Cited by

¶ 8 (App. 2010) (quoting Wells Fargo, 201 Ariz. at 485 ¶ 34).

the defendants must know that the conduct they are aiding and abetting is a tort.” ¶ 8 (App. 2010) (citation omitted).

See Eagle Indus., 702 A.2d at 1232-33; ¶ 7 (App. 2010) (stating that we will affirm a grant of summary judgment if it is correct for any reason).

Although this court may infer knowledge from the circumstances alleged, “an inference of knowledge will not be made lightly.” ¶ 9 (App. 2010).

¶28 Arizona recognizes an aiding and abetting claim as embodied in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, ¶ 8 (App. 2010), which provides: “[f]or harm resulting to a third person for the tortious conduct of another, one is subject to liability if he .

This court “determine[s] de novo whether a genuine issue of material fact exists,” ¶ 7 (App. 2010) (citation omitted), and “independently review[s] questions of law,” (citations omitted).

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc., ¶ 8, and view the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, ¶ 7, (citations omitted).