GENERAL INTEREST were based on separate claims involving different legal duties and injuries.” 66 Importantly, Virginia courts consistently have held that damage to one’s personal employment interest is not actionable under the statute. 67 B. Injunctive Relief and Attorneys’ Fees and Costs In addition to damages, the business conspiracy statute also allows for permanent injunctive relief and injunctive relief during litigation to restrain one from continuing the conspira-torial acts. 68 Further, the conspiracy statute allows for “reason-able counsel fees to complainants’ and defendants’ counsel.” 69 One court has held that a defendant is entitled to its attorneys’ fees even when the case is dismissed pursuant to its demurrer. 70 Of course, a party seeking to recover their attorneys’ fees must prove that the fees were reasonable and necessary. 71 Pleading Civil Conspiracy Claims Virginia state and federal courts appear to have differing standards for pleading common law and statutory business conspiracy claims. The Supreme Court of Virginia had held that “traditional notice pleading and demurrer standards apply in reviewing conspiracy claims.” 72 To survive an attack by a dis-positive motion, a plaintiff must allege the existence of the ele-ments of the claim in more than “mere conclusory language.” 73 A plaintiff must allege “concerted action, legal malice, and ca-sually related injury . . . set[ting] forth core facts to support the claim.” 74 Moreover, for statutory business conspiracy claims, “it is not enough for [a] plaintiff merely to track the language of the conspiracy statute without alleging the fact that the alleged co-conspirators did, in fact, agree to do something the statute forbids.” 75 Ordinarily, a complaint should contain factual details of the time and place and the alleged effect of the conspiracy in order to withstand a demurrer or motion to dismiss. 76 From the federal court’s perspective, a statutory business conspira-cy requires a heightened pleading to prevent “every business dispute over unfair competition [from] becoming a business conspiracy claim.’” 77 Defenses to a Civil Conspiracy Claim I. Statute of Limitations One point is clear: a conspiracy cause of action accrues when damage is first sustained by the plaintiff. 78 The length of the limitations period running from the accrual point is unclear, however, and the Supreme Court of Virginia has held that the “applicable statute of limitations is determined by the type of injury alleged.” If the alleged cause of action is for personal injuries, it is subject to a two-year statute of limitations, but if the alleged cause of action is for injury to property, it is subject to a five-year limitations period. 79 David Anthony, a partner at Troutman Pepper, has a national litigation practice representing companies in highly regulated industries, such as consumer financial services companies, class actions and complex individual lawsuits. He has significant litigation experience defending cases under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and numerous other federal and state consumer protection statutes, with particular expertise in matters that involve companion government investigations. Timothy St. George defends institutions nationwide facing class actions and individual lawsuits. A partner at Troutman Pepper, he has particular experience litigating cases under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and their state coun-terparts. He focuses his practice in the areas of complex litigation and business disputes, finan-cial services litigation, and consumer litigation. Scott Kelly is an attorney at Troutman Pepper who represents clients in federal and state courts, at both the trial and appellate levels. He focuses his practice in the areas of com-plex litigation and business disputes, financial services litigation, and consumer litigation. He frequently represents businesses in mort-gage-foreclosure disputes, auto-finance litigation, intellectual property challenges, “ban-the-box” compliance issues, and claims implicat-ing Metro II standards for credit reporting. Civil Consipracy continued on page 48 www.vsb.org GENERAL INTEREST FEATURES | VOL. 69 | AUGUST 2020 | VIRGINIA LAWYER 25