(c) Allstate’s § 1991(A)(1) Claim Adequately Pled Scienter, Except as to the Underwriters and the Law Firms. For claims arising under § 1991(A)(1), a claimant must allege the requisite state of mind with particularity. Specifically, “[i]n any private action arising under § 44-1991” requiring “proof that the defendant acted with a particular state of mind ..., the complaint shall state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind.” Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 44-2082(B). Scienter, however, is only an element § 1991(A)(1) claims. It is not a required element of claims raised pursuant to § 1991(A)(2) and § 1991(A)(3). See e.g., Orthologic Corp. v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 2002 WL 1331735, at *5 (D. Ariz. Jan. 7, 2002) (<HOLDING>) (citing State v. Gunnison, 127 Ariz. 110, 113,
holding that proof of scienter is required to succeed on a claim under  1991a1 but not under  1991a2 or  1991a3 holding that proof of an explicit agreement is not required holding plaintiffs claims could not succeed without proof that the city had knowledge of prior incidents holding child molesting statute required proof of scienter holding obscenity statute required proof of scienter