Opinion ID: 618494
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State Law Conspiracy Claim

Text: The District Court properly dismissed the state law conspiracy claim because Bartos insufficiently pled an underlying cause of action. A civil action for conspiracy requires an agreement by the conspirators to commit an unlawful act. McKeeman v. Corestates Bank, N.A., 751 A.2d 655, 660 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000). “[A]bsent a civil cause of action for a particular act, there can be no cause of action for civil conspiracy to commit that act.” Id. (quoting Pelagatti v. Cohen, 536 A.2d 1337, 1342 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1987). Bartos premised her conspiracy claim on the tort of false light. False light is an invasion of privacy that occurs when “(a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E (1977). False light is only applicable when the plaintiff “is given publicity,” id. § 652E cmt. a., meaning that “the matter is made public, by communicating it to the public at large, or to so many persons that the matter must be regarded as substantially certain to become one of public knowledge,” id. § 652D cmt. a (distinguishing publicity from publication, “which includes any communication by the defendant to a third person”). Bartos has failed to state a claim for conspiracy to place her in a false light because she has averred no facts regarding publicity. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Appellees made any information about Bartos a matter of “public knowledge.” Id. 10 Without publicity there cannot be false light. Because Bartos has pled no facts that can support an inference of an underlying unlawful act for the purposes of showing a conspiracy, she has failed to plead sufficient facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. For these reasons, the District Court’s dismissal of Bartos’s conspiracy claim was proper.