Opinion ID: 397847
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendants' Actionable Tort Theory and the Statute of Limitations

Text: 15 While not relying on the district court's exclusive remedy rationale, defendants interpret the court's opinion to mean that Lawrence's action was time-barred because the sole overt act alleged to have occurred within the limitations period, the satisfactory evaluation, could not support an action for civil conspiracy. Appellee's Brief at 7. Defendants explain that (t)o include such an evaluation as an operative part of the alleged conspiracy, it is necessary to find that the performance rating was a tortious act which injured appellant. Id. at 10. Because Lawrence's satisfactory job performance rating was not libellous, defendants continue, the evaluation cannot be an operative part of a civil conspiracy because it is not a tortious act. Id. at 13. 6 16 We think that in this respect defendants misapprehend the law of civil conspiracy. Lawrence has alleged that defendants gave him a substandard performance evaluation in furtherance of a conspiracy proscribed by section 1985(1), and it is well settled that acts that are in themselves legal lose that character when they become constituent elements of an unlawful scheme, Continental Co. v. Union Carbide Co., 370 U.S. 690, 707, 82 S.Ct. 1404, 1414, 8 L.Ed.2d 777 (1962). It is sufficient that Lawrence alleged the evaluation caused him injury; Lawrence need not allege the evaluation was tortious in itself. We decline to deprive section 1985 and other civil conspiracy statutes of significant meaning by requiring that each overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy be independently actionable. 17 We agree with defendants' understanding, however, that (absent special circumstances not present here, such as fraudulent concealment of the conspiracy) the statute of limitations in a civil damages action for conspiracy runs separately from each overt act that is alleged to cause damage to the plaintiff. 7 The three year statute of limitations applicable here thus confines our focus, for purposes of considering damages, to the August 1976 performance evaluation. 8 This determination alone justifies dismissal of the complaint as to defendants Magee and O'Brien, but not as to Dickerson and Acree who are alleged to have participated in the 1976 performance evaluation. There is no allegation that Magee or O'Brien furthered the conspiracy against Lawrence at any time since 1974. See Gual Morales v. Hernandez Vega, 579 F.2d 677, 681 (1st Cir. 1978) (plaintiff must allege ... that each defendant to be charged committed an action constituting a civil rights violation in furtherance of the conspiracy within the limitation period). 18