With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (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,

A: holding plaintiffs claims could not succeed without proof that the city had knowledge of prior incidents
B: holding that proof of scienter is required to succeed on a claim under  1991a1 but not under  1991a2 or  1991a3
C: holding child molesting statute required proof of scienter
D: holding that proof of an explicit agreement is not required
B.