Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this automobile accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)
Contrary to Defendant’s argument that it is necessary for a meeting between co-conspirators for form a conspiracy, The formation and existence of a conspiracy may be inferred from all circumstances tending to show the common intent and may be proved in the same way as any other fact may be proved, either by direct testimony of the fact or by circumstantial evidence, or by both direct and circumstantial evidence. It is not necessary to show a meeting of the alleged conspirators or the making of an express or formal agreement. (BAJI California Jury Instructions, Civil 9th Ed., 2002, P. 205) (Emphasis added) Kidron v. Movie Acquisition Corp. 40 Cal.App.4th 1571, 1583 (1995)
It is clear from the events that occurred the night of December 19 and early morning of December 20, 2006, that Stacy Greene and El Mexicano knowingly conspired to violate Business & Professions Code Sec. 25602.1, planning their wrongful acts, assisting each other, knowing their acts were wrongful and unlawful. El Mexicano andStacy knowingly conspired to violate Business & Professions Code Sec. 25602.1. Plaintiff’s TAC has alleged numerous facts to establish thatStacy knowingly co-conspired with El Mexicano Restaurant to “sell, furnish, give or cause to be sold, furnished or given away any alcoholic beverage” to an “obviously intoxicated minor,” Matt Smith, in violation of Business & Professions Code Sec. 25602.1. There must be a showing of knowledge of the planned tort and intent to aid in its commission. Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co. 24 C.3d 773,784 (1979)
Stacy brought the minors to El Mexicano so that they could be entertained on the night and early morning of December 19, 20, 2006.
Upon information and belief, Stacy Greene had a relationship and was dating the co-owner of the restaurant’s son at that time.
She told the minors she could get alcoholic drinks for them, and did order alcoholic drinks for an obviously intoxicated minor, Matt Smith.
Upon information and belief, Stacy Greene was known to the co-owners and had previously directed patrons to El Mexicano and wanted to help her boyfriend’s father’s business.
Stacy Greene’s relationship with El Mexicano was mutually profitable. The restaurant benefitted because it made money on food, in exchange, Stacy benefitted because drinks were comped for herself and the minors.
All of the above facts, which Plaintiff has alleged in his TAC, clearly establish a co-conspiracy between Stacy Greene and El Mexicano to violate Business & Professions Code Sec. 25602.1.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the factual and legal arguments above, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court overrule Defendants’ Ramon and Stacy Greene’s demurrer in its entirety and that Plaintiff be allowed to file and serve his Third Amended Complaint.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.