Opinion ID: 2272501
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The contract and civil conspiracy claims

Text: The trial court disposed of Charlton's contract and civil conspiracy claims by granting Mesquita's motion for summary judgment. [24] We agree that no reasonable juror could find for Charlton on the breach of contract claim because Mesquita was not a party to either of the contracts between Mond and Charlton. Non-parties owe no contractual duty to the contracting parties. [25] Therefore, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to Mesquita with respect to the contract claim. With respect to the conspiracy claim, Charlton argues that Mond's phone records and [Charlton's own] affidavits, as well as the presence of Mesquita at Mond's home ... raise strong inferences of genuine issues of material fact as to the existence of a conspiracy. Charlton, however, does not cite a single case to support his position. The sum of his evidence of a conspiracy (apart from his own affidavits) are phone records indicating that Mond made phone calls to Mesquita and other parties. Charlton failed to furnish any other evidence of the agreement, if any, appellees reached when they contacted each other. Despite having ten months to conduct discovery, Charlton did not even depose Mond or Mesquita. [26] Lacking any evidence, Charlton now asks [w]hat else could they have been talking about? Such conclusory conjecture does not carry Charlton's burden of proof and does not suffice to overcome summary judgment. [27]