Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 607 views

    42 U.S.C. Conspiracy Authorities, 9th Circuit

    Uploaded by

    davidchey4617
    To establish a conspiracy under 42 USC 1983, a plaintiff must show an agreement to violate their constitutional rights and an overt act furthering the conspiracy. Under Section 1985(3), a plaintiff must show (1) a conspiracy (2) to deprive them of equal protection and (3) an act furthering the conspiracy that causes injury. The district court found the plaintiffs presented evidence that FBI agents intended to inhibit their First Amendment activities based on prior investigations of the group and providing false information to police. However, the court found insufficient evidence the defendants intended to chill speech or were part of agreeing to falsely accuse the plaintiffs. The appeals court found the plaintiffs presented sufficient circumstantial evidence of improper motive and conspiracy to survive summary judgment based

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    42 U.S.C. Conspiracy Authorities, 9th Circuit

    Uploaded by

    davidchey4617
    607 views25 pages
    To establish a conspiracy under 42 USC 1983, a plaintiff must show an agreement to violate their constitutional rights and an overt act furthering the conspiracy. Under Section 1985(3), a plaintiff must show (1) a conspiracy (2) to deprive them of equal protection and (3) an act furthering the conspiracy that causes injury. The district court found the plaintiffs presented evidence that FBI agents intended to inhibit their First Amendment activities based on prior investigations of the group and providing false information to police. However, the court found insufficient evidence the defendants intended to chill speech or were part of agreeing to falsely accuse the plaintiffs. The appeals court found the plaintiffs presented sufficient circumstantial evidence of improper motive and conspiracy to survive summary judgment based

    Original Description:

    42 U.S.C. 1983 Conspiracy Authorities, 9th Circuit Case Law, Elements, Circumstantial Evidence...

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    To establish a conspiracy under 42 USC 1983, a plaintiff must show an agreement to violate their constitutional rights and an overt act furthering the conspiracy. Under Section 1985(3), a plaintiff must show (1) a conspiracy (2) to deprive them of equal protection and (3) an act furthering the conspiracy that causes injury. The district court found the plaintiffs presented evidence that FBI agents intended to inhibit their First Amendment activities based on prior investigations of the group and providing false information to police. However, the court found insufficient evidence the defendants intended to chill speech or were part of agreeing to falsely accuse the plaintiffs. The appeals court found the plaintiffs presented sufficient circumstantial evidence of improper motive and conspiracy to survive summary judgment based

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    607 views25 pages

    42 U.S.C. Conspiracy Authorities, 9th Circuit

    Uploaded by

    davidchey4617
    To establish a conspiracy under 42 USC 1983, a plaintiff must show an agreement to violate their constitutional rights and an overt act furthering the conspiracy. Under Section 1985(3), a plaintiff must show (1) a conspiracy (2) to deprive them of equal protection and (3) an act furthering the conspiracy that causes injury. The district court found the plaintiffs presented evidence that FBI agents intended to inhibit their First Amendment activities based on prior investigations of the group and providing false information to police. However, the court found insufficient evidence the defendants intended to chill speech or were part of agreeing to falsely accuse the plaintiffs. The appeals court found the plaintiffs presented sufficient circumstantial evidence of improper motive and conspiracy to survive summary judgment based

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 25

    42 USC 1983 Conspiracy

    Distinction between conspiracy under 1983, and under 1985(3)


    To estabis! conspiracy under 1983, t!e painti"" #ust s!ow an a$ree#ent or #eetin$ o"
    #inds to %ioate !is or !er constitutiona ri$!ts and an o%ert act in "urt!erance o"
    t!e conspiracy
    To estabis! conspiracy under under Section 1985(3) painti"" #ust s!ow a t!e ee#ents
    o" (1) a conspiracy (2) "or t!e purpose o" directy or indirecty depri%in$ t!e
    painti"" or cass o" painti"" e&ua protection o" t!e aws or e&ua pri%ie$es, and
    i##unities under t!e aws' and (3) an act in "urt!erance o" t!e conspiracy' (4) w!ere
    t!e painti"" is in(ured in !is or !er property, or is depri%ed o" any ri$!t or
    pri%ie$e o" a United States Citi)en*
    Mendocino Environmental Center v. Mendocino County, 192 F.3d 1283, 45 Fed.R.Serv.3d
    114, 99 Cal. Daily !. Serv. "912, 1999 Daily #ournal D.$.R. 1%,%33 &9t' Cir.&Cal.(,Se!
    24, 1999(
    )2%* Con+!iracy 91 ".5&1(
    91 Conspiracy
    91+ Ci%i ,iabiity
    91+(-) -cts Constitutin$ Conspiracy and ,iabiity T!ere"or
    91./05 Conspiracy to +nter"ere wit! Ci%i 1i$!ts
    91./05(1) .0 +n 2enera0 3ost Cited Cases
    To estabis! t!e de"endants4 iabiity "or a conspiracy to %ioate ci%i ri$!ts, a
    painti"" #ust de#onstrate t!e e5istence o" an a$ree#ent or #eetin$ o" t!e #inds to
    %ioate constitutiona ri$!ts' t!e de"endants #ust !a%e, by so#e concerted action,
    intended to acco#pis! so#e unaw"u ob(ecti%e "or t!e purpose o" !ar#in$ anot!er w!ic!
    resuts in da#a$e, but suc! an a$ree#ent need not be o%ert, and #ay be in"erred on t!e
    basis o" circu#stantia e%idence suc! as t!e actions o" t!e de"endants0
    ,. -'e Con+!iracy Claim
    6278 6218 To estabis! t!e de"endants4 iabiity "or a conspiracy, a painti"" #ust
    de#onstrate t!e e5istence o" 9 ::;an a$ree#ent or ::;#eetin$ o" t!e #inds4 to %ioate
    constitutiona ri$!ts0< = United Steelworkers of America v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 8>5
    ?02d 1539, 1547@41 (9t! Cir01989) (en banc) (&uotin$ Fonda v. Gray, /7/ ?02d 435, 438
    (9t! Cir01983))0 T!e de"endants #ust !a%e, 9by so#e concerted action, intend6ed8 to
    acco#pis! so#e unaw"u ob(ecti%e "or t!e purpose o" !ar#in$ anot!er w!ic! resuts in
    da#a$e0=
    ?A33
    Gilrook v. City of !estminster, 1// ?03d 839, 85> (9t! Cir01999) (&uotin$
    "ie#$ v. %ast &ay 'eg(l Park Dist., 97> ?02d 1337, 1343 (9t! Cir01997))0 Suc! an
    a$ree#ent need not be o%ert, and #ay be in"erred on t!e basis o" circu#stantia e%idence
    suc! as t!e actions o" t!e de"endants0 See id. at 85>0 ::?or e5a#pe, a s!owin$ t!at
    t!e ae$ed conspirators !a%e co##itted acts t!at 9are uni.ey to !a%e been underta.en
    wit!out an a$ree#ent= #ay aow a (ury to in"er t!e e5istence o" a conspiracy0 )#nik v.
    'acine Co#nty, 94> ?02d 15/4, 1587 (/t! Cir01991)0 B!et!er de"endants were in%o%ed in
    an unaw"u conspiracy is $eneray a "actua issue and s!oud be reso%ed by t!e (ury,
    9so on$ as t!ere is a possibiity t!at t!e (ury can ;in"er "ro# t!e circu#stances (t!at
    t!e ae$ed conspirators) !ad a ;#eetin$ o" t!e #inds4 and t!us reac!ed .13%2 a
    understandin$< to ac!ie%e t!e conspiracy4s ob(ecti%es0= *ampton v. *anrahan, >77 ?02d
    >77, >21 (/t! Cir019/9), reversed in part on other gro#nds, 44> U0S0 /54, 177 S0Ct0
    198/, >4 ,0Cd02d >/7 (1987)) (&uotin$ Adickes v. )ress + Co., 398 U0S0 144, 158@59, 97
    S0Ct0 1598, 2> ,0Cd02d 142 (19/7))0 9To be iabe, eac! participant in t!e conspiracy
    need not .now t!e e5act detais o" t!e pan, but eac! participant #ust at east s!are
    t!e co##on ob(ecti%e o" t!e conspiracy0= Phelps Dodge, 8>5 ?02d at 15410
    ?A330 T!e painti""s !a%e ae$ed t!at t!e de"endants intended to 9 ;e5pose,
    disrupt, #isdirect, discredit or ot!erwise neutrai)e< and ot!erwise suppress,
    punis! and c!i t!e protected acti%ities o" t!e painti""s, Cart! ?irstD and
    1edwood Su##er,= and de"ined t!e ob(ect o" t!e conspiracy as "oowsE
    6T8o ;e5pose, disrupt, #isdirect, discredit or ot!erwise neutrai)e< and
    ot!erwise suppress, punis! and c!i t!e protected acti%ities o" t!e
    painti""s, Cart! ?irstD and 1edwood Su##er0
    0 0 0 0 0
    F to endea%or to cause 1edwood Su##er to be seen and branded in t!e pubic #ind
    as i.ey to in%o%e awess con"ict and %ioence, so t!at its #eanin$ and
    non@%ioent pre#ise woud be !idden and peope woud be "ri$!tened and
    discoura$ed "ro# co#in$ to participate'
    F to nurture t!e at#osp!ere o" con"ict, dan$er and di%ision in t!e co##unities
    o" t!e o$$in$ district and a#on$ t!e peope t!ere, so as to i#pede t!e
    or$ani)in$ wor. o" painti""s and t!eir associates directed at t!e o$$in$
    co#panies and t!eir responsibiity "or t!e destruction o" t!e "orest and
    i#po%eris!#ent o" t!e "orest wor.ers' and,
    F to "asey portray painti""s and Cart! ?irstD, and cause t!e# to be
    portrayed, as dan$erous e5tre#ists, in%o%ed wit! bo#bs and $uns and tree@
    spi.in$, wiin$ to resort to %ioence, power@!un$ry and wit!out conscience in
    t!e pursuit o" t!eir ends, etc0
    Gainti""s4 Se%ent! -#ended Co#paint at 15@1>0
    2. -'e Di+trict Court/+ Conclu+ion+
    T!e district court "ound t!at t!e appeees !ad de#onstrated t!at t!eir ?irst -#end#ent
    9ad%ocacy was disrupted= by t!e actions o" t!e appeants and t!e ot!er de"endants0 +t
    t!en !ed t!at t!e appeees !ad produced su""icient e%idence t!at ?H+ a$ents !ad
    intended to in!ibit t!eir ?irst -#end#ent acti%ities, citin$ t!e s!owin$ t!at t!e ?H+
    !ad pre%iousy in%esti$ated Cart! ?irstD and !ad #isrepresented t!e nature o" t!ese
    prior in%esti$ations, !ad pro%ided "ase or #iseadin$ in"or#ation about t!e appeees
    to t!e Ia.and poice, and continued to in%esti$ate t!e# e%en a"ter t!e -a#eda County
    District -ttorney decined to pursue c!ar$es0 Jowe%er, t!e court reasoned t!at, because
    t!e appeees coud not estabis! t!at t!e Ia.and poice !ad pre%iousy in%esti$ated
    Cart! ?irstD, !ad 9en$a$e6d8 in any co%erup,= or !ad any ani#us toward t!e#, t!ey coud
    not as a #atter o" aw de#onstrate t!at 9t!e unaw"u arrests and searc!es 000 6were8
    #oti%ated by an intent to c!i painti""s4 speec!0=
    T!e district court4s reasonin$ on t!e appeees4 conspiracy ae$ation paraeed t!at
    reatin$ to t!eir ?irst -#end#ent cai#sE it !ed t!at t!e appeees !ad presented
    circu#stantia e%idence su$$estin$ ani#us and a$ree#ent a#on$ t!e ?H+ a$ents, but !ad
    "aied to s!ow t!at t!e appeants !ad any ani#us, intended to c!i appeees4 speec!,
    or were part o" t!e a$ree#ent to "asey accuse appeees o" responsibiity "or t!e
    e5posion0
    3. Su00iciency o0 t'e Evidence 1re+ented ,y t'e $!!ellee+
    6228 Direct e%idence o" i#proper #oti%e or an a$ree#ent a#on$ t!e parties to %ioate a
    painti""4s constitutiona ri$!ts wi ony rarey be a%aiabe0 +nstead, it wi
    a#ost aways be necessary to in"er suc! a$ree#ents "ro# circu#stantia e%idence or t!e
    e5istence o" (oint action0 See ,agana, 17/ ?03d at 144/' )#nik, 94> ?02d at 1587'
    *ampton, >77 ?02d at >27@210 3oreo%er, 96&8uestions in%o%in$ a person4s state o"
    #ind 000 are $eneray "actua issues inappropriate "or resoution by su##ary (ud$#ent0=
    &ra$ton-Secret v. 'oins Co., />9 ?02d 528, 531 (9t! Cir01985)0
    6238 +n t!e instant case, t!e appeees !a%e presented su""icient circu#stantia
    e%idence t!at t!e appeants intended to in!ibit t!eir ?irst -#end#ent acti%ities, and
    t!at t!ey entered a conspiracy to "urt!er t!is $oa, to sur%i%e a #otion "or su##ary
    (ud$#ent0 ::?irst, t!e "act t!at t!e appeants !ad t!e#se%es %iewed t!e cri#e scene
    and t!e p!ysica e%idence raises a &uestion as to w!et!er t!ey woud !a%e reied upon
    t!e ?H+ a$ents4 &uestionabe c!aracteri)ation o" t!e e%idence absent an i#proper #oti%e
    or conspiracy0 See Phelps Dodge, 8>5 ?02d at 1541 ::(poice "aiure to e5ercise
    independent (ud$#ent #ay !ep de#onstrate in%o%e#ent in conspiracy)0 ::Second, so#e o"
    t!e #isin"or#ation incuded in, and so#e o" t!e #ateria o#issions "ro# t!e searc!
    warrant a""ida%its were directy attributabe to t!e appeants, w!ic! per#its t!e
    in"erence o" an i#proper #oti%e "or suc! conduct0 T!ird, t!e appeants acti%ey
    pubici)ed t!e inaccurate in"or#ation to t!e #edia, an act w!ic! is consistent wit! a
    desire to create a ne$ati%e i#pression o" Cart! ?irstD a#on$ t!e pubic0 ?ourt!, t!e
    Ia.and poice depart#ent !ad a di%ision t!at !ad #onitored t!e acti%ities o" Cart!
    ?irstD and cooperated wit! t!e ?H+ prior to t!e bo#bin$ incident0 ?i"t!, t!e Ia.and
    poice, in t!e searc! warrant a""ida%it, stated t!eir beie" t!at appeees were
    9#e#bers o" a %ioent terrorist $roup0= Suc! a state#ent stron$y su$$ests t!at t!e
    o""icers .13%3 #i$!t !a%e wanted to in!ibit bot! t!e $roup4s operations and t!e
    acti%ities o" its #e#bers0 -nd "inay, $i%en t!e district court4s "indin$s o" a "actua
    dispute on t!e point, we #ust assu#e "or purposes o" t!is opinion t!at a conspiracy
    e5isted a#on$ ?H+ a$ents Doye, 1ei.es, Sena, Huc., Je#(e and Conway0 T!e "act t!at t!e
    appeants acted in cose cooperation wit! t!ese 9conspirators= in pannin$ and
    conductin$ t!eir in%esti$ation, and t!at bot! t!e ?H+ a$ents and t!e appeants
    contributed #isin"or#ation to t!e probabe cause s!owin$s t!at aowed t!e appeants to
    obtain t!e searc! warrants, is !i$!y probati%e as to t!e e5istence o" an a$ree#ent,
    i#picit or e5picit, a#on$ t!e appeants and t!e ?H+ 9conspirators=0 See Phelps
    Dodge, 8>5 ?02d at 1545, 154/ (c!aracteri)in$ t!e e5istence o" a conspiracy as a
    9s#o.in$ $un= wit! re$ard to a painti""4s atte#pt to pro%e t!at a particuar de"endant
    was part o" t!at conspiracy)0
    ?A34
    ?A340 T!e "act t!at t!e Ia.and poice o""icers !ed #eetin$s wit! and conducted
    a (oint in%esti$ation wit! t!e ?H+ a$ents renders suc! e%idence e%en #ore
    probati%e on t!e &uestion o" t!e in%o%e#ent o" t!e Ia.and poice o""icers0 9T!e
    abiity and opportunity to conspire, w!ie insu""icient aone, constitute
    circu#stantia e%idence o" actua participation in t!e conspiracy0= .d. at 154/0
    6248 T!e possibiity t!at ot!er in"erences coud be drawn t!at woud pro%ide an
    aternate e5panation "or t!e appeants4 actions does not entite t!e# to su##ary
    (ud$#ent0 See Phelps Dodge, 8>5 ?02d at 1542 (in"erence need not be #ost i.ey but
    #erey a 9rationa= or 9reasonabe= one)' *ampton, >77 ?02d at >21 (9T!e "act t!at ;a
    o" t!e e%idence 000 does not point in one direction and di""erent in"erences #i$!t
    reasonaby be drawn "ro# it< does not (usti"y (udicia intrusion into t!e (ury4s roe in
    deter#inin$ w!et!er a ci%i conspiracy e5isted0=) (&uotin$ Continental /re Co. v. Union
    Caride + Caron Corp., 3/7 U0S0 >97, /77@71, 82 S0Ct0 1474, 8 ,0Cd02d /// (19>2))0 +n
    ot!er cases, we !a%e aowed si#iar circu#stantia s!owin$s to wit!stand su##ary
    (ud$#ent #otions0 See Phelps Dodge, 8>5 ?02d at 1543, 154/ (co#pany4s power"u position
    and cose reations!ip wit! aw en"orce#ent, #eetin$ at w!ic! co#pany ur$ed poice to
    treat painti""s !ars!y, ine&uitabe treat#ent o" painti""s by poice, and acti%e
    cooperation between co#pany and poice durin$ stri.e was su""icient e%idence o"
    co#pany4s participation in conspiracy to wit!stand su##ary (ud$#ent)0
    ?A35
    See also &ell
    v. City of ,ilwa#kee, /4> ?02d 1275, 125/@58 (/t! Cir01984) (de"endants4 adoption o"
    #odi"ied %ersion o" e%ents (usti"yin$ poice s!ootin$ wit!out notin$ discrepancies wit!
    earier story pro%ided su""icient e%idence o" participation in conspiracy, despite
    absence o" any e%idence t!at de"endants .new new %ersion was "ase)' ,yatt v. City of
    Chicago, 81> ?0Supp0 1259, 12>8 (A0D0+01992) (o""icer4s presence durin$ "eow
    o""icer4s use o" e5cessi%e "orce, warnin$ to ot!ers to stay away, and retrie%a o"
    "eow o""icer4s $un a"ter it "e out o" an.e !oster raised in"erence o" conspiracy
    t!at de"eated su##ary (ud$#ent)0
    ?A350 Fonda v. Gray, /7/ ?02d 435 (9t! Cir01983), is not to t!e contrary0 +n
    t!at case, we !ed t!at a ban.4s ac&uiescence to t!e ?H+4s in%esti$ation re&uest
    was insu""icient to pro%e its participation in t!e conspiracy0 /7/ ?02d at 4380
    Jowe%er, t!e "act t!at t!e appeants in t!is case are aw en"orce#ent o""icias
    w!o were in%o%ed in a (oint in%esti$ation wit! conspirator aw en"orce#ent
    o""icers ceary distin$uis!es it "ro# Fonda, in w!ic! t!e de"endants w!ose
    participation in t!e conspiracy was at issue were ban. e#poyees w!o de#onstrated
    t!at t!ey .new absoutey not!in$ about t!e nature o" t!e ?H+ in%esti$ation0 .d.
    Be t!ere"ore !od t!at t!e e%idence is su""icient to raise a $enuine issue o" "act as to
    w!et!er t!e appeants intended to inter"ere wit! t!e appeees4 poitica acti%ities
    and w!et!er t!ey did so by actin$ to$et!er wit! t!e ?H+ a$ents to "asey portray Hari
    and C!erney as bein$ responsibe "or t!e e5posion0
    23.
    C4C56S24
    T!e district court4s denia o" su##ary (ud$#ent to appeants on t!e issue o" .13%4
    &uai"ied i##unity is -??+13CD' its $rant o" su##ary (ud$#ent to appeants on t!e
    appeees4 cai#s o" ?irst -#end#ent %ioations and conspiracy is 1CKC1SCD' and t!e case
    is 1C3-ADCD "or "urt!er proceedin$s consistent wit! t!is opinion0
    -??+13CD in part, 1CKC1SCD in part, and 1C3-ADCD0
    SCJ1ICDC1, Circuit Lud$e, concurrin$E
    United Steewor.ers o" -#erica %0 G!eps Dod$e Corp0, 8>5 ?02d 1539, 5/ US,B 24>/,
    137 ,0101030 (HA-) 2353, 117 ,ab0Cas0 G 5>,71/ (9t! Cir0(-ri)0), Lan 18, 1989)
    6Cited 98 ti#es "or t!is e$a issue8
    United Steewor.ers o" -#erica %0 G!eps Dod$e Corp0, 8>5 ?02d 1539
    91 C4S12R$C7
    91+ Ci%i ,iabiity
    91+(H) -ctions
    91.19 .0 C%idence0
    C0-090-ri)0,1989
    C%idence t!at poice "aied to e5ercise independent (ud$#ent wi support in"erence o"
    conspiracy wit! pri%ate party, "or purpose o" estabis!in$ M 1983 iabiity0 42
    U0S0C0-0 M 1983 0
    6Cited 8 ti#es "or t!is e$a issue8
    3ars!a %0 Ido#, 15> ?0Supp02d 525
    D03d0S0Di%0,2771
    To estabis! a ci%i conspiracy under M 1983, painti"" #ust present e%idence t!at
    de"endants acted (ointy in concert and t!at so#e o%ert act was done in "urt!erance o"
    t!e conspiracy, w!ic! resuted in depri%ation o" a constitutiona ri$!t, by presentin$
    speci"ic circu#stantia e%idence t!at eac! #e#ber o" t!e ae$ed conspiracy s!ared sa#e
    conspiratoria ob(ecti%e, suc! as woud reasonaby ead to t!e in"erence t!at de"endants
    positi%ey or tacity ca#e to a #utua understandin$ to try to acco#pis! a co##on and
    unaw"u pan0 42 U0S0C0-0 M 1983 0
    6Cited / ti#es "or t!is e$a issue8
    Kene$as %0 Ba$ner, 831 ?02d 1514
    C0-090Ca0,198/
    C%idence supported (ury4s concusions t!at poice o""icers procured "ase testi#ony "ro#
    witness and denied painti"" a "air tria in a #urder prosecution and t!at o""icers
    %ioated ci%i ri$!ts statutes0 42 U0S0C0-0 MM 1983 , 1985(3) 0
    6Cited / ti#es "or t!is e$a issue8
    Stone %0 City o" C!ica$o, /38 ?02d 89>
    C0-0/0+0,1984
    C%idence in ci%i ri$!ts action ae$in$, inter aia, t!at poice o""icers conspired to
    !inder due course o" (ustice by en$a$in$ in co%er@up o" in%o%e#ent o" o""icers in
    accident in%o%in$ painti"" or by en$a$in$ in co%er@up o" use o" e5cessi%e "orce in
    e""ectin$ arrest o" painti"" and !is wi"e "oowin$ t!e accident, incudin$ "act t!at
    o""icers were !udded to$et!er at intersection con%ersin$, t!at se%era #ade racia
    surs a$ainst painti""s, t!at o""icia poice reports o#itted re"erence to poice car
    in%o%ed in accident, t!at o""icers "aied to report !it@and@run ae$ations to
    appropriate aut!ority, and t!at none o" t!e o""icers too. na#es o" witnesses w!o #i$!t
    !a%e seen appication o" e5cessi%e "orce, was su""icient to support %erdict "or t!e
    painti""s0 42 U0S0C0-0 M 1985 0
    6Cited > ti#es "or t!is e$a issue8
    Cacutt %0 2eri$, 2/1 ?0 227
    C0-0>0Tenn0,1921
    +n a ci%i action "or conspiracy, painti"" need not pro%e prei#inary #eetin$ o" t!e
    de"endants, or a de"inite pan or a$ree#ent by t!e# to in(ure !is person or property'
    but it is su""icient i" t!e proo" s!ows a concert o" action in t!e co##ission o" t!e
    unaw"u acts, "ro# w!ic! t!e natura in"erence arises t!at t!ey were in "urt!erance o"
    a co##on desi$n o" t!e ae$ed conspirators0
    6Cited 5 ti#es "or t!is e$a issue8
    Jandeen %0 ,e#aire, 112 ?03d 1339
    C0-0803inn0,199/
    To estabis! conspiracy to %ioate 1ac.eteer +n"uenced and Corrupt Ir$ani)ations -ct
    (1+CI), painti"" need estabis! ony a tacit understandin$ between parties, and can
    rey w!oy on circu#stantia e%idence o" eac! de"endant4s actions0 18 U0S0C0-0 M
    19>2(c, d) 0
    6Cited 5 ti#es "or t!is e$a issue8
    Aeibe %0 Trans Bord -ssur0 Co0, 178 ?03d 1123
    C0-090Ca0,199/
    Substantia e%idence supported (ury4s "indin$ t!at insurance co#pany a$reed to !a%e so#e
    part in directin$ a$ent4s a""airs concernin$ ta5 a%oidance sc!e#e, w!ic! t!us supported
    %erdict a$ainst insurance co#pany "or ci%i %ioation o" conspiracy pro%ision o"
    1ac.eteer +n"uenced and Corrupt Ir$ani)ations -ct (1+CI)' president o" insurance
    co#pany and a$ent discussed ta5 sc!e#e in%o%in$ saes o" insurance and !ow t!ey woud
    pro"it "ro# it, insurance co#pany !ired a$ent4s a$ents as independent contractors to
    se poicies, president o" insurance co#pany appeared at a$ent4s ta5 se#inar and
    appro%ed o" a$ent4s ta5 "or# sc!e#e, and insurance co#pany de%iated "ro# standard poicy
    to destroy #icro"i# records w!ie iti$ation was pendin$0 18 U0S0C0-0 M 19>2(d) 0
    6Cited 5 ti#es "or t!is e$a issue8
    Lones %0 City o" C!ica$o, 85> ?02d 985
    C0-0/0+0,1988
    C%idence was su""icient to support deter#ination t!at poice o""icers !ad acted in
    co##on sc!e#e to 9rairoad= "or#er #urder and rape de"endant, now ci%i painti"", in
    %ioation o" !is ri$!ts' basis "or arrest o" painti"" on #o#entary identi"ication o"
    !i# by c!id wit! !ead in(ury durin$ su$$esti%e circu#stances, o""icers4 t!reats to
    anot!er o""icer to pre%ent e5cupatory e%idence "ro# bein$ presented to prosecutor,
    issuance o" "rauduent e%idence report to prosecutin$ attorney, and ab report w!ic!
    "aied to present e5cupatory e%idence was su""icient0 42 U0S0C0-0 M 1983 0
    6Cited 5 ti#es "or t!is e$a issue8
    3artine) %0 Binner, 548 ?0Supp0 2/8
    D0Coo0,1982
    Conspiracy #ay be i#pied by a course o" conduct and ot!er circu#stantia e%idence, but
    t!e circu#stantia "acts reied upon #ust at east point in so#e #ini#a way to an
    actionabe conspiracy, and t!ere #ust be so#e indicia o" a$ree#ent in unaw"u #eans or
    end0
    6Cited 5 ti#es "or t!is e$a issue8
    Crowe %0 ,ucas, 595 ?02d 985
    C0-0503iss0,19/9
    ?indin$ t!at de"endant city o""icias !ad conspired to depri%e painti"" ader#an o" !is
    ci%i ri$!ts was supported by e%idence, incudin$ e%idence t!at de"endants !ad
    participated in pri%ate #eetin$s at w!ic! painti"" was discussed, as we as e%idence
    o" de"endants4 course o" conduct0 42 U0S0C0-0 M 1983 0
    6Cited 33 ti#es "or t!is e$a issue8
    City o" I#a!a C#poyees Hetter#ent -ss4n %0 City o" I#a!a, 883 ?02d >57
    C0-080Aeb0,1989
    Gainti"" ae$in$ ci%i ri$!ts conspiracy #ust ae$e wit! particuarity and
    speci"icay de#onstrate wit! #ateria "acts t!at de"endants reac!ed an a$ree#ent, and
    painti"" can satis"y t!at burden by pointin$ to at east so#e "acts w!ic! woud su$$est
    t!at de"endants reac!ed understandin$ to %ioate t!e ri$!ts0 42 U0S0C0-0 M 1985(3) 0
    6Cited 3 ti#es "or t!is e$a issue8
    +n re 3ana$ed Care ,iti$ation, 437 ?0Supp02d 133>
    S0D0?a0,277>
    To estabis! conspiratoria a$ree#ent ee#ent o" t!eir ci%i conspiracy cai# a$ainst
    !eat! #aintenance or$ani)ations (J3Is) under 1ac.eteer +n"uenced and Corrupt
    Ir$ani)ations -ct (1+CI), w!ic! was based on ae$ed sc!e#e to de"raud p!ysicians
    t!rou$! use o" J3Is4 auto#ated cai#s processin$ syste#s to syste#aticay underpay "or
    ser%ices, p!ysicians !ad to present e%idence tendin$ to e5cude possibiity o"
    independent conduct and tendin$ to s!ow conspiratoria be!a%ior, notwit!standin$
    p!ysicians4 contention t!at J3Is4 ae$ed parae conduct o" #ai and wire "raud,
    bein$ itse" unaw"u, su""iced to create in"erence o" conspiracy, inas#uc! as ae$ed
    proo" t!at J3Is en$a$ed in predicate acts o" #ai and wire "raud was as consistent wit!
    independent be!a%ior as wit! industry@wide conspiracy to #anipuate cai#s processin$
    syste#s0 18 U0S0C0-0 MM 1341 , 1343 , 19>2(d) 0
    6Cited 21 ti#es "or t!is e$a issue8
    Crowe %0 County o" San Die$o, >78 ?03d 47>
    C0-090Ca0,2717
    To estabis! iabiity "or a conspiracy in a M 1983 case, a painti"" #ust de#onstrate
    t!e e5istence o" an a$ree#ent or #eetin$ o" t!e #inds to %ioate constitutiona ri$!ts'
    suc! an a$ree#ent need not be o%ert, and #ay be in"erred on t!e basis o" circu#stantia
    e%idence suc! as t!e actions o" t!e de"endants0 42 U0S0C0-0 M 1983 0
    6Cited 21 ti#es "or t!is e$a issue8
    2reen %0 Henden, 281 ?03d >>1
    C0-0/0+0,2772
    -$ree#ent a#on$ ae$ed conspirators, "or purpose o" statute $o%ernin$ action "or
    conspiracy to inter"ere wit! ci%i ri$!ts, #ay be in"erred "ro# circu#stantia e%idence,
    but ony i" it is su""icient to per#it a reasonabe (ury to concude t!at a #eetin$ o"
    t!e #inds !ad occurred and t!at t!e parties !ad an understandin$ to ac!ie%e t!e
    conspiracy4s ob(ecti%es0 42 U0S0C0-0 M 1985(3) 0
    6Cited 21 ti#es "or t!is e$a issue8
    C5c!an$e Han. %0 3oss, 149 ?0 347
    C0-0803o0,197>
    B!ere t!e petition in an action to reco%er #oney, ae$ed to !a%e been obtained "ro#
    painti"" by #eans o" a conspiracy between de"endant ban. and ot!ers, ae$ed t!at suc!
    conspiracy co%ered an e5tended period o" ti#e, bot! be"ore and a"ter t!e transaction in
    suit, and was or$ani)ed "or t!e purpose o" swindin$ a stran$ers w!o coud be induced
    to enter into si#iar transactions, e%idence o" acts o" t!e cas!ier o" de"endant ban. in
    respect to si#iar transactions w!ie conductin$ t!e business o" t!e ban., or
    decarations #ade by !i# to ot!er persons si#iary de"rauded tendin$ to s!ow t!e ban.4s
    co#picity, w!et!er suc! acts and decarations were be"ore or a"ter t!e transaction in
    issue, are ad#issibe to estabis! t!e $uity intent and #oti%e o" t!e ban. in t!e
    transaction in%o%ed in t!e case on tria0
    6Cited 27 ti#es "or t!is e$a issue8
    Jernande) %0 Loiet Goice Dept0, 19/ ?03d 25>
    C0-0/0+0,1999
    T!e a$ree#ent upon w!ic! a ci%i ri$!ts conspiracy cai# is based #ay be in"erred "ro#
    circu#stantia e%idence, but ony i" t!ere is su""icient e%idence t!at woud per#it a
    reasonabe (ury to concude t!at a #eetin$ o" t!e #inds !ad occurred and t!at t!e
    parties !ad an understandin$ to ac!ie%e t!e conspiracy4s ob(ecti%es0 42 U0S0C0-0 M
    1985(3) 0
    6Cited 2 ti#es "or t!is e$a issue8
    ,i&uidation Co#4n o" Hanco +ntercontinenta, S0-0 %0 1enta, 537 ?03d 1339
    C0-0110?a0,2778
    T!e e5istence o" an a$ree#ent to participate in a 1ac.eteer +n"uenced and Corrupt
    Ir$ani)ations -ct (1+CI) conspiracy, as we as its ob(ecti%e, #ay be in"erred "ro#
    circu#stantia e%idence de#onstratin$ t!at eac! de"endant #ust necessariy !a%e .nown
    t!at t!e ot!ers were aso conspirin$ to participate in t!e sa#e enterprise t!rou$! a
    pattern o" rac.eteerin$ acti%ity0 18 U0S0C0-0 M 19>2(c)0
    6Cited 2 ti#es "or t!is e$a issue8
    Lo!nson %0 Hranc!, 242 ?0Supp0 /21
    C0D0A0C0,19>5
    To pro%e conspiracy in ci%i action, painti"" was not re&uired to pro%e date and pace
    o" de"endants4 #eetin$ and su##ary o" t!eir con%ersation, but was bound to s!ow
    so#et!in$ #ore t!an "acts w!ic! woud as we (usti"y de"endants4 conduct as to ead to
    in"erence o" conspiracy0
    6Cited 2 ti#es "or t!is e$a issue8
    Ca#pbe %0 Lo!nson, 1>/ ?0 172
    C0-090Bas!0,1979
    C%idence considered, and !ed to sustain a %erdict and (ud$#ent "or da#a$es in "a%or o"
    a #e#ber o" a typo$rap!ica union a$ainst ot!er #e#bers "or a conspiracy to cause !is
    suspension as a #e#ber unaw"uy and contrary to t!e rues o" t!e union0
    6Cited 18 ti#es "or t!is e$a issue8
    Ce"au %0 Kia$e o" C. 2ro%e, 211 ?03d 41>
    C0-0/0+0,2777
    C%idence re$ardin$ %ia$e4s ae$ed e""orts to e%ade iabiity in connection wit!
    arrests was not ree%ant to arrestees4 cai# t!at %ia$e and o""icers conspired to
    co%er up purported %ioations o" arrestees4 constitutiona ri$!ts, e%en i" e%idence
    woud !a%e s!own t!at %ia$e was #ore concerned about da#a$e contro t!an it was about
    (ustice, w!en suc! e%idence did not s!ow t!at %ia$e or o""icers suppressed or
    wit!!ed in"or#ation, or too. any action, w!ic! !a#pered arrestees in resortin$ to court
    to %indicate t!eir constitutiona ri$!ts0 U0S0C0-0 Const0-#ends0 1 , 14 ' 42 U0S0C0-0
    M 1983 0
    42NuscN1983NconspiracyNci%iNiabiityNactionsNe%idenceN"edNaNdi$estN5N2/N27140doc
    ::S0,0 e5 re0 ,ender#an %0 St0 ,ouis 3etropoitan Goice Dept0 Hd0 o" Goice Co#4rs,
    /25 ?03d 843
    C0-0803o,2713
    C%idence was su""icient to support arrestee4s cai# t!at poice ieutenant coone and
    ser$eant conspired to %ioate !er constitutiona ri$!ts so as to $i%e rise to M 1983
    conspiracy cai#' reasonabe (ury coud "ind t!at de"endants deiberatey "asi"ied
    arrest records to protect t!e depart#ent4s reputation "oowin$ arrestin$ o""icers4
    abusi%e #isconduct, ::t!at arrestin$ o""icers, w!o were aso conspiracy #e#bers,
    en$a$ed in o%ert acts by sub#ittin$ t!e "asi"ied arrest report and #iseadin$ t!e
    in%esti$ators durin$ t!e interna a""airs in%esti$ation, and t!at arrestee4s p!ysica
    and econo#ic in(uries were in.ed to arrestin$ o""icer4s o%ert acts, w!ic! were in turn
    reated to ieutenant coone4s acts o" pro%idin$ o""icer wit! in"or#ation about t!e
    interna a""airs in%esti$ation so s!e coud protect !er own interests0 42 U0S0C0-0 M
    1983
    ::+n re Cowin, 2713 B, 1/8>72>
    Han.r0S0D0Te50Jouston0Di%0,2713
    3eetin$ o" #inds between participants in ae$ed conspiracy to use ta5 ien "orecosure
    sae process in order to strip deed o" trust iens "ro# property and to abscond wit!
    e5cess "orecosure sae proceeds coud be in"erred, "or purposes o" estabis!in$
    e5istence o" ci%i conspiracy and !odin$ ae$ed conspirator iabe "or o%ert, ie$a
    acts co##itted, not ony by !i#se", but by ot!er conspirators, ::"ro# repeated pattern
    o" conduct a#on$ parties in ac&uirin$ rea property sub(ect to deed o" trust iens,
    s!orty t!erea"ter borrowin$ "unds "ro# con"ederate or co#pany t!at !e controed "or
    purpose o" payin$ rea property ta5es assessed a$ainst property, and i##ediatey
    de"autin$ on t!ese oans in order to enabe con"ederate to "orecose and to strip o""
    any (unior iens0
    Ooc! %0 1oya Bine 3erc!ants, ,td0, 23 ?a0 ,0 Bee.y ?ed0 D 385
    S0D0?a0,2712
    +n t!e conte5t o" a conspiracy, under ?orida aw, #ere e%idence o" .nowed$e o" t!e
    cri#e or association wit! conspirators is insu""icient to estabis! an a$ree#ent, but
    ::proo" t!at t!e de"endant co##itted an act w!ic! "urt!ered t!e purpose o" t!e
    conspiracy is circu#stantia e%idence t!at can pro%e t!e e5istence o" an a$ree#ent0
    Jarrin$ton %0 City o" Counci Hu""s, +owa, 972 ?0Supp02d 1195
    ::S0D0+owa0C0Di%0,2712
    C%idence s!owin$ t!at poice o""icers ped$ed sience to one anot!er "or purpose o"
    wron$"uy con%ictin$ arrestees was ad#issibe in arrestees4 M 1983 action ae$in$ t!at
    t!eir ci%i ri$!ts were %ioated durin$ #urder prosecution, inas#uc! as it was ree%ant
    to conspiracy cai# and woud not be unduy pre(udicia0 42 U0S0C0-0 M 1983 0
    ::Jarrin$ton %0 City o" Counci Hu""s, +owa, 972 ?0Supp02d 1195
    S0D0+owa0C0Di%0,2712
    C%idence s!owin$ t!at poice o""icers ped$ed sience to one anot!er "or purpose o"
    wron$"uy con%ictin$ arrestees was ad#issibe in arrestees4 M 1983 action ae$in$ t!at
    t!eir ci%i ri$!ts were %ioated durin$ #urder prosecution, inas#uc! as it was ree%ant
    to conspiracy cai# and woud not be unduy pre(udicia0 42 U0S0C0-0 M 1983 0
    Jarrin$ton %0 City o" Counci Hu""s, +owa, 972 ?0Supp02d 118>
    S0D0+owa0C0Di%0,2712
    C%idence o" !ow non@discosure o" e5cupatory reports occurred durin$ #urder prosecution
    woud not be ad#issibe, in arrestees4 subse&uent M 1983 action ae$in$ t!at t!eir
    ci%i ri$!ts were %ioated durin$ #urder prosecution, to s!ow t!at Hrady %ioations
    t!e#se%es %ioated any particuar constitutiona ri$!t o" arrestees, since de"endant
    poice o""icers were i##une "ro# suc! cai#, but arrestees woud be per#itted to o""er
    "act o" t!e %ioations and e%idence as to !ow %ioations occurred as support "or t!eir
    cai# t!at o""icers conspired wit! prosecutors to intentionay depri%e t!e# o"
    constitutiona ri$!ts0 42 U0S0C0-0 M 1983 0
    ::Goe %0 Bebber, 899 ?0Supp02d 1155
    D0A030,2712
    -bsent e%idence o" an a$ree#ent between cient4s "or#er attorneys and t!e state@court
    (ud$e w!o !ad dis#issed !is state@court action a$ainst t!e#, or o" any concerted action
    between attorneys and (ud$e, ot!er t!an e%idence t!at t!ey 9co##unicated directy and
    continuousy t!rou$! peadin$s and #otions,= cient "aied to estabis! t!at attorneys
    conspired wit! (ud$e to depri%e !i# o" !is constitutiona ri$!ts in %ioation o" M 19830
    42 U0S0C0-0 M 1983 0
    ::Lo!nson %0 Dossey, 8/8 ?0Supp02d 975
    A0D0+0C0Di%0,2712
    G!one cas and #eetin$s in%o%in$ aw en"orce#ent personne in%esti$atin$ arson case
    and personne associated wit! in%esti$ation conducted by suspect4s insurer did not
    indicate conspiracy under M 1983' co##unication between parties in%esti$atin$ sa#e case
    see#ed to be not ony routine, but aut!ori)ed and encoura$ed by +inois aw0 42
    U0S0C0-0 M 1983 0
    ::B!ite %0 City o" -tanta, 449 ?ed0-pp50 874
    C0-01102a0,2711
    Gainti"" "aied to s!ow t!at city poice o""icer was aware o" ae$ed conspiracy to coerce
    !i# to concea ie$a searc! o" !o#e t!at resuted in deat! o" !o#eowner, so as to support
    ci%i ri$!ts conspiracy cai#' %iewed in i$!t #ost "a%orabe to painti"", record
    estabis!ed t!at corrupt super%isor dispatc!ed o""icer to inter%iew painti"", t!at corrupt
    o""icers prepared painti"" to #eet wit! o""icer, and t!at o""icer &uestioned painti"" and
    t!en pursued a #ateria witness to co#pete !is in%esti$ation0 42 U0S0C0-0 M 1985(2)0
    ::+n re US- Co##ercia 3ort$0 Co0, 872 ?0Supp02d 114/
    D0Ae%0,2711
    Substantia e%idence o" #oti%ations t!at dro%e "inancer and oan ser%icer to conspire to
    pace t!eir interests in t!e proceeds "ro# t!e oans in priority to t!ose o" t!e direct
    enders supported de"endants4 iabiity under Ae%ada aw "or ci%i conspiracy0
    ::Jernande) %0 City o" Aapa, 2711 B, 99>/91 (o""icers denied &uai"ied i##unity)
    A0D0Ca0A0Di%0,2711
    To constitute a ci%i ri$!ts conspiracy, t!e a$ree#ent to %ioate constitutiona ri$!ts
    need not be o%ert, and #ay be in"erred on t!e basis o" circu#stantia e%idence suc! as
    t!e actions o" t!e de"endants0
    ::Si$#aG!ar#, +nc0 %0 3utua G!ar#aceutica Co0, +nc0, //2 ?0Supp02d >>7
    C0D0Ga0,2711
    Garae conduct t!at indicates t!e sort o" restricted "reedo# o" action and sense o"
    obi$ation t!at one $eneray associates wit! a$ree#ent #ay be su""icient to state a cai# o"
    tacit conspiracy0
    +n re Cnron Corp0 Securities, Deri%ati%e P Crisa ,iti$ation, 2717 B, 5177879
    S0D0Te50Jouston0Di%0,2717
    ::Under Te5as aw, a c!an$in$ cast o" c!aracters does not!in$ to essen t!e "act o" one
    conspiracy' once t!e e5istence o" a co##on sc!e#e o" conspiracy is s!own, si$!t
    e%idence is a t!at is re&uired to connect a particuar de"endant wit! t!e conspiracy0
    Her$in ?inancia, +nc0 %0 ?irst -#erican Tite Co0, 39/ ?ed0-pp50 119
    C0-0>03ic!0,2717
    3ort$a$e co#pany ar$ued t!at tite co#pany4s independent a$ent !ad noti"ied tite
    co#pany t!at it was under in%esti$ation "or its in%o%e#ent in ae$ed sca# as coser o"
    %arious 9"ippin$= rea estate transactions "or w!ic! tite co#pany was tite insurer,
    but presented not!in$ to indicate t!at a$ent noti"ied tite co#pany t!at it !ad actuay
    participated in suc! sc!e#e, rat!er t!an #erey "aiin$ to detect and pre%ent it, t!us
    precudin$ #ort$a$e co#pany4s cai# to !od tite co#pany directy iabe "or ci%i
    conspiracy to de"raud #ort$a$e co#pany0
    ::2reen %0 3issouri, /34 ?0Supp02d 814
    C0D03o0C0Di%0,2717
    To a%oid su##ary (ud$#ent on a ci%i ri$!ts conspiracy cai#, t!e painti"" #ust ae$e
    wit! particuarity and de#onstrate wit! speci"ic #ateria "acts t!at t!e de"endants
    reac!ed an a$ree#ent' w!ie t!ose ae$ations #ay incude circu#stantia e%idence, t!e
    painti"" #ust point to at east so#e "acts t!at woud su$$est t!at de"endants reac!ed
    an understandin$ to %ioate !is ri$!ts0 42 U0S0C0-0 M 1985(3)0
    2reen %0 3issouri, /34 ?0Supp02d 814
    C0D03o0C0Di%0,2717
    T!e &uestion o" t!e e5istence o" a conspiracy to depri%e a painti"" o" !is or !er
    constitutiona ri$!ts s!oud not be ta.en "ro# t!e (ury i" t!ere is a possibiity t!e
    (ury coud in"er "ro# t!e circu#stances a #eetin$ o" t!e #inds or understandin$ a#on$
    t!e conspirators to ac!ie%e t!e conspiracy4s ai#s' because t!e ee#ents o" a conspiracy
    are rarey estabis!ed t!rou$! #eans ot!er t!an circu#stantia e%idence, and su##ary
    (ud$#ent is ony warranted w!en t!e e%idence is so one@sided as to ea%e no roo# "or any
    reasonabe di""erence o" opinion as to !ow t!e case s!oud be decided, a court #ust be
    con%inced t!at t!e e%idence presented is insu""icient to support any reasonabe
    in"erence o" a conspiracy0 42 U0S0C0-0 M 1985 0
    2reen %0 3issouri, /34 ?0Supp02d 814
    C0D03o0C0Di%0,2717
    Specuation and con(ecture are not enou$! to pro%e t!at a ci%i ri$!ts conspiracy
    e5isted0 42 U0S0C0-0 MM 1983 , 1985(3)0
    ::Stee %0 City o" San Die$o, /2> ?0Supp02d 11/2
    S0D0Ca0,2717
    ?or purposes o" conspiracy under M 1983, a$ree#ent or #eetin$ o" #inds #ay be in"erred
    on basis o" circu#stantia e%idence, suc! as actions o" de"endants0 42 U0S0C0-0 M
    1983 0
    ::Stee %0 City o" San Die$o, /2> ?0Supp02d 11/2
    S0D0Ca0,2717
    S!owin$ t!at de"endants co##itted acts t!at are uni.ey to !a%e been underta.en wit!out
    an a$ree#ent #ay support in"erence o" conspiracy under M 19830 42 U0S0C0-0 M 1983 0
    ::Crowe %0 County o" San Die$o, >78 ?03d 47> (o""icer<s ac.ed &uai"ied i##unity)
    C0-090Ca0,2717
    To estabis! iabiity "or a conspiracy in a M 1983 case, a painti"" #ust de#onstrate
    t!e e5istence o" an a$ree#ent or #eetin$ o" t!e #inds to %ioate constitutiona ri$!ts'
    suc! an a$ree#ent need not be o%ert, and #ay be in"erred on t!e basis o" circu#stantia
    e%idence suc! as t!e actions o" t!e de"endants0 42 U0S0C0-0 M 1983 0
    ::Bac.#an %0 1ubsa#en, >72 ?03d 391
    C0-050Te50,2717
    C%idence o" a #eetin$ o" t!e #inds was su""icient to support "indin$, in action under
    Te5as aw, t!at !ospice patient4s careta.er conspired to cause !er deat!, e%en t!ou$!
    t!ere was no direct e%idence t!at t!e conspirators discussed t!e detais o" t!at deat!
    in ad%ance' conspirators !ad a on$standin$, cose reations!ip, t!ere was e%idence t!ey
    went to t!e "unera !o#e to discuss arran$e#ents be"ore deat! occurred, and it was
    reasonabe to in"er t!at since careta.er stood to $ain contro o" a o" patient4s
    assets upon !er deat!, coconspirator stood to bene"it based on t!eir on$@ti#e, cose
    reations!ip0
    0Hetancourt %0 1!odes, 2717 B, >/2/5> Best OeySu##ary618 D0+da!o,2717C%idence did not
    support a #urder de"endant4s ci%i ri$!ts conspiracy cai#s a$ainst t!e coroner w!o
    in%esti$ated t!e %icti#4s body0 T!ere was no e%idence t!at t!e coroner conspired to destroy
    t!e %icti#4s body "uids and sa#pes, or t!at !e acted wit! bad "ait! w!en !e "aied to
    preser%e t!e e%idence or "aied to per"or# certain tests01 91.192
    177.232721438712771712721438712771
    ::3is %0 City o" Jarrisbur$, 357 ?ed0-pp50 //7
    C0-030Ga0,2779
    Goice o""icers w!o conducted underco%er prostitution stin$ operation did not unaw"uy
    conspire to depri%e arrestee o" !is e&ua protection ri$!ts, w!ere t!ere was no
    indication t!at o""icers acted wit! discri#inatory intent or ot!erwise tar$eted
    arrestee and !is co@de"endant because o" t!eir race0 U0S0C0-0 Const0-#end0 14 ' 42
    U0S0C0-0 M 1985(3)0
    ::U0S0 %0 Santia$o@3ende), 2779 B, 1/>/>>> Best OeySu##ary618 D0C0G010,2779Su""icient
    e%idence supported poice o""icer4s con%iction "or conspiracy to %ioate ci%i ri$!ts o"
    innocent citi)ens %ia %ioation o" due process by t!e "abrication o" a narcotics case0 Goice
    o""icer participated in t!e "abrication o" cases a$ainst innocent indi%iduas0 U0S0C0-0
    Const0-#end 5 , 14?
    ::1oy %0 Hoard o" County Co#4rs, >7/ ?0Supp02d 129/,
    A0D0?a0,2779
    +ntentiona discri#ination, "or purposes o" a cai# under M 1981, M 1982, or M 1985, #ay be
    pro%en t!rou$! (1) direct e%idence, (2) circu#stantia e%idence, or (3) statistica proo"0 42
    U0S0C0-0 MM 1981 , 1982 , 1985 0
    1oy %0 Hoard o" County Co#4rs, >7/ ?0Supp02d 129/, 1375, (A0D0?a0, 3ar 31, 2779)
    618 628 638 To pre%ai on a cai# under M 1981 , M 1982 , or M 1985 , a painti"" #ust
    pro%e intentiona discri#ination on t!e basis o" race0 See Gen. &ldg. Contractors Ass(n
    v. Pennsylvania, 458 U0S0 3/5, 391, 172 S0Ct0 3141, 3157, /3 ,0Cd02d 835 (1982) (M
    1981)' 0ackson v. /kaloosa Co#nty, Fla., 21 ?03d 1531, 1543 (11t! Cir01994) (M 1982)'
    ,orris v. /ffice ,a$, .nc., 89 ?03d 411, 413 (/t! Cir0199>) (MM 1981 and 1982)'
    Griffin v. &reckenridge, 473 U0S0 88, 172, 91 S0Ct0 1/97, 1/98, 29 ,0Cd02d 338 (19/1)
    (M 1985)0 Hecause intentiona discri#ination is re&uired, a #ere 9s!owin$ o" disparate
    i#pact t!rou$! a neutra practice is insu""icient=' rat!er, t!e painti"" #ust s!ow
    9purpose"u discri#ination0= Ferrill v. Parker Gro#p, .nc., 1>8 ?03d 4>8, 4/2 (11t!
    Cir01999)0 To estabis! purpose"u discri#ination under M 1981 and M 1982 a painti""
    #ust s!ow t!at, under si#iar circu#stances, t!e de"endant treated a w!ite indi%idua
    di""erenty t!an it treated !i#0 See *#mphries v. C&/CS !est, .nc., 4/4 ?03d 38/, 474
    (/t! Cir0277/), aff(d on other gro#nds, QQQ U0S0 QQQQ, 128 S0Ct0 1951, 1/7 ,0Cd02d 8>4
    (2778) (M 1981)' &#rke1Fowler v. /range Co#nty, Fla., 44/ ?03d 1319, 1324Q2> (11t!
    Cir0277>) (M 1981)' 2awrence v. Co#rtyards at Deerwood Ass(n, .nc., 318 ?0Supp02d 1133,
    1148 (S0D0?a02774) (M 1982)0 +ntentiona discri#ination #ay be pro%en t!rou$! ::(1)
    direct e%idence, ::(2) circu#stantia e%idence, or ::(3) statistica proo"0 'io#$ v.
    City of Atlanta, 527 ?03d 12>9, 12/4 (11t! Cir02778)0
    648 T!e court !as t!orou$!y re%iewed t!e record in t!is case "or any e%idence o"
    purpose"u racia discri#ination on t!e part o" any de"endant in t!is case0 T!ere is
    none0 +n "act, t!e record is crysta cear .13%8 t!at as o" Luy 2775, w!en t!e 1oys4
    pat appication was appro%ed, not!in$ t!e County or t!e indi%idua de"endants !ad done
    inter"ered wit!, !a#pered, i#peded, or deayed t!e 1oys4 abiity to de%eop and #ar.et
    t!eir property to w!o#e%er t!ey wis!ed0 ?urt!er#ore, subse&uent to Luy 2775 t!e ony
    t!in$ t!e 1oys were pre%ented "ro# constructin$ was t!e "ront pri%acy wa, a
    pro!ibition w!ic! did not i#picate a ci%i ri$!t, #uc! ess t!e %ioation o" a ci%i
    ri$!t0 3oreo%er, t!ere is not!in$ in t!e record to su$$est t!at issuance o" t!e 3ay 11,
    2775, stop@wor. order and re#o%a o" t!e pat appication "ro# t!e 3ay 2775 HI- a$enda
    was raciay #oti%ated0 T!e 1oys !a%e not s!own t!at, under circu#stances si#iar to
    t!ose ae$ed in t!is case, t!e County treated a w!ite de%eoper di""erenty t!an it
    treated t!e#, i.e., t!e 1oys !a%e co#e "orward wit! not!in$ t!at s!ows a w!ite
    de%eoper w!o buit in t!e scenic corridor setbac. )one recei%ed #ore "a%orabe
    treat#ent by t!e County t!an did t!e 1oys0 Jere, t!ere is absoutey no credibe
    co#parator e%idence0
    ?A21
    ?A210 To satis"y t!eir burden o" introducin$ a co#parator, t!e 1oys #i$!t !a%e produced
    e%idence o" a w!ite de%eoper w!o sou$!t and recei%ed a %ariance o" t!e type denied to
    t!e#, e%idence o" a w!ite de%eoper w!o was per#itted to buid in t!e scenic corridor
    setbac. )one despite ar$uabe code %ioations, or ot!er pausibe e%idence o" disparate
    treat#ent, but t!ey did not0 +n "act, t!ey !a%e identi"ied no ot!er property owner or
    de%eoper "or co#parison at a0
    C%en i" t!e painti""s were not re&uired to co#e "orward wit! e%idence o" a w!ite
    co#parator on t!eir M 1981 and M 1982 cai#s, t!ey !a%e "aied to rebut t!e de"endants4
    articuated non@discri#inatory reason "or issuin$ t!e stop@wor. orders and re#o%in$
    t!eir pat "ro# t!e 3ay 24, 2775, #eetin$ a$enda0
    ?A22
    3ore speci"icay, t!e 1oys4
    construction o" t!e "ront pri%acy wa %ioated t!e speci"ic setbac. and %e$etation
    protection re&uire#ents o" t!e ,and De%eop#ent Code0 Gainti""s4 "anci"u ar$u#ents
    notwit!standin$, t!e "ront pri%acy wa construction un&uestionaby %ioated t!ese
    re&uire#ents0
    ?A23
    Aonet!eess, e%en i" Bebb, 2odber$, and t!e County were incorrect in
    t!eir deter#ination t!at t!e wa %ioated t!e bu""er and %e$etation re&uire#ents t!eir
    error does not e&uate to intentiona discri#ination0 Cf. % + 3 'ealty v. Strickland,
    837 ?02d 117/, 1114 (11t! Cir0198/) (96#8ere error or #ista.e= or 96e8%en arbitrary
    ad#inistration= o" a .13%" statute does not a#ount to intentiona discri#ination)0
    T!ere is si#py not one s!red o" e%idence o" prete5t on t!e record be"ore t!e court0
    +ndeed, t!e 1oys !a%e co#e "orward wit! absoutey no credibe direct or circu#stantia
    e%idence, or statistica proo", o" any intentiona discri#ination w!atsoe%er0 'io#$,
    527 ?03d at 12/40 T!e 1oys4 cai#s pursuant to M 1981 and M 1982 t!ere"ore are
    co#petey wit!out #erit0
    ?A220 To s!ow intentiona discri#ination t!rou$! circu#stantia e%idence, t!e 1oys #ay
    use t!e "a#iiar burden@s!i"tin$ "ra#ewor. estabis!ed by t!e Supre#e Court in
    ,cDonnell Do#glas Corp. v. Green, 411 U0S0 /92, 872, 93 S0Ct0 181/, 1824, 3> ,0Cd02d
    >>8 (19/3)0 %%/C v. 0oe(s Stone Cra, .nc., 227 ?03d 12>3, 12/2Q/3 (11t! Cir02777)
    (per c#riam )0 Under t!is "ra#ewor., a painti"" #ust "irst present su""icient e%idence
    to estabis! a prima facie case o" intentiona discri#ination0 ,cDonnell Do#glas Corp.,
    411 U0S0 at 872, 93 S0Ct0 at 18240 +" a prima facie case is estabis!ed, t!e burden
    t!en s!i"ts to t!e de"endant to articuate a e$iti#ate, nondiscri#inatory reason "or
    its actions0 .d. +" t!e de"endant does so, t!e burden s!i"ts bac. to t!e painti"" to
    s!ow t!at t!e reason was #erey prete5tua0 .d., 411 U0S0 at 874, 93 S0Ct0 181/0
    ?A230 -ccordin$ to t!e 1oys, t!ere are #utipe 9prima facie cases= under w!ic!
    intentiona discri#ination #ay be estabis!ed0 So#e o" t!e 1oys4 t!eories are not
    appicabeR"or e5a#pe, disparate i#pact does not pro%e an intentiona discri#ination
    cai# under MM 1981, 1982, or 1985Rand ot!ers are pu))in$ to t!e court, suc! as t!e
    1oys4 distinction between 9denia o" bene"it= and 9i#position o" penaty= outco#es or
    t!eir co#paint t!at de"endants !a%e pro%en no 9%ioation o" rue0=
    -dditionay, t!e 1oys ar$ue at en$t! about procedura irre$uarities in t!e County4s
    processes0 +n "act t!e court initiay !ad concerns about so#e o" t!ese irre$uarities'
    !owe%er, on re%iew o" t!e record it is ob%ious t!at any suc! procedura irre$uarities
    operated ony to t!e 1oys4 bene"it0
    ,i.ewise, t!ere is no proo" o" a conspiracy in t!is case0 Section 1985 protects ony
    9t!e ri$!t to be "ree "ro# bein$ a %icti# o" independent ie$aity,= but t!e 1oys
    cannot s!ow t!at de"endants are iabe under M 1981 or M 1982 and t!ere can be no
    conspiracy wit!out an underyin$ ie$a act0 See Poirier v. *odges, 445 ?0Supp0 838,
    845 (30D0?a019/8)0 3oreo%er, M 1985 re&uires proo" o" a conspiracy, or a$ree#ent,
    between t!e de"endants0 Dickerson v. Alach#a Co#nty Comm(n, 277 ?03d />1, />/ (11t!
    Cir02777)0 T!e 1oys !a%e presented no credibe "actua e%idence o" an a$ree#ent, ony
    ae$ations w!ic! are insu""icient to rebut t!e de"endants4 denias0
    ?A24
    T!us t!e 1oys4 M
    1985 cai# aso is wit!out #erit0
    ?A25
    ?A240 T!e 1oys4 conspiracy ae$ations are based on t!e "oowin$0 B!en 2odber$ was a
    de"endant in t!is case !e sub#itted an a""ida%it in w!ic! !e denied representin$ 9any
    ot!er party= t!an Bebb0 T!e 1oys insist t!is contradicts a state#ent contained in a
    truncated, 17Qsecond %ideo cip purportedy s!owin$ 2odber$ at t!e Septe#ber 22, 2775,
    HI- #eetin$0 +n t!e %ideo, an unidenti"iabe #an is "i#ed "ro# be!ind sayin$, 93y na#e
    is Oen 2odber$, + represent se%era !o#eowners in Tran&uiity S!ores and 2u" Kista,
    w!ic! are t!e nei$!borin$ subdi%isions to t!is particuar pro(ectR0= T!e 1oys insists
    2odber$ #ust !a%e been re"errin$ to Aeson and Ko$e because t!ey i%e in 2u" Kista'
    t!us, at ora ar$u#ent, 1oy4s counse cai#ed t!at 2odber$ #ust !a%e been 9yin$=
    eit!er in t!e a""ida%it or at t!e HI- #eetin$0 Second, 1oy asserts t!ere is e%idence o"
    a conspiracy because 2odber$ and Aeson bot! attended t!is #eetin$, w!ere t!ey sat
    to$et!er, and t!ey aso attended t!e ?ebruary 2, 277>, "ina #eetin$ at t!e County4s
    o""ices0
    T!e court cannot consider t!e %ideo cip purportedy depictin$ 2odber$' it is
    inad#issibe because t!ere is no testi#ony in t!e record to aut!enticate it and it is
    not se"@aut!enticatin$0 ?ed010C%id0 971, 9720 C%en i" t!e e%idence were ad#issibe,
    !owe%er, t!e court "inds it is uttery insu""icient to $i%e rise to an in"erence t!at
    2odber$ ied, t!us castin$ doubt on !is credibiity0 2odber$4s 9se%era !o#eowners=
    coud !a%e been any nu#ber o" peope ot!er t!an Aeson and Ko$e0 3oreo%er, in !is
    a""ida%it 2odber$ a%ers t!at in connection with this matter !e represented no party
    ot!er t!an Bebb0 T!ere is si#py no contradiction, as t!e 1oys cai#, between 2odber$4s
    denia t!at !e represented any ot!er party in t!is awsuit and any state#ent t!at !e
    represents se%era ot!er !o#eowners0 -dditionay, t!ere is not!in$ ne"arious in Aeson
    and 2odber$4s appearance at t!e HI- #eetin$' 1oy himself sent t!e notice o" t!e
    #eetin$ to Aeson and Bebb, 2odber$4s cient, because t!ey were nearby andowners
    a""ected by 1oy4s %ariance petition0
    ::Koda. %0 City o" C!ica$o, >24 ?0Supp02d 933
    A0D0+0C0Di%0,2779
    C%idence was insu""icient to support protestors4 cai# t!at poice o""icers conspired to
    arrest t!e# durin$ #ass de#onstration in %ioation o" t!e ?irst -#end#ent ri$!ts'
    e%idence t!at o""icers discussed #a.in$ arrests did not support "indin$ t!at t!ere was a
    #eetin$ o" t!e #inds between o""icers to %ioate protestors4 ri$!ts0 U0S0C0-0
    Const0-#end0 1 0
    6Cited 8 ti#es "or t!is e$a issue8
    ::Kene$as %0 Ba$ner, 831 ?02d 1514
    C0-090Ca0,198/
    C%idence supported (ury4s concusions t!at poice o""icers procured "ase testi#ony "ro#
    witness and denied painti"" a "air tria in a #urder prosecution and t!at o""icers
    %ioated ci%i ri$!ts statutes0 42 U0S0C0-0 MM 1983 , 1985(3) 0
    6Cited 3 ti#es "or t!is e$a issue8
    ::2ibroo. %0 City o" Best#inster, 1// ?03d 839
    C0-090Ca0,1999
    Lury4s "indin$ t!at #ayor and city counci #e#bers conspired to retaiate a$ainst
    "ire"i$!ters due to "ire"i$!ters4 protected ?irst -#end#ent acti%ities was supported by
    e%idence t!at #ayor and counci #e#bers attended cosed@door city counci #eetin$s in
    w!ic! "ire c!ie" discussed w!at discipinary actions s!oud be ta.en a$ainst
    "ire"i$!ters and t!at #ayor and counci #e#bers eac! #ade !ostie state#ents about
    "ire"i$!ters, incudin$ t!reats o" poitica retribution and accusations o" cri#ina
    conduct0 U0S0C0-0 Const0-#end0 1 0
    ::2ibbons %0 ,a#bert, 358 ?0Supp02d 1748
    D0Uta!0C0Di%0,2775
    ,ac. o" e%idence t!at any poice or (udicia o""icers, in%o%ed in searc! o" !o#e "or
    presence o" dru$ acti%ities, .new t!at owner was pro#inent ban.er, or t!at t!ey !ad
    ta.en concerted actions, precuded M 1983 cai# t!at o""icers conspired to 9brin$ down=
    !o#eowner t!rou$! "iin$ o" "ase c!ar$es t!at !o#eowner possessed controed substances
    and deat in !ar#"u #ateria to #inor0 42 U0S0C0-0 M 1983 0
    ::Hurre %0 -nderson, 353 ?0Supp02d 55
    D03e0,2775
    -bsent any e%identiary support "or ae$ations t!at e#poyees o" poice depart#ent and
    e#poyees o" district attorney4s o""ice "asi"ied e%idence in assaut case in%o%in$
    c!id, or suppressed e%idence in order to a%oid "indin$ probabe cause to arrest c!id4s
    #ot!er and !er boy"riend, e#poyees did not en$a$e in any conspiracy to discri#inate
    a$ainst c!id4s "at!er, on t!e basis o" !is $ender, at!ou$! t!ey prosecuted !i# "or
    ae$ed do#estic %ioence a$ainst #ot!er0 U0S0C0-0 Const0-#end0 4 ' 42 U0S0C0-0 M
    1985 0
    ::Jeartand -cade#y Co##unity C!urc! %0 Badde, 31/ ?0Supp02d 984
    C0D03o0A0Di%0,2774
    - conspiracy e5isted between two (u%enie o""icers to depri%e students at a pri%ate
    sc!oo o" t!eir ?ourt! -#end#ent ri$!ts, by ie$ay sei)in$ t!e# and re#o%in$ t!e#
    "ro# t!e sc!oo' t!ere were %arious #eetin$s, correspondences, and discussions between
    t!e o""icers in w!ic! t!ey discussed re#o%a o" t!e c!idren and #et!ods to discoura$e
    parents or $uardians "ro# returnin$ t!eir c!idren to t!e sc!oo0 U0S0C0-0 Const0-#end0
    4 0
    ::Dru$ 3art G!ar#acy Corp0 %0 -#erican Jo#e Groducts Corp0, 288 ?0Supp02d 325
    C0D0A0S0,2773
    - de"endant #ust ta.e an a""ir#ati%e action to disa%ow or de"eat t!e purpose o" t!e
    conspiracy, to #a.e sure t!at a wit!drawa did occur and is not si#py bein$ in%ented e5
    post' unti a""ir#ati%e e%idence o" wit!drawa !as been produced, a de"endant4s
    participation in t!e conspiracy is presu#ed to continue unti t!e ast o%ert act by any
    o" t!e conspirators0
    ::Biia#s %0 County o" Santa Harbara, 2/2 ?0Supp02d 995
    C0D0Ca0,2773
    Cac! ae$ed participant in ci%i conspiracy need not .now t!e e5act detais o" t!e
    pan, but #ust at east s!are t!e co##on ob(ecti%e o" t!e conspiracy' painti""s need
    not pro%ide direct e%idence o" t!e a$ree#ent between t!e conspirators, but #ust s!ow
    circu#stantia e%idence su""icient "or a (ury to in"er "ro# t!e circu#stances t!at t!e
    ae$ed conspirators reac!ed an understandin$ to ac!ie%e t!e conspiracy4s ob(ecti%es0
    Soun$ %0 Hi$$ers, 938 ?02d 5>5 (5t! Cir0(3iss0), Lu 2>, 1991)
    Gainti"" brou$!t "edera ci%i ri$!ts action ae$in$ t!at nu#erous de"endants
    conspired to "ra#e !i# "or ar#ed robbery0 T!e United States District Court "or t!e
    Aort!ern District o" 3ississippi, ,0T0 Senter, Lr0, C!ie" Lud$e, $ranted su##ary
    (ud$#ent in "a%or o" de"endants0 Gainti"" appeaed0 In re!earin$, t!e Court o" -ppeas,
    Oin$, Circuit Lud$e, superseded earier opinion at 91/ ?02d 8/3, and !ed t!atE (1)
    prosecutin$ assistant district attorney was absoutey i##une "ro# iabiity "or !is
    actions in initiatin$ prosecution and coud not be !ed iabe "or ae$ed acts outside
    scope o" prosecutoria duties w!ere suc! ae$ations were w!oy unsupported and
    concusory' (2) prosecution witness in ar#ed robbery tria and (uror were entited to
    absoute i##unity' (3) concusory ae$ations a$ainst attorneys and ban.er were
    insu""icient to pead re&uisite operati%e "acts to tie t!e# to conspiracy wit! state
    actors' and ::(4) ae$ations a$ainst poice c!ie" and detecti%e stated cai#0
    -""ir#ed in part' re%ersed in part and re#anded0
    )9* Con+!iracy 91 18
    91 Conspiracy
    91+ Ci%i ,iabiity
    91+(H) -ctions
    91.18 .0 Geadin$0 3ost Cited Cases
    ?edera ci%i ri$!ts painti""4s concusory ae$ations t!at two attorneys and ban.er
    conspired to ri$ (ury and depri%e !i# o" "air tria as part o" conspiracy, wit! state
    actors, to con%ict painti"" o" ar#ed robbery were insu""icient to s!ow conspiracy w!ere
    operati%e "acts were not ped0 42 U0S0C0-0 M 19830
    )1%* Civil Ri9't+ "8 1398
    /8 Ci%i 1i$!ts
    /8+++ ?edera 1e#edies in 2enera
    /8.1392 Geadin$
    /8.1398 .0 De"enses' i##unity and $ood "ait!0 3ost Cited Cases
    (?or#ery /8.238)
    ::Gainti"" stated "edera ci%i ri$!ts cai# a$ainst poice c!ie" and detecti%e "or
    t!eir roe in ae$ed conspiracy to "ra#e !i# "or ar#ed robbery w!ere !is co#paint
    ae$ed speci"ic, operati%e "acts w!ic!, i" pro%ed, woud not per#it o""icers to a%oid
    iabiity under t!eir de"ense o" &uai"ied i##unity' painti"" ae$ed t!at o""icers
    ::!arbored ani#osity a$ainst !i#, ::!arassed !i#, and ::persuaded !is two ae$ed
    acco#pices in ar#ed robbery to i#picate !i#, and ::t!at poice c!ie" aso persuaded
    c!ie" prosecution witness to "asey identi"y !i#0 42 U0S0C0-0 M 19830
    "3 $5R Fed "8
    :'en i+ eviction o0 tenant ,y !rivate landlord conducted ;under color o0 +tate la<; 0or
    !ur!o+e+ o0 42 6.S.C.$. = 1983
    = 9)a* 1rivate !arty/+ con+!iracy or >oint action <it' +tate o00icial a+ !lacin9
    eviction under color o0 +tate la<?@eld under color o0 +tate la<
    6Cu#uati%e Suppe#ent8
    T!e ae$ations and e%idence in t!e "oowin$ cases de#onstrated or supported a
    "indin$ t!at a pri%ate andord !ad participated in (oint action wit! a state o""icia
    in atte#ptin$ to obtain a tenant4s e%iction, and t!at t!e e%iction was t!ere"ore
    conducted under coor o" state aw "or purposes o" 42 U0S0C0-0 M 1983
    1easonin$ t!at a set o" "acts #i$!t be pro%en w!ic! woud de#onstrate t!at a
    andord and a process ser%er !ad conspired, under coor o" state aw, to e%ict a tenant
    wit!out due process, t!e court in Carrasco % Oein (19/4, CD AS) 381 ? Supp /82,
    re"used to dis#iss t!e tenant4s action under 42 U0S0C0-0 M 1983 T!e court "ound it we
    estabis!ed t!at pri%ate persons co#e wit!in t!e a#bit o" M 1983 w!en t!ey are wi"u
    participants in (oint acti%ity wit! t!e state or its a$ents0 Jowe%er, t!e court obser%ed
    t!at in t!is case, t!e ae$ed conspiracy was not between a pri%ate person and a state
    o""icia, suc! as a poice#an, but rat!er between one pri%ate person and anot!er, w!ere
    ony t!e process ser%er was initiay brou$!t wit!in t!e scope o" t!e M 1983 state
    action re&uire#ent under t!e pubic "unction t!eory0 T!e court ac.nowed$ed t!at a
    probe# o" t!e re#oteness o" t!e state4s participation was present under t!ese "acts,
    but "ound no o$ica reason to distin$uis! between a conspiracy wit! an o""icia state
    actor, suc! as a poice#an, and a conspiracy wit! a pri%ate party cot!ed wit! state
    aut!ority, suc! as t!e process ser%er, w!en t!e atter is su""icienty pubic0 T!e
    court, t!ere"ore, decined to dis#iss t!e case pendin$ a "uer de%eop#ent o" t!e
    record0
    B!ere a andord sou$!t and recei%ed t!e inter%ention o" town poice to e""ectuate
    t!e ae$edy ie$a e%iction o" tenants "ro# a rented traier, t!e court in Jowerton
    % 2abica (1983, C-9 +da!o) /78 ?2d 387, /3 -,1 ?ed /7, rued t!at t!e e%iction !ad
    ta.en pace under coor o" state aw "or purposes o" 42 U0S0C0-0 M 1983 T!e andord
    initiay tod t!e tenants to #o%e "ro# t!e traier a"ter t!eir rent pay#ent was ate,
    and t!e tenant t!reatened to !ar# t!e andord i" s!e returned0 -n e%iction notice was
    subse&uenty ser%ed wit! a poice o""icer present0 B!en t!e tenants continued to re#ain
    in t!e traier, t!e andord returned wit! a poice o""icer, w!o was in uni"or# and on
    duty, to warn t!e tenants t!at utiities woud be cut o"" i" t!ey stayed0 T!is poice
    o""icer ater returned aone, tod t!e tenants t!at proper e%iction procedures were
    bein$ used, and ad%ised t!e# to ea%e0 Subse&uenty, t!e o""icer acco#panied t!e
    andord w!en t!e utiities were disconnected, but t!e tenants continued to spend so#e
    ni$!ts in t!e traier0 In one occasion, t!ree poice o""icers %isited t!e traier in
    response to t!e andord4s ca re$ardin$ a "a#iy disturbance, and one o""icer as.ed i"
    t!e tenants were sti oo.in$ "or a new renta0 T!e District Court dis#issed t!e
    tenants4 M 1983 co#paint, "indin$ t!at t!e poice o""icers !ad ta.en no a""ir#ati%e
    action in t!e e%iction, but #erey stood by to .eep t!e peace0 T!e tenants ar$ued on
    appea t!at t!ey were denied ?ourteent! -#end#ent ri$!ts w!en t!e andords, wit! poice
    aid, used se"@!ep to e%ict t!e# wit!out proper notice and a prior (udicia !earin$0
    1ecountin$ t!e %arious tests e#poyed by t!e Supre#e Court to deter#ine t!e e5istence o"
    state action, and "indin$ a si#iarity between t!e present case and cases considerin$
    poice in%o%e#ent in t!e repossession o" persona property, t!e court stated t!at at
    so#e point, as poice in%o%e#ent beco#es increasin$y i#portant, repossession by
    pri%ate indi%iduas assu#es t!e c!aracter o" state action0 T!e court obser%ed t!at t!e
    e%iction !ad in%o%ed #ore t!an one incident o" poice consent to Tstand byT in case o"
    troube0 1at!er, t!e poice participation !ad $i%en t!e tenants t!e i#pression t!at t!e
    andord acted e$ay in cuttin$ o"" t!e utiities0 ?urt!er#ore, t!e court stated t!at
    t!e poice o""icer !ad acti%ey inter%ened in reco##endin$ t!at t!e tenants ea%e t!e
    traier0 T!e court "ound t!e record repete wit! e%idence t!at t!e andords
    deiberatey coa.ed t!e#se%es wit! t!e aut!ority o" t!e state in e""ectin$ t!e
    repossession0 B!ie a sin$e re&uest "or poice [email protected]$ assistance #i$!t not #a.e
    a andord a T(oint actorT wit! t!e state "or M 1983 purposes, t!e court concuded, t!e
    andords acted under coor o" state aw w!ere t!ey repeatedy re&uested t!e aid o" t!e
    poice to e%ict t!e tenants, and w!ere t!e poice inter%ened at e%ery step0
    C6M65$-23E S6115EME4-
    Ca+e+A
    Certain wron$s a""ect #ore t!an a sin$e ri$!t and, accordin$y, can i#picate #ore
    t!an one o" t!e ?edera Constitution4s co##ands' w!ere suc! #utipe %ioations are
    ae$ed, t!e courts wi not identi"y as a prei#inary #atter t!e cai#4s Tdo#inantT
    c!aracter, but wi e5a#ine eac! constitutiona pro%ision in turn' t!us, in an action
    under 42 U0S0C0-0 M 1983 by t!e owner o" a traier !o#eRw!ic! action ae$es t!at t!e
    Constitution4s ?ourt! -#end#ent was %ioated w!en t!e !o#e was "orciby re#o%ed "ro# a
    pri%ate #obie !o#e par. by e#poyees o" t!e par. owner, w!ie county s!eri""4s
    deputies, aware t!at t!e par. owner did not !a%e a e$a e%iction order, watc!ed t!e
    re#o%a, in"or#ed t!e traier !o#e owner t!at t!ey were t!ere to see t!at !e did not
    inter"ere, and re"used to accept !is co#paint "or cri#ina trespassRt!e owner4s ?ourt!
    -#end#ent cai# is not propery barred on t!e t!eory t!at t!e owner4s cai# is #ore a.in
    to a c!aen$e a$ainst depri%ation o" property wit!out due process0 Soda %0 Coo.
    County, +0, 57> U0S0 5>, 113 S0 Ct0 538, 121 ,0 Cd0 2d 457 (1992)0
    +n M 1983 action by tenants a$ainst t!eir "or#er andord and county s!eri"" "or
    ae$edy e%ictin$ painti""s "ro# t!eir !o#e wit!out aw"u process, "orcin$ t!e# to
    i%e on street and su""er oss o" t!eir c!idren, s!eri"" was potentiay iabe in bot!
    o""icia and persona capacity, and andord was iabe "or actin$ in concert wit!
    s!eri"" under coor o" state aw0 Uuinones % Dur.is (198>, SD ?a) >38 ? Supp 85>0
    )-o! o0 Section*
    )E4D F S6115EME4-*
    /3 -,1 ?CD /8' B!en is e%iction o" tenant by pri%ate andord conducted Tunder coor o"
    state awT "or purposes o" 42 U0S0C0-0 M 1983
    M 96a8 Gri%ate party4s conspiracy or (oint action wit! state o""icia as pacin$
    e%iction under coor o" state awRJed under coor o" state aw
    6Cu#uati%e Suppe#ent8
    T!e ae$ations and e%idence in t!e "oowin$ cases de#onstrated or supported a "indin$
    t!at a pri%ate andord !ad participated in (oint action wit! a state o""icia in
    atte#ptin$ to obtain a tenant4s e%iction, and t!at t!e e%iction was t!ere"ore conducted
    under coor o" state aw "or purposes o" 42 U0S0C0-0 M 1983
    1easonin$ t!at a set o" "acts #i$!t be pro%en w!ic! woud de#onstrate t!at a andord
    and a process ser%er !ad conspired, under coor o" state aw, to e%ict a tenant wit!out
    due process, t!e court in Carrasco % Oein (19/4, CD AS) 381 ? Supp /82, re"used to
    dis#iss t!e tenant4s action under 42 U0S0C0-0 M 1983 T!e court "ound it we
    estabis!ed t!at pri%ate persons co#e wit!in t!e a#bit o" M 1983 w!en t!ey are wi"u
    participants in (oint acti%ity wit! t!e state or its a$ents0 Jowe%er, t!e court
    obser%ed t!at in t!is case, t!e ae$ed conspiracy was not between a pri%ate person and
    a state o""icia, suc! as a poice#an, but rat!er between one pri%ate person and
    anot!er, w!ere ony t!e process ser%er was initiay brou$!t wit!in t!e scope o" t!e M
    1983 state action re&uire#ent under t!e pubic "unction t!eory0 T!e court ac.nowed$ed
    t!at a probe# o" t!e re#oteness o" t!e state4s participation was present under t!ese
    "acts, but "ound no o$ica reason to distin$uis! between a conspiracy wit! an o""icia
    state actor, suc! as a poice#an, and a conspiracy wit! a pri%ate party cot!ed wit!
    state aut!ority, suc! as t!e process ser%er, w!en t!e atter is su""icienty pubic0 T!e
    court, t!ere"ore, decined to dis#iss t!e case pendin$ a "uer de%eop#ent o" t!e
    record0
    ::B!ere a andord sou$!t and recei%ed t!e inter%ention o" town poice to e""ectuate
    t!e ae$edy ie$a e%iction o" tenants "ro# a rented traier, t!e court in Jowerton
    % 2abica (1983, C-9 +da!o) /78 ?2d 387, /3 -,1 ?ed /7, rued t!at t!e e%iction !ad
    ta.en pace under coor o" state aw "or purposes o" 42 U0S0C0-0 M 1983 T!e andord
    initiay tod t!e tenants to #o%e "ro# t!e traier a"ter t!eir rent pay#ent was ate,
    and t!e tenant t!reatened to !ar# t!e andord i" s!e returned0 -n e%iction notice was
    subse&uenty ser%ed wit! a poice o""icer present0 B!en t!e tenants continued to re#ain
    in t!e traier, t!e andord returned wit! a poice o""icer, w!o was in uni"or# and on
    duty, to warn t!e tenants t!at utiities woud be cut o"" i" t!ey stayed0 T!is poice
    o""icer ater returned aone, tod t!e tenants t!at proper e%iction procedures were
    bein$ used, and ad%ised t!e# to ea%e0 Subse&uenty, t!e o""icer acco#panied t!e
    andord w!en t!e utiities were disconnected, but t!e tenants continued to spend so#e
    ni$!ts in t!e traier0 In one occasion, t!ree poice o""icers %isited t!e traier in
    response to t!e andord4s ca re$ardin$ a "a#iy disturbance, and one o""icer as.ed i"
    t!e tenants were sti oo.in$ "or a new renta0 T!e District Court dis#issed t!e
    tenants4 M 1983 co#paint, "indin$ t!at t!e poice o""icers !ad ta.en no a""ir#ati%e
    action in t!e e%iction, but #erey stood by to .eep t!e peace0 T!e tenants ar$ued on
    appea t!at t!ey were denied ?ourteent! -#end#ent ri$!ts w!en t!e andords, wit! poice
    aid, used se"@!ep to e%ict t!e# wit!out proper notice and a prior (udicia !earin$0
    1ecountin$ t!e %arious tests e#poyed by t!e Supre#e Court to deter#ine t!e e5istence o"
    state action, and "indin$ a si#iarity between t!e present case and cases considerin$
    poice in%o%e#ent in t!e repossession o" persona property, t!e court stated t!at at
    so#e point, as poice in%o%e#ent beco#es increasin$y i#portant, repossession by
    pri%ate indi%iduas assu#es t!e c!aracter o" state action0 T!e court obser%ed t!at t!e
    e%iction !ad in%o%ed #ore t!an one incident o" poice consent to Tstand byT in case o"
    troube0 1at!er, t!e poice participation !ad $i%en t!e tenants t!e i#pression t!at t!e
    andord acted e$ay in cuttin$ o"" t!e utiities0 ?urt!er#ore, t!e court stated t!at
    t!e poice o""icer !ad acti%ey inter%ened in reco##endin$ t!at t!e tenants ea%e t!e
    traier0 T!e court "ound t!e record repete wit! e%idence t!at t!e andords
    deiberatey coa.ed t!e#se%es wit! t!e aut!ority o" t!e state in e""ectin$ t!e
    repossession0 B!ie a sin$e re&uest "or poice [email protected]$ assistance #i$!t not #a.e
    a andord a T(oint actorT wit! t!e state "or M 1983 purposes, t!e court concuded, t!e
    andords acted under coor o" state aw w!ere t!ey repeatedy re&uested t!e aid o" t!e
    poice to e%ict t!e tenants, and w!ere t!e poice inter%ened at e%ery step0
    CU3U,-T+KC SUGG,C3CAT
    CasesE
    Certain wron$s a""ect #ore t!an a sin$e ri$!t and, accordin$y, can i#picate #ore t!an
    one o" t!e ?edera Constitution4s co##ands' w!ere suc! #utipe %ioations are ae$ed,
    t!e courts wi not identi"y as a prei#inary #atter t!e cai#4s Tdo#inantT c!aracter,
    but wi e5a#ine eac! constitutiona pro%ision in turn' t!us, in an action under 42
    U0S0C0-0 M 1983 by t!e owner o" a traier !o#eRw!ic! action ae$es t!at t!e
    Constitution4s ?ourt! -#end#ent was %ioated w!en t!e !o#e was "orciby re#o%ed "ro# a
    pri%ate #obie !o#e par. by e#poyees o" t!e par. owner, w!ie county s!eri""4s
    deputies, aware t!at t!e par. owner did not !a%e a e$a e%iction order, watc!ed t!e
    re#o%a, in"or#ed t!e traier !o#e owner t!at t!ey were t!ere to see t!at !e did not
    inter"ere, and re"used to accept !is co#paint "or cri#ina trespassRt!e owner4s ?ourt!
    -#end#ent cai# is not propery barred on t!e t!eory t!at t!e owner4s cai# is #ore a.in
    to a c!aen$e a$ainst depri%ation o" property wit!out due process0 Soda %0 Coo.
    County, +0, 57> U0S0 5>, 113 S0 Ct0 538, 121 ,0 Cd0 2d 457 (1992)0
    +n M 1983 action by tenants a$ainst t!eir "or#er andord and county s!eri"" "or
    ae$edy e%ictin$ painti""s "ro# t!eir !o#e wit!out aw"u process, "orcin$ t!e# to
    i%e on street and su""er oss o" t!eir c!idren, s!eri"" was potentiay iabe in bot!
    o""icia and persona capacity, and andord was iabe "or actin$ in concert wit!
    s!eri"" under coor o" state aw0 Uuinones % Dur.is (198>, SD ?a) >38 ? Supp 85>0
    1ea estate bro.er<s saesperson<s e%idence o" participation in conspiracy, acti%ey
    participated in t!e "raud, by #ar.etin$ and sein$ a property t!at t!e purported seer
    did not own, by sein$ a property t!at t!e purported seer did not own,
    39 a#(ur po"3d 379 rea estate bro.ers #isrepresentation or nondiscosure as to
    condition or %aue o" reaty0
    C%id o" conspiracy (ud$e !earin$ a case despite !a%in$ stoc. in ban.,
    12/ Bri$!t P 3ierE ?edera Grac0 P Groc0 s 1233, State#ent o" Garticuar
    3atters@Conspiracy (2714) @4A 4 &F.2d(
    :: 12 Construction and -ppication o" T+ntracorporate Conspiracy DoctrineT as
    -ppied to Corporation and +ts C#poyees@@State Cases, 2 -0,010>t! 38/ (2775)
    M /0 Kiew t!at intracorporate conspiracy doctrine does not appy to corporate
    e#poyees actin$ outside scope o" e#poy#ent
    6Cu#uati%e Suppe#ent8
    B!ie t!e intracorporate conspiracy doctrine by i#pication does not appy to corporate
    e#poyees actin$ outside t!e scope o" t!eir e#poy#ent, t!e courts in t!e "oowin$
    cases e5picity stated or reco$ni)ed t!is principe0
    Ca0
    Hac. %0 Han. o" -#erica, 37 Ca0 -pp0 4t! 1, 35 Ca0 1ptr0 2d /25 (1st Dist0 1994)
    M 80 Kiew t!at intracorporate conspiracy doctrine does not appy to corporate
    e#poyees wit! independent persona sta.e in ac!ie%in$ ob(ect o" conspiracy
    6Cu#uati%e Suppe#ent8
    B!ie t!e intracorporate conspiracy doctrine by i#pication does not appy to corporate
    e#poyees wit! a persona sta.e, independent o" t!at o" t!e corporation, in ac!ie%in$
    t!e ob(ect o" t!e conspiracy, t!e courts in t!e "oowin$ cases e5picity stated or
    reco$ni)ed t!is principe0
    Ca0
    Hac. %0 Han. o" -#erica, 37 Ca0 -pp0 4t! 1, 35 Ca0 1ptr0 2d /25 (1st Dist0 1994)
    M 90 Kiew t!at corporate o""icers and directors can conspire t!rou$! direct
    participation
    T!e courts in t!e "oowin$ cases !ed or reco$ni)ed t!at, uni.e subordinate e#poyees,
    corporate directors and o""icers w!o directy order, aut!ori)e or participate in t!e
    corporation4s tortious conduct #ay be !ed iabe as conspirators "or %ioation o" t!eir
    own duties toward persons in(ured by t!e corporate tort0 Ca0
    Doctors4 Co0 %0 Superior Court, 49 Ca0 3d 39, 2>7 Ca0 1ptr0 183, //5 G02d 578 (1989)
    Byatt %0 Union 3ort$a$e Co0, 24 Ca0 3d //3, 15/ Ca0 1ptr0 392, 598 G02d 45 (19/9)
    Soon %0 Stern, 2773 B, 22/92325 (Ca0 -pp0 2d Dist0 2773) , unpubis!edVnoncitabe
    G3C, +nc0 %0 Oadis!a, /8 Ca0 -pp0 4t! 13>8, 93 Ca0 1ptr0 2d >>3 (2d Dist0 2777) , as
    #odi"ied on denia o" re!4$, (-pr0 /, 2777)
    2oden %0 -nderson, 25> Ca0 -pp0 2d /14, >4 Ca0 1ptr0 474 (2d Dist0 19>/)
    Grice %0 Jibbs, 225 Ca0 -pp0 2d 279, 3/ Ca0 1ptr0 2/7 (5t! Dist0 19>4)
    T!e court in Doctors4 Co0 %0 Superior Court, 49 Ca0 3d 39, 2>7 Ca0 1ptr0 183, //5
    G02d 578 (1989), !ed t!at t!e iabiity o" corporate directors and o""icers w!o
    directy order, aut!ori)e or participate in t!e corporation4s tortious conduct is
    outside t!e intracorporate conspiracy doctrine, and suc! persons #ay be !ed iabe, as
    conspirators or ot!erwise, "or %ioation o" t!eir own duties toward persons in(ured by
    t!e corporate tort0 T!e intracorporate conspiracy doctrine, t!e court e5pained,
    precudes ony cai#s a$ainst t!e principa4s subordinate e#poyees and a$ainst a$ents
    retained by t!e principa to act as independent contractors "or conspirin$ to %ioate a
    duty pecuiar to t!e principa0
    +++0 -GG,+C-T+IA I? +AT1-CI1GI1-TC CIASG+1-CS DICT1+AC TI CI1GI1-T+IA -AD +TS C3G,ISCCS
    UADC1 G-1T+CU,-1 ?-CTS
    M 170 B!ere t!ere is no cai# o" e#poyees4 actin$ outside scope o" e#poy#ent or "or
    persona interestRConspiracy cai# supportabe
    6Cu#uati%e Suppe#ent8
    ::-ppyin$ t!e intracorporate conspiracy doctrine in an action a$ainst a corporation
    and one or #ore o" its e#poyees, or a$ainst #utipe e#poyees o" t!e sa#e corporation,
    in w!ic! t!ere was no cai# t!at t!e corporate e#poyees were actin$ outside t!e scope
    o" t!eir e#poy#ent, or in "urt!erance o" t!eir own persona interests, t!e courts in
    t!e "oowin$ cases !ed t!at, under t!e circu#stances, a "indin$ o" a conspiracy by t!e
    de"endants was supportabe w!ere two or #ore separate corporations were ae$edy
    in%o%ed in t!e conspiracy0
    M 110 B!ere t!ere is no cai# o" e#poyees4 actin$ outside scope o" e#poy#ent or "or
    persona interestRConspiracy cai# not estabis!ed
    6Cu#uati%e Suppe#ent8
    -ppyin$ t!e intracorporate conspiracy doctrine in an action a$ainst a corporation and
    one or #ore o" its e#poyees, or a$ainst #utipe e#poyees o" t!e sa#e corporation, in
    w!ic! t!ere was no cai# t!at t!e corporate e#poyees were actin$ outside t!e scope o"
    t!eir e#poy#ent, or in "urt!erance o" t!eir own persona interests, t!e courts in t!e
    "oowin$ cases !ed t!at, under t!e circu#stances, a "indin$ o" a conspiracy by t!e
    de"endants was not supportabe0
    See Bise %0 Sout!ern Gac0 Co0, 223 Ca0 -pp0 2d 57, 35 Ca0 1ptr0 >52 (1st Dist0 19>3)
    (disappro%ed o" on ot!er $rounds by, -ppied C&uip#ent Corp0 %0 ,itton Saudi -rabia
    ,td0, / Ca0 4t! 573, 28 Ca0 1ptr0 2d 4/5, 8>9 G02d 454 (1994)), an action by a
    ter#inated rairoad e#poyee a$ainst t!e rairoad, t!e rairoad wor.ers4 union, and
    e#poyees o" t!e rairoad and t!e union, in w!ic! t!e court !ed t!at, w!ie a
    conspiracy between t!e rairoad and t!e union was supportabe, t!e e#poyees coud not
    ta.e part in any conspiracy0 T!e court noted t!at t!ere was no ae$ation t!at t!e
    e#poyees were actin$ in any capacity ot!er t!an wit!in t!e course and scope o" t!eir
    e#poy#ent0 Aor was t!ere any ae$ation, t!e court continued, e5pressy statin$ or "ro#
    w!ic! it coud reasonaby be in"erred t!at t!e e#poyees were actin$ "or t!eir
    indi%idua ad%anta$e0
    Co##ent
    T!e disappro%a o" t!e Bise case by -ppied C&uip#ent was not on t!e #atter o"
    intracorporate conspiracy, but rat!er on t!e &uestion w!et!er a party to a contract can
    be iabe "or t!e tort o" inter"erence wit! a contractua reations!ip0
    See aso t!e "oowin$ cases, in w!ic! t!ere was no cai# t!at t!e de"endant corporate
    e#poyees were actin$ outside t!e scope o" t!eir e#poy#ent, or in "urt!erance o" t!eir
    own persona interests, and in w!ic! t!e courts !ed t!at, under t!e circu#stances, t!e
    intracorporate conspiracy doctrine precuded t!e "indin$ o" a conspiracy, w!ereR
    Ran insurance ad(ustin$ "ir#, its e#poyee, a aw "ir#, and its e#poyee ae$edy
    conspired wit! insurance co#panies to depri%e t!e painti"" o" bene"its to w!ic! !e was
    entited under !is "ire insurance poicies0 2ruenber$ %0 -etna +ns0 Co0, 9 Ca0 3d 5>>,
    178 Ca0 1ptr0 487, 517 G02d 1732 (19/3) 0
    Rt!e owners o" a $roup o" businesses sued a ban. and certain o" its e#poyees "or ci%i
    conspiracy, "raud, and reated cai#s w!en t!e ban. "aied to renew oans or $rant new
    oans to t!e co#panies0 Hac. %0 Han. o" -#erica, 37 Ca0 -pp0 4t! 1, 35 Ca0 1ptr0 2d
    /25 (1st Dist0 1994) 0
    Ra aid@o"" e#poyee cai#ed t!at !is "or#er e#poyer, and certain o" its o""icers,
    conspired to de"raud !i# re$ardin$ !is ayo""0 Oerr %0 1ose, 21> Ca0 -pp0 3d 1551, 2>5
    Ca0 1ptr0 59/, 5 +0C010 Cas0 (HA-) 32, 118 ,ab0 Cas0 (CCJ) W 5>54> (>t! Dist0 1997) 0
    Ra ban. and its e#poyees ae$edy conspired to re&uire t!e painti"" to return "unds
    !e !ad recei%ed w!en !e cas!ed two c!ec.s t!at were subse&uenty dis!onored0 ,awrence
    %0 Han. o" -#erica, 1>3 Ca0 -pp0 3d 431, 279 Ca0 1ptr0 541, 47 U0C0C0 1ep0 Ser%0 271
    (1st Dist0 1985) 0
    Ra uni%ersity and its "acuty #e#bers ae$edy conspired to depri%e t!e painti"", a
    student at t!e uni%ersity, o" !er education w!en t!e uni%ersity4s "acuty went on stri.e
    to protest t!e Kietna# Bar0 Xu#brun %0 Uni%ersity o" Sout!ern Cai"ornia, 25 Ca0 -pp0
    3d 1, 171 Ca0 1ptr0 499, 51 -0,0103d 991 (2d Dist0 19/2) 0
    M 120 B!ere t!ere is cai# o" e#poyees4 actin$ outside scope o" e#poy#ent or "or
    persona interestRConspiracy cai# supportabe
    6Cu#uati%e Suppe#ent8
    -ppyin$ t!e intracorporate conspiracy doctrine in an action a$ainst a corporation and
    one or #ore o" its e#poyees, or a$ainst #utipe e#poyees o" t!e sa#e corporation, t!e
    courts in t!e "oowin$ cases !ed supportabe, under t!e circu#stances, t!e painti""4s
    cai# t!at t!e corporate e#poyees were actin$ outside t!e scope o" t!eir e#poy#ent, or
    in "urt!erance o" t!eir own persona interests, so as to per#it a "indin$ o" a
    conspiracy by t!e de"endants0
    CU3U,-T+KC SUGG,C3CAT
    CasesE
    State correctiona o""icers were not actin$ wit!in scope o" t!eir e#poy#ent w!en t!ey
    ae$edy "orced in#ate to "i$!t "eow in#ate, and t!reatened to beat in#ate wit! baton
    and en$a$e in (oint co%er@up i" in#ate did not "inis! "i$!t wit! "eow in#ate, and t!us
    intracorporate conspiracy doctrine did not precude in#ate4s M 1983 conspiracy cai#
    a$ainst o""icers0 42 U0S0C0-0 M 19830 1ande %0 -e5ander, 9>7 ?0 Supp0 2d 45/ (S0D0
    A0S0 2713)0
    +ntra@enterprise doctrine did not bar "or#er city "ire"i$!ter4s cai# t!at !er "or#er
    [email protected] and super%isors conspired to sub(ect !er to !arass#ent because o" !er $ender
    and !er e5ercise o" !er ?irst -#end#ent "ree speec! ri$!ts, w!ere "ire"i$!ter ae$ed
    t!at s!e was sub(ected to %erba abuse, denied opportunity to respond to e#er$ency
    cas, and ter#inated, and t!at ae$ed se5ua !arass#ent by deputy "ire c!ie" and
    tauntin$ "ro# [email protected] "e outside scope o" t!eir e#poy#ent0 U0S0C0-0 Const0-#ends0
    1, 14' 42 U0S0C0-0 M 1985(3)0 Byatt %0 City o" Harre, 885 ?0 Supp0 2d >82 (D0 Kt0
    2712)0
    3ort$a$ors4 ae$ations t!at two corporate e#poyees used t!e corporate entity as t!eir
    ater e$o and as a conduit t!rou$! w!ic! t!ey de"rauded t!e #ort$a$ors, w!o !ad been
    "acin$ #ort$a$e "orecosure, were su""icient to #eet t!e re&uire#ent, "or peadin$ a
    cai# o" ci%i conspiracy between a corporation and its e#poyees, o" ae$in$ t!at t!e
    e#poyees were actin$ outside t!e scope o" t!eir aut!ority or ot!er t!an in t!e nor#a
    course o" t!eir corporate duties0 Cic!er %0 3id -#erica ?inancia +n%0 Corp0, 2/5 Aeb0
    4>2, /48 A0B02d 1 (2778)0
    ::De%eoper4s ci%i conspiracy cai# a$ainst county counci #e#bers was not precuded by
    intracorporate conspiracy doctrine t!at pre%ents a conspiracy between persons actin$ wit!in
    t!e scope o" t!eir e#poy#ent, w!ere de%eoper asserted ci%i conspiracy cai# a$ainst
    counci #e#bers in t!eir indi%idua capacities, rat!er t!an t!eir o""icia capacities as
    counci #e#bers0 Cric.et Co%e Kentures, ,,C %0 2iand, /71 S0C02d 39 (S0C0 Ct0 -pp0 2717)0
    Hac. %0 Han. o" -#erica, 37 Ca0-pp04t! 1, >, 35 Ca01ptr02d /25 (Ca0-pp0 1 Dist0 Ao%
    15, 1994)
    - corporation is, o" course, a e$a "iction t!at cannot act at a e5cept t!rou$! its
    e#poyees and a$ents0 (See Shoemaker v. ,yers (1997) 52 Ca03d 1, 25, 2/> Ca01ptr0
    373, 871 G02d 17540) B!en a corporate e#poyee acts in t!e course o" !is or !er
    e#poy#ent, on be!a" o" t!e corporation, t!ere is no entity apart "ro# t!e e#poyee
    wit! w!o# t!e e#poyee can conspire0
    ?A3
    9 ; 96+8t is basic in t!e aw o" conspiracy
    t!at you #ust !a%e two persons or entities to !a%e a conspiracy0 - corporation cannot
    conspire wit! itse" any #ore t!an a pri%ate indi%idua can, and it is t!e $enera rue
    t!at t!e acts o" t!e a$ent are t!e acts o" t!e corporation0000= < = ()err v. 'ose
    (1997) 21> Ca0-pp03d 1551, 15>4, 2>5 Ca01ptr0 59/, &uotin$ Shasta Do#glas /il Co. v.
    !ork (19>3) 212 Ca0-pp02d >18, >24, 28 Ca01ptr0 197' .."294#mr#n v. University of
    So#thern California (19/2) 25 Ca0-pp03d 1, 12Q13, 171 Ca01ptr0 4990) To !od t!at a
    subordinate e#poyee o" a corporation can be iabe "or conspirin$ wit! t!e corporate
    principa woud destroy w!at !as !ereto"ore been t!e setted rue t!at a corporation
    cannot conspire wit! itse"0
    ?A4
    +n t!e absence o" a cear state#ent "ro# t!e Supre#e
    Court t!at t!is c!an$e in t!e aw is intended, we wi not so i#pair t!e a$ent4s
    i##unity rue0
    ?A30 ::-ppeants cannot rey upon t!e e5ception to t!e rue o" a$ent4s i##unity
    aowin$ corporate e#poyees to be !ed iabe "or conspiracy wit! t!eir principa w!en
    t!ey act "or t!eir own indi%idua ad%anta$e and not soey on be!a" o" t!e
    corporation, or act beyond t!e scope o" t!eir aut!ority0 (See, e0$0, Doctors( Co. v.
    S#perior Co#rt, s#pra, 49 Ca03d at p0 4/, 2>7 Ca01ptr0 183, //5 G02d 578' !ise v.
    So#thern Pacific Co., s#pra, 223 Ca0-pp02d at p0 /2, 35 Ca01ptr0 >52' Pink S#pply
    Corp. v. *ieert, .nc. (8t! Cir0198>) /88 ?02d 1313, 131/' &#schi v. )irven (4t!
    Cir01985) //5 ?02d 1247, 12520) +n t!e %eri"ied "irst a#ended cross@co#paint
    appeants "ied in t!eir pre%ious case (case no0 85/395) t!ey ae$ed t!e indi%idua
    de"endants co##itted t!e assertedy wron$"u acts 9in t!e course and scope o" t!eir
    respecti%e e#poy#ent and a$ency "or t!e Han.0= T!ey cannot now, in a desperate atte#pt
    to state a cai# "or conspiracy, directy contradict t!ese ae$ations and assert t!at
    t!e sa#e o""icers were actin$ eyond t!e scope o" t!eir aut!ority0 (Cant# v.
    'esol#tion 3r#st Corp. (1992) 4 Ca0-pp04t! 85/, 8//Q8/8, > Ca01ptr02d 151 6painti""
    #ay not a%oid de#urrer by peadin$ "acts t!at contradict "acts peaded in earier
    actions80)
    ?A40 T!e indi%idua de"endants in t!is case were Han. e#poyees w!o carried out but did
    not create Han. poicies0 ,iabiity t!ere"ore cannot attac! to t!ese de"endants under
    t!e rue t!at directors and o""icers o" a corporation #ay beco#e iabe "or t!e
    corporation4s tortious conduct i" t!ey 9directy ordered, aut!ori)ed or participated in
    t!e tortious conduct0= (!yatt v. Union ,ortgage Co. (19/9) 24 Ca03d //3, /85, 15/
    Ca01ptr0 392, 598 G02d 450)
    :i+e v. Sout'ern 1ac. Co., 223 Cal.$!!.2d 5%, "2, 35 Cal.R!tr. 852, 49 5a,.Ca+. 1
    51,%51 &Cal.$!!. 1 Di+t., Dec %8, 1983(
    Be !od t!at a cause o" action "or conspiracy wi ie a$ainst t!e de"endant Co#pany0
    20 Corporate agents as conspirators0
    6248 6258 De"endants assert t!at t!e de"endants Jit.e and S#it! cannot be (oined as
    conspirators0 Be t!in. t!is point is we ta.en0 -$ents and e#poyees o" a corporation
    cannot conspire wit! t!eir corporate principa or e#poyer w!ere t!ey act in t!eir
    o""icia capacities on be!a" o" t!e corporation and not as indi%iduas "or t!eir
    indi%idua ad%anta$e0 ( Hiss %0 Sout!ern Gaci"ic Co#pany (1958) 212 Ir0 >34, 321 G02d
    324, 328Q329' 3ay %0 Santa ?e Trai Transportation Co0, supra, 3/7 G02d 397, 3950) T!is
    rue deri%es "ro# t!e principe t!at ordinariy corporate a$ents and e#poyees actin$
    "or and on be!a" o" t!e corporation cannot be !ed iabe "or inducin$ a breac! o" t!e
    corporation4s contract."3 since bein$ in a con"identia reations!ip to t!e corporation
    t!eir action in t!is respect is pri%ie$ed0 T!e induce#ent o" t!e breac! to be
    actionabe #ust be bot! wron$"u and unpri%ie$ed0 ( +#peria +ce Co0 %0 rossier (1941)
    18 Ca02d 33, 38, 112 G02d >31' ,awess %0 Hrot!er!ood o" Gainters (195>) 143
    Ca0-pp02d 4/4, 4/8, 377 G02d 159' 3ay %0 Santa ?e Trai Transportation Co0, supra' 37
    -#0Lur0 82' 2> -0,0102d 12/7Q12/10)
    62>8 +n t!e instant case, it is ae$ed in t!e second count t!at at a ti#es #entioned
    de"endants Jit.e and S#it! were ;e#poyees, a$ents and representati%es4 o" t!eir
    respecti%e corporations and ;were actin$ wit!in t!e course and scope o" t!eir said
    e#poy#ent : : :0< ::T!ere is no ae$ation t!at t!ey were actin$ in any ot!er
    capacity0 ::T!ere is no ae$ation e5pressy statin$ or "ro# w!ic! it can be reasonaby
    in"erred t!at t!ey were actin$ "or t!eir indi%idua ad%anta$e0 T!e ae$ation t!at t!e
    acts o" t!ese de"endants were #oti%ated by #aice and were intentiona woud not i#pose
    iabiity0 (+#peria +ce Co0 %0 1ossier, supra0)
    Be !od t!at t!e second count "ais to set "ort! "acts su""icient to constitute a
    cause o" action a$ainst de"endants Jit.e and S#it!0
    ..888 30 Ca#sal connection etween conspiracy and discharge0
    62/8 De"endants4 contention t!at painti"" !as "aied to ae$e a causa connection
    between t!e conspiracy and !is disc!ar$e #ust succu#b to a "air readin$ o" t!e
    ae$ations o" t!e second count aready set "ort! by us0 T!ey ae$e a conspiracy "or
    t!e purpose o" securin$ painti""4s disc!ar$e, t!e per"or#ance o" certain acts pursuant
    t!ereto and "inay t!at t!e de"endant Co#pany ;in "urt!erance o" said a$ree#ent did on
    3arc! 2, 19>7, wit!out cause, wron$"uy disc!ar$e painti"" : : :0< T!is is a pain and
    cear state#ent t!at t!e disc!ar$e resuted "ro# t!e conspiracy0
    -nd t!e court stated at p0 /4,
    50 Su""iciency o" ae$ations o" second count0
    De"endants4 contention t!at t!e second count by reae$in$ a but two para$rap!s o"
    t!e "irst count is ;sub(ect to a o" t!e insu""iciencies4 o" t!e "irst count #ust "ai
    in %iew o" t!e concusions w!ic! we !a%e reac!ed as to t!e su""iciency o" t!e "irst
    count0
    6298 6378 Be t!ere"ore turn to t!e &uestion o" t!e su""iciency o" t!e conspiracy
    ae$ations t!e#se%es0 To state suc! a cause o" action, as aready pointed out, t!e
    co#paint #ust ae$e (1) t!e "or#ation and operation o" t!e conspiracy, (2) t!e
    wron$"u act or acts done pursuant t!ereto and (3) t!e resutin$ da#a$e0 Be !a%e
    !ereto"ore set "ort! and need not !ere repeat t!e ae$ations o" t!e second count to
    t!e e""ect t!at prior to Lanuary 21, 19>7, t!e de"endant Co#pany conspired wit! its
    code"endants to brin$ "ase c!ar$es a$ainst painti"" and to depri%e painti"" o" a "air
    !earin$ on suc! c!ar$es "or t!e purpose o" securin$ !is disc!ar$e in %ioation o" t!e
    union a$ree#ent0 T!is is a su""icient state#ent o" t!e "irst ee#ent o" t!e cause o"
    action0 (See Cai"ornia -uto Court -ss4n %0 Co!n, supra, 98 Ca0-pp02d 145, 14/, 149,
    219 G02d 511' 2reenwood %0 3ooradian (1955) 13/ Ca0-pp02d 532, 53/Q538, 297 G02d 9550)
    T!e second count t!erea"ter ae$es t!at t!e de"endant -ssociation ("or reasons aready
    stated we o#it re"erence to de"endant S#it! and ot!er a$ents) pursuant to t!e a$ree#ent
    induced certain persons to $i%e "ase state#ents and to appear and testi"y "asey about
    painti""' and t!at t!e de"endant Co#pany, pursuant to t!e a$ree#ent, #ade "ase
    c!ar$es a$ainst painti"", .nowin$y recei%ed suc! "ase state#ents and testi#ony,
    depri%ed painti"" o" a "air !earin$ and "inay disc!ar$ed !i# wit!out cause0 +t is
    cear t!at t!ese are wron$"u acts w!ic! wor. an in%asion o" ."5 painti""4s ri$!t to
    continue in e#poy#ent accordin$ to t!e pro%isions o" t!e coecti%e bar$ainin$
    a$ree#ent0 +t is aso cear t!at eac! participant in suc! acts is responsibe as a (oint
    tort "easor ..88" w!et!er or not it was a direct actor in respect to eac! o" t!e#0 (See
    3o5, +ncorporated %0 Boods, supra, 272 Ca0 >/5, >//Q>/8, 2>2 G0 372' 2reenwood %0
    3ooradian, supra0) T!us, t!ere is aso a su""icient ae$ation o" t!e second ee#ent o"
    t!e cause o" action0 Ao &uestion is raised as to t!e ae$ation o" t!e t!ird ee#ent o"
    da#a$e0
    Be concude t!at t!e second count states "acts su""icient to constitute a cause o"
    action a$ainst de"endants Co#pany and -ssociation0

    You might also like