.

  • Name

    VITEC ELECTRONICS CORP. VS. VERIS INDUSTRIES, LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00876606-CU-IP-CJC

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2017

NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CIVIL CONSPIRACY MAY BE PLED WITHOUT COURT ORDER CC SECTION 1714.10. FRAUD MUST BE PLED WITH PARTICULARITY. PLAINTIFF MUST DEMONSTRATE ON THE FACE OF THE COMPLAINT THAT HIS CAUSES OF ACTION ARE NOT TIME-BARRED. =(302/CWW)

  • Name

    ROBERT F. RICHARD II VS. ROBERT F. RICHARD ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC10500020

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2010

We have summarized the elements and significance of a civil conspiracy: “ 'The elements of an action for civil conspiracy are the formation and operation of the conspiracy and damage resulting to plaintiff from an act or acts done in furtherance of the common design....

  • Name

    XU VS. CHO

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00840156

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2017

In this regard, the Court rejects the Defendants arguments that certain claims (the first cause of action for creditor's suit; third cause of action for civil conspiracy to defraud creditors by concealing assets; fifth cause of action for aiding and abetting Mark Maine's concealment of assets from creditors; seventh cause of action for declaratory relief re alter ego status; and eighth cause of action for alter ego liability) are time-barred pursuant to Civ.

  • Name

    MYERS VS ANGELIC PICTURES INC

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00030815-CU-FR-CTL

  • Hearing

    May 02, 2018

The Causes of Action were for civil conspiracy and fraud. Plaintiff apparently hangs it hat on the language on p. 686, "There is but one cause of action alleged; namely, the wrongful ousting of plaintiff from his business". But in doing so ignores the rest of the opinion which comes back to the real Cause of Actions, for conspiracy and defrauding pl of his interest in the partnership.

  • Name

    SANTA PAULA ROCK GRAVEL & SAND LLC VS. MILE GRBIC

  • Case No.

    56-2012-00424722-CU-MC-VTA

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2012

The elements of a civil conspiracy are: (i) formation and operation of the conspiracy; (ii) damage resulting to plaintiff; and (iii) from an act done in furtherance of the common design. (Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia, Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 511.) “Standing alone, a conspiracy does no harm and engenders no tort liability. It must be activated by the commission of an actual tort.” (Id.) The Complaint here adequately pleads facts to support a claim for civil conspiracy.

  • Name

    WANG VS. DIAO

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00922869-CU-BT-CJC

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2017

Plaintiff’s second and third causes of action for civil conspiracy and fraud and deceit fail to state facts sufficient to establish those causes of action, including a failure to plead fraud with reasonable particularity. The Complaint fails to cite a contract or statute that could authorize attorney’s fees. Plaintiff alleges an entitlement to punitive damages only for fraud, but plaintiff’s fraud claim fails to state a cause of action.

  • Name

    KAMRAN STAFFING INC. VS. HORIZON PERSONNEL SERVICES

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00927655-CU-FR-CJC

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2017

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., supra, 7 Cal. 4th at 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.

  • Name

    WILLIAM GODFREY, THROUGH HIS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST, HELEN CHRISTINE GODFREY VS. JRM ENERGY, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00831888-CU-FR-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2019

Civil Conspiracy The elements of civil conspiracy are (1) formation of a conspiracy, (2) operation of a conspiracy, and (3) resulting damages. I-CA Enterprises, Inc. v. Palram Americas, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 257. Conspiracy is not an independent tort; it must be based on another underlying cause of action. Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 511. Defendants demur, arguing fraud has not been sufficiently alleged.

  • Name

    DANIELLE COLEMAN VS DAVID DRAIN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21SMCV00887

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

On the other hand, this cause of action also appears to be premised on a civil conspiracy to commit the fraud detailed in the third cause of action; i.e., a civil conspiracy to mismanage Larking, Inc., a civil conspiracy to not keep financial records for Larking, and a civil conspiracy to self-deal and misappropriate the Larking assets. As discussed above, whether this fraud occurred remains disputed.

  • Name

    AMINPOUR VS CALHOUN

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00054834-CU-BT-CTL

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2023

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

Second Cause of Action for Civil Conspiracy “The elements of an action for civil conspiracy are the formation and operation of the conspiracy and damage resulting to plaintiff from an act or acts done in furtherance of the common design.” Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 511.

  • Name

    SANFORD B WEISS ET AL VS CHARLOTTE S WEISS ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC635195

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2017

On December 11, 2014, McKee moved, pursuant to Civil Code § 1714.10 for leave to amend to state the civil conspiracy claim previously dismissed on demurrer. The trial court denied the petition on the ground that the civil conspiracy claim was barred by the litigation privilege. McKee appealed that order and, on November 30, 2015, the Court of Appeal affirmed. Remittitur was filed in this court on February 24, 2016.

  • Name

    JONATHAN MCKEE V. BRIGHT & POWELL, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    1467044

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2016

Although plaintiff showed when the facts giving rise to the breach of contract claim was discovered and that plaintiff sought leave to amend at the earliest practicable date, plaintiff did not state when the facts giving rise to the aiding and abetting claim and civil conspiracy claim were discovered or the reasons why the request for amendment to add those two claims was not made earlier. Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1324(b)(3)-(4). Defendants may file a supplemental opposition no later than 7/19/2017.

  • Name

    VITEC ELECTRONICS CORP. VS. VERIS INDUSTRIES, LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00876606-CU-IP-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2017

Defendant Larry Wong cannot be held liable for civil conspiracy, no duty owed to plaintiffs. =(302/CWW)

  • Name

    KATIUSKA ABURTO ET AL VS. ANNA T WONG ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC07469968

  • Hearing

    Mar 30, 2010

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (i.e., CIVIL CONSPIRACY): “A civil conspiracy does not give rise to a cause of action unless a civil wrong has been committed resulting in damage. The elements of an action for civil conspiracy are (1) formation and operation of the conspiracy and (2) damage resulting to plaintiff (3) from an act done in furtherance of the common design. (Doctor’s Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 39, 44).” Thompson v. California Fair Plan Assn. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 760, 767.

  • Name

    REBECCA BONILLA VS SAN GABRIEL VALLEY TOWING ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC674461

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2018

Plaintiff asserts causes of action against Defendant arising from these allegations for civil conspiracy and intentional/negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. B.

  • Name

    PASEO PASADENA HOTEL INVESTMENT, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ONNI CAPITAL, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23AHCV00659

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

A claim of civil conspiracy (count three) is not a separate cause of action, and its only significance is that each member may be held responsible as a joint tortfeasor for torts committed pursuant to the conspiracy, regardless of whether or not he or she directly participated in the act. (See, e.g., Richard B. LeVine, Inc. v. Higashi (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 566, 574.)

  • Name

    RINCON BAND OF LUISENO MISSION INDIANS OF THE RINCON RESERVATION CALIFORNIA VS FLYNT [E-FILE]

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00058170-CU-NP-CTL

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2019

Civil conspiracy is not itself a tort and is not actionable in the absence of an underlying wrong. Okun v. Superior Court (1981) 29 Cal.3d 442, 454 (proof of a conspiracy may render additional parties liable for a tort, but the conspiracy itself is not actionable without an underlying wrong); Doctors’ Company v. Superior Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 39, 44 (a civil conspiracy does not per se give rise to a cause of action unless a civil wrong has been committed resulting in damage).

  • Name

    GREGG WELSH VS HADDON B DILLON

  • Case No.

    1337207

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2011

Civil Conspiracy (Second Cause of Action) Defendant argues Acostas second cause of action for civil conspiracy fails to state a claim. The court agrees. Civil conspiracy is not an independent tort. Instead, it is 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. ( City of Industry v.

  • Name

    JOSHUA ACOSTA VS AURORA CHARTER OAK-LOS ANGELES, LLC

  • Case No.

    20STCV48320

  • Hearing

    Apr 17, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Lorenz’s cited authority does not stand for the proposition that Plaintiff may not plead civil conspiracy in the alternative. The Complaint does plead civil conspiracy in the alternative and consistent with the requirements of City of Industry . For these reasons, Lorenz’s demurrer to the fifth cause of action is overruled.

  • Name

    JEREMY ROSENBERG, ET AL. VS AUTUMN LORENZ, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV38707

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

“Accordingly, ‘[t]he basis of a civil conspiracy is the formation of a group of two or more persons who have agreed to a common plan or design to commit a tortious act.’” (Kidron, supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at 1582 citations omitted.) “[I]t is basic in the law of conspiracy that you must have two persons or entities to have a conspiracy.

  • Name

    SAIFI VS TSA GROUP LLC

  • Case No.

    MSC22-00196

  • Hearing

    Apr 24, 2023

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

Demurrer The first cause of action for civil conspiracy fails because conspiracy is not a separate stand-alone cause of action. (Applied Equipment Corporation v. Litton Saudi Arabia, Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 510.) A separate cause of action for conspiracy is unnecessary in light of Plaintiffs’ allegations of agency and conspiracy in Paragraphs 24-25 on which the various defendants may be held liable for the alleged conduct by other defendants.

  • Name

    HUNTER VS. INTERNATIONAL TOWING, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2018-01026432-CU-BT-CXC

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2019

The demurrer is overruled as to cross-complainant’s third cause of action for civil conspiracy. “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.” Kesmodel v. Rand (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1141.

  • Name

    ZUBILLAGA, JAMES SR. VS. ZUBILLAGA, GINA

  • Case No.

    M-CV-0071751

  • Hearing

    Mar 19, 2019

Explanation: Civil Conspiracy The elements of a civil conspiracy are (1) formation and operation of the conspiracy, (2) damage resulting to plaintiff, and (3) from an act done in furtherance of the common design. (I-CA Enterprises, Inc. v. Palram Americas, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 257, fn.2; Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb and Lack (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1105, 1136.)

  • Name

    EMMETT V. TUON, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    17CECG01566

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2017

Tenth (Civil Conspiracy): OVERRULED; several of the torts alleged provide predicates for a civil conspiracy claim. Twelfth (Tort of Another): OVERRULED; Plaintiff has alleged several torts by Defendants that resulted in him having to respond to CUMIS' denial of bondability. Thirteenth (Declaratory Relief): OVERRULED; a possibility of future wrongs exists.

  • Name

    JASON MERTZ-PRICKETT VS. CHRISTOPHER BRUNO ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC17560907

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2018

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope