Opinion ID: 167625
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Jeff Berryman

Text: 24 World Wide next argues that the District Court erred by granting defendant Jeff Berryman summary judgment as to its state law claim of civil conspiracy. We review grants of summary judgment de novo to determine whether any genuine issue of material fact exists, viewing all evidence and any reasonable inferences that might be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Croy v. Cobe Labs., Inc., 345 F.3d 1199, 1201 (10th Cir. 2003). The nonmovant must establish, at a minimum, an inference of the existence of each element essential to the case. Id. (quotations and citation omitted). 25 In order to prove a civil conspiracy, World Wide must establish the following five elements: (1) a combination of two or more persons, (2) an object to be accomplished, (3) a meeting of the minds on the object or course of action, (4) one or more unlawful, overt acts, and (5) damages as a proximate result thereof. See Alta Indus. Ltd. v. Hurst, 846 P.2d 1282, 1290 n. 17 (Utah 1993) (quotations omitted). Each of these elements must be demonstrated by evidence that is clear and convincing. Israel Pagan Estate v. Cannon, 746 P.2d 785, 790 (Utah Ct. App. 1987). While it is not necessary to provide direct evidence of a formal agreement in order to demonstrate a meeting of the minds, there must be substantial proof of circumstances from which it reasonably follows, or at least may be reasonably inferred, that the conspiracy existed. Id. at 791. [C]onjecture and speculation alone are not sufficient to establish that the conspiracy existed. Id. 26 The District Court found that World Wide failed to offer any evidence supporting a reasonable inference that Mr. Berryman and Ms. Scheff conspired to defame World Wide. Specifically, World Wide's evidence that Mr. Berryman, through his internet postings, agreed with Ms. Scheff that parents should be discouraged from sending their children to World Wide schools does not give rise to a reasonable inference of a meeting of the minds as to a specific object to be accomplished—namely, the defamation of World Wide. Indeed, the court observed that if any reasonable inferences were to be drawn from the evidence, it is that Mr. Berryman and Ms. Scheff operated separately, rather than in concert. 27 World Wide's assertion that the District Court failed to draw the most favorable inferences from the facts is without merit. World Wide fails to point to any evidence in the record that provides substantial proof of circumstances that support a reasonable inference that Mr. Berryman and Ms. Scheff had reached an agreement as to a common objective. The record does include evidence that Ms. Scheff and Mr. Berryman shared the conviction that parents should not send their troubled teens to World Wide schools, but no jury could reasonably infer from this alone that Mr. Berryman and Ms. Scheff conspired to do an unlawful act.