Opinion ID: 66322
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Civil Conspiracy (Aikens’ Issue 7)

Text: The Aikens claim that Jordan and Rimkus conspired to “not follow applicable standards of care for engineers” as well as to violate engineering ethical standards. They do not explain how such failures, assuming they occurred, were “unlawful.” Assuming, arguendo, that these claims do amount to unlawful conduct, the Aikens claims must still fail. “A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons for the purpose of accomplishing an unlawful purpose or a lawful purpose unlawfully.” Braddock Law Firm, PLLC v. Becnel, 949 So. 2d 38, 44 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Gallagher, 887 So. 2d at 786). An employee cannot ordinarily conspire with his corporate employer. When individual defendants are not shown to have acted outside of their employment capacities, they are incapable of conspiring with their corporate employer.” Cooper v. Drexel Chem. Co., 949 F. Supp. 1275, 1285 (N.D. Miss. 1996); see also Hilliard v. Ferguson, 30 F.3d 649, 653 (5th Cir. 1994). Furthermore, a civil conspiracy claim cannot stand alone, but must be based on an underlying tort. See Wells v. Shelter Gen. Ins. Co., 217 F. Supp. 2d 744, 755 (S.D. Miss. 2002) (applying Mississippi law; collecting cases). The Aikens do not explain what the tort is in this case. If the conspiracy was to commit fraud, it necessarily fails along with the fraud claim. If the failure to “follow applicable 9 No. 08-60154 standards of care for engineers” sounds in negligence or gross negligence, the conspiracy claim based on it cannot survive for the reasons explained in Section II.A.(1) of this opinion. JMOL on the conspiracy claim was proper. We AFFIRM.