Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
“Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another.” (Lee v. Hanley (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1225, 1240 citing Welco Electronics, Inc. v. Mora (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 202, 208.)
“The elements of a conversion claim are:
(Id.)
A cause of action for conversion requires allegations of plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of property; defendant's wrongful act toward or disposition of the property, interfering with plaintiff's possession; and damage to plaintiff. (Burlesci v. Petersen (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1066, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 704.)
“Money cannot be the subject of a cause of action for conversion unless there is a specific, identifiable sum involved, such as where an agent accepts a sum of money to be paid to another and fails to make the payment. (McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1491, citing Fischer v. Machado (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1072–73.) By contrast, a “generalized claim for money [is] not actionable as conversion.” (Vu v. California Commerce Club, Inc. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 229, 235.) As long as there is a definite sum involved, however, “it is not necessary that each coin or bill be earmarked.” (Weiss v. Marcus (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 590, 599, citing Haigler v. Donnelly (1941) 18 Cal.2d 674, 681.)
Thus, in Chazen v. Centennial Bank (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 532, 543, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 462, the plaintiffs stated a cause of action for conversion where the bank took funds from trust accounts to pay the trustee's personal indebtedness.
“In connection with the breach of bailment cause of action, [where] plaintiffs did not allege that defendants were holding their payments on behalf of another, in essence in trust for the third party vendors ...[and] Plaintiffs cite no authority for the proposition that a cause of action for conversion may be based on an overcharge.... [c]onsequently, they have failed to demonstrate that they have stated a cause of action for conversion.” (McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1491 citing City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at p. 459, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 329; Mansell v. Board of Administration, supra, 30 Cal.App.4th at pp. 545-546, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 574.)
“Conversion also occurs when the defendant applies property to his or her own use.” (Oakdale Village Group, supra, 43 Cal.App.4th at p. 544.) Additionally, “[t]he unauthorized transfer of property constitutes a conversion.” (Welco Electronics, Inc. v. Mora (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 202, 209.)
If plaintiff also wants to proceed under the separate legal heading of conversion, though, he must take the conversion tort as he finds it, including its statute of limitations. Although the parties do not brief the point, it does appear that a wrongful usurpation of at least shares of stock, without physically taking the certificates, may constitute conversion. (E.g., Welco Electronics, Inc. v. Mora (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 202, 209).
LOPEZ VS. LOPEZ WEST PROPERTIES
MSC20-00769
Sep 04, 2020
Contra Costa County, CA
Whether or not Defendant BIDARI “knew” the retainer money came from money set aside by Defendant GUZMAN for Plaintiff or belonging to Plaintiff is immaterial to a conversion claim. “Conversion is a strict liability tort. The foundation of the action rests neither in the knowledge nor the intent of the defendant. Instead, the tort consists in the breach of an absolute duty; the act of conversion itself is tortious.
DIAZ ROMERO VS. GUZMAN
30-2019-01048172
Mar 18, 2021
Orange County, CA
Plaintiff’s FAC alleges a cause of action for aiding and abetting conversion against Defendants. Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the personal property of another. (Farmers Ins, Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 451-452.) A conversion claim has the following three elements: (1) claimant’s ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) claimant’s damages. (Burlesci v.
DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST, INC. V. HAYNIE & COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
30-2016-00841742-CU-PN-CJC
Aug 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action alleges facts sufficient to constitute a conversion cause of action. Defendant’s demurrer to the fourth cause of action for conversion is OVERRULED. Notice of ruling by Plaintiff.
OGARA COACH COMPANY LLC VS DARREN MICHAEL RICHIE
BC683108
Mar 28, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
Parks conversion of A&Os computer files was without consent. 101. Parks conversion of A&Os computer files was intentional. 102. As a direct, actual, and proximate result of Parks conversion of A&Os computer files, as alleged, A&O has suffered damages in the amount of $10,077,000. (Cross-Complaint, ¶¶ 98 102 [bold emphasis added].) Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another.
JUNG JIN PARK, AN INDIVIDUAL VS A & O INTERNATIONAL, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
23STCV23892
Apr 17, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Civil Code Section 3336 provides in relevant part that the detriment caused by conversion is presumed to be “[t]he value of the property at the time of the conversion.” Plaintiff provides no evidence of the value of the subject vehicle at the time of conversion. Plaintiff provides evidence of valuation as of June 2017, but does not establish that to be the date of conversion. Thus, Plaintiff fails to meet its burden as to the third cause of action for conversion.
12. TRANSPORT FUNDING LLC VS MANRIQUEZ
30-2017-00927326-CU-BC-CJC
Mar 16, 2018
Orange County, CA
Bonilla’s demurrer to the sixth cause of action for conversion in Plaintiffs Tryal B. Edmundson, Osbelia G Edmundson, and Daniel Perales’ First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), is sustained with 15 days leave to amend. “Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. The elements of a conversion claim are (1) the plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages.” (Lee v.
EDMUNDSON, ET AL. V. BONILLA, ET AL.
30-2019-01117741
Jul 02, 2021
Orange County, CA
Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication filed by Pltf Norm Westwell; Plaintiff Norm Westwell’s Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the Third Cause of Action for Conversion is DENIED as follows. “Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. The elements of a conversion are the plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of the property at the time of the conversion; the defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and damages.”
WESTWELL VS. TRUWEST, INC.
30-2015-00805951-CU-FR-CJC
Apr 24, 2017
Orange County, CA
As such, the court concluded that the defendant’s conversion of shares of stock, an intangible property interest, was an actionable conversion even without conversion of the share certificates.
21CECG1057
Oct 04, 2022
Fresno County, CA
The elements of a conversion claim are: (1) the plaintiff’s ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant’s conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages.” (( Lee v. Hanley (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1225, 1240 .) The conversion claim is premised on the allegations that “[b]y attaching wood to the garage roof, installing a light and placing dog cages as well as a fence damaging the garage and property in all[sic].
SAMUEL TORRES, ET AL. VS LUIS PEREZ, ET AL.
20STCV01919
Apr 07, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
Merits of the fourth cause of action (conversion) For conversion, a plaintiff must allege first, his or her ownership or right to possession of tangible property at the time of the conversion; second, the defendant's conversion of the property; and third, damages. (14A Cal. Jur. 3d Conversion § 61 (citing Franklin v. Municipal Court (1972) 26 Cal. App. 3d 884 and First Nat. Bank of Long Beach v. Crown Transfer & Storage Co. (1928) 89 Cal.
WILLIAMS VS ALL VALLEY ESCROW INC
56-2016-00483347-CU-BC-VTA
Dec 20, 2017
Vincent O'Neill
Ventura County, CA
Shugart Corp. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 737, 748 [“In a conversion action, the plaintiff need show only that he was entitled to possession at the time of conversion; the fact that plaintiff regained possession of the converted property does not prevent him from suing for damages for the conversion.”].) Thus, the length of time for which defendants possessed the vehicle is relevant to the extent of damages, not whether a cause of action for conversion is stated.
DOYLE VS. COUNTRY VILLAGE
MSL15-03466
Jul 11, 2016
Ed Weil
Contra Costa County, CA
Raveling (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1035, 1037-1038 Third C/A for Conversion: One of the elements of conversion is the plaintiff’s ownership or right of possession of the property. Lee vs. Hanley (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1225, 1240 Neither side offers authority for the proposition that embryos constitute “property”. Cases concerning conversion generally describe the object of conversion as property; at most, the object of conversion may be animals.
KATHERINE OLSZEWSKI VS. JAMES LIN
30-2016-00873976-CU-PO-CJC
Jan 30, 2017
Orange County, CA
Defendant contends that, while Plaintiff settled both a direct and derivative claim for conversion, Plaintiff’s direct claim for conversion is truly a derivative claim for conversion. Thus, Defendant argues the sum of the $20,000 is rightfully due to Defendant, the corporate entity on behalf of which Plaintiff brings the derivative causes of action.
NIDHI CHAWLA VS ANAMIKA JONEJA, ET AL.
20STCV44701
Oct 14, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Gable’s conversion claim fails for the reasons advanced by Cross-Defendants. The holding in Voris disposes of run-of-the-mill conversion claims based on unpaid wages.[1] Gable’s conversion claim is no different. Like the plaintiff in Voris, Gable’s conversion claim is that his employer “failed to reach into its own funds to satisfy its debt” when those debts became due.
GLOBAL SOURCE LOGISTICS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS STONER GABLE
19STCV21816
Jan 13, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff Rae’ven A’lyia Kelley’s unopposed Motion for Summary Adjudication against Defendants Phyllis Larrymore-Kelly and Kevin Kelly as to the Cause of Action for Conversion is GRANTED. Plaintiff Rae’ven A’lyia Kelly moves for summary adjudication of her conversion claim against both Defendants. The motion is unopposed.
RAE'VEN A'LYIA KELLY ET AL VS PHYLLIS E LARRYMORE-KELLY ET A
BC582503
Sep 13, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Both conversion and trespass to chattels are intentional torts. (Multani v. Knight (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 837, 853; Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1566.) "'Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another.' [Citation.] Proof of conversion requires a showing of ownership or right to possession of the property at the time of the conversion, the defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights, and resulting damages." (Avidor v.
MAILLET VS. PIKE DVM
37-2018-00011302-CU-PO-NC
Feb 13, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Conversion “’Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. The elements of a conversion claim are: (1) the plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages.’” (Lee v. Hanley (2015) 61 Cal. 4th 1225, 1240, quoting, Welco Electronics, Inc. v. Mora (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 202, 208.)
PATRICK DOWD VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC
22CV01834
May 16, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
Conversion “’Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. The elements of a conversion claim are: (1) the plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages.’” (Lee v. Hanley (2015) 61 Cal. 4th 1225, 1240, quoting, Welco Electronics, Inc. v. Mora (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 202, 208.)
PATRICK DOWD VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC
22CV01834
May 17, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
Conversion “’Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. The elements of a conversion claim are: (1) the plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages.’” (Lee v. Hanley (2015) 61 Cal. 4th 1225, 1240, quoting, Welco Electronics, Inc. v. Mora (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 202, 208.)
PATRICK DOWD VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC
22CV01834
May 20, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
Conversion “’Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. The elements of a conversion claim are: (1) the plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages.’” (Lee v. Hanley (2015) 61 Cal. 4th 1225, 1240, quoting, Welco Electronics, Inc. v. Mora (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 202, 208.)
PATRICK DOWD VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC
22CV01834
May 18, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
Conversion “’Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. The elements of a conversion claim are: (1) the plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages.’” (Lee v. Hanley (2015) 61 Cal. 4th 1225, 1240, quoting, Welco Electronics, Inc. v. Mora (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 202, 208.)
PATRICK DOWD VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC
22CV01834
May 19, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
Conversion “’Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. The elements of a conversion claim are: (1) the plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages.’” (Lee v. Hanley (2015) 61 Cal. 4th 1225, 1240, quoting, Welco Electronics, Inc. v. Mora (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 202, 208.)
PATRICK DOWD VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC
22CV01834
May 21, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
Conversion “’Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. The elements of a conversion claim are: (1) the plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages.’” (Lee v. Hanley (2015) 61 Cal. 4th 1225, 1240, quoting, Welco Electronics, Inc. v. Mora (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 202, 208.)
PATRICK DOWD VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC
22CV01834
May 22, 2023
Santa Cruz County, CA
"Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion and control over the property of another. Proof of conversion requires a showing of ownership or right to possession of the property at the time of the conversion, the defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights, and resulting damages. Money can be the subject of an action for conversion if a specific sum capable of identification is involved." (Avidor v.
LOFTIS VS RG GARCIA CORPORATION
56-2017-00493524-CU-EN-VTA
Mar 12, 2018
Ventura County, CA
Other
Enforcement
Optimum Power Conversion, Inc. has been given a reasonable time to retain counsel (Id., at 1149) as Defendant/cross-complainant Optimum Power Conversion, Inc. has been on notice since 8-17-17 that as a corporate entity it must be represented by counsel. The OSC is set for hearing on November 30, 2017 at 2 p.m. in Dept. C15. Plaintiff to give notice.
ETA ELECTRICAL INSTRUSTRY VS OPTIMUM POWER CONVERSION
30-2015-00812512-CU-BC-CJC
Oct 26, 2017
Orange County, CA
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – CONVERSION Arroyo demurrers only to the Tenth Cause of Action for conversion, arguing that no specific sum has been pleaded and that the Labor Code sections that this action is based on preempt the common law tort of conversion. 1. Specific Sum “‘Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another.
RUBEN PASCUAL VS ARROYO PARTNERS LLC ET AL
BC632280
Jan 09, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Code § 17710.09(a) states in relevant part, An entity that converts into another entity pursuant to this article is . . . the same entity that existed before the conversion and the conversion shall not be deemed a transfer of property. While Inc.s argument makes certain sense, the Court of Appeal acknowledged Corp.
HOLISTIC SUPPLEMENTS LLC ET AL VS CHRISTOPHER DANIEL STARK ET AL
BC599796
Jun 07, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s causes of action against her for (1) conversion, (2) financial elder abuse, and (3) accounting. In Plaintiff’s opposition, Plaintiff does not present any argument in support of the second or third causes of action. Plaintiff opposes the demurrer only as to the first cause of action for conversion. “Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another.
KALTER VS. MONT
30-2020-01150176
Mar 01, 2021
Orange County, CA
Plaintiffs do not squarely address this second element of conversion in their opposition papers. However, they argue that conversion does not require interference that entirely prevents a property owner from using his or her property, pointing to cases involving the conversion of licenses and other intangible property capable of concurrent use. (See G.S. Rasmussen & Associates, Inc. v.
CSUPO, ET AL. V. ALPHABET, INC.
19CV352557
Jul 17, 2020
Santa Clara County, CA
"[A] tortious breach of contract ... may be found when (1) the breach is accompanied by a traditional common law tort, such as fraud or conversion...[Citations omitted]." (Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 990.) If Plaintiff has properly plead conversion, then he can properly plead negligence as there would be a breach of a duty apart from the contractual duties – the duty not to convert the security deposit. As discussed below, Plaintiff has properly pled conversion.
YUNUSOV VS TORREY GARDEN HILLS LLC [E-FILE]
37-2016-00030493-CU-OR-CTL
Aug 10, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Real Property
other
Second Cause of Action (Conversion) Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have not alleged a claim for conversion because Plaintiffs have not alleged a specific sum nor do Plaintiffs sufficiently allege their immediate possessory right. The main issue that Defendant raises is that Plaintiffs’ claim is a claim based on contract for money, not a conversion (tort) claim. “ Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another.
DONALD JUNCKER, ET AL. VS PREMIER WORLD TOURS, LLC
20STCV42486
Apr 28, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
However, notwithstanding the ability to allege conversion, the current complaint fails to allege a valid claim for conversion. California courts have been hesitant about allowing a conversion claim with regard to money. In Welco Electronics, Inc. v.
DANICA N KEICH VS. US HEALTHWORKS INC
37-2017-00015343-CU-OE-CTL
Jan 17, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Sixth Cause of Action for Conversion The elements of a conversion claim are: (1) the plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages. Mendoza v. Rast Produce Co., Inc. (2006) 140 Cal. App. 4th 1395, 1404-05.
WOODALL V. AMERICO MORTGAGE CORPORATION
30-2018-01008564
Aug 31, 2020
Orange County, CA
Defendants Mehr Group, Inc. and Mohsen Mehrtash demur to Plaintiffs’ 4th c/a for conversion on the grounds that it is barred by the statute of limitations, fails to state sufficient facts and is fatally uncertain.
CHIRILOV V. MEHR GROUP, INC.
30-2015-00814092-CU-BC-CJC
Sep 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
The court notes that Defendants’ only discussed the First Cause of Action for Conversion and not Second Cause of Action for the Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Thus, the court will address the demurer only as to the First Cause of Action for Conversion only. Conversion (First Cause of Action) The elements for conversion are: (1) Plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of personal property; (2) defendant's disposition of the property inconsistent with plaintiff's rights; and (3) resulting damages.
JACK BADEAU, ET AL. VS MAYRA A. ROMO, ET AL.
20PSCV00713
Jun 17, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
But money can be the subject of a conversion action when a specific sum capable of identification is involved. ( See SP Investment Fund I LLC v. Cattell (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 898, 907.) The simple failure to pay money owed does not constitute conversion, otherwise the tort of conversion would swallow the category of contract claims based on the mere contractual right of payment. ( Voris v. Lampert (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1141, 1151.)
PIERRE CALAND VS ALEXANDER J. DAVIS
21SMCV01083
Nov 01, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. The elements of a conversion are the plaintiffs ownership or right to possession of the property at the time of the conversion; the defendants conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and damages.
300 S. LOS ANGELES STREET PARTNERSHIP, LP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL. VS FEREYDOON ?FRED? NATAN
21STCV26686
Jun 08, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
(1952) 38 Cal.2d 770, 789 (finding no conversion of furniture where jury properly found “that plaintiff consented to the taking of the furniture”; “[s]ince plaintiff consented to the taking of the furniture, that taking was not a conversion...”)) “The elements of a conversion are the plaintiff's . . . right to possession of the property at the time of the conversion; the defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and damages.” ( Oakdale, supra, 43 Cal.App.4th at 544.)
FIRST LAW GROUP, APC, VS HUGO GRANADENO, INDIVIDUALLY, ET AL.
19STCV35052
May 07, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Moving Party demurs to the third cause of action for conversion based on CCP §§ 430.10(e) and (f). “Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. The elements of conversion are: (1) the plaintiff’s ownership or right to possession of the property at the time of the conversion; (2) the defendant’s conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages.
ARTESIA PARTNERS, LLC. VS. ANGELES INSTITUTE, LLC
VC066994
Oct 16, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
This would defeat Plaintiff’s conversion claim, since they had no right to ownership or possession at the time of conversion. The Court also notes that the conversion was over unspecified sums of money and real property. Both are improper subjects of a conversion action. Generally, money cannot be the subject of a cause of action for conversion unless there is an identifiable sum. ( PCO, Inc. v. Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 384, 395-397.)
VICKI MASTRO, ET AL. VS WILMA ALMAREZ
19STCV39683
Jan 14, 2021
day s
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant contends claims for conversion cannot be based on alleged statutory violations of the California Labor Code. The Court agrees in part. Defendant fails to provide on-point binding authority providing that a conversion cause of action cannot be stated based on Labor Code section 351 because it is the exclusive remedy for such claims. However, as discussed above, it does not appear Plaintiff can state a cause of action for conversion based on Labor Code section 351.
JOY CHOU VS BENIHANA NATIONAL CORP ET AL
BC679654
Feb 16, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Here, Defendant demurs to the Sixth Cause of Action for Conversion and the Eighth Cause of Action for Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. Conversion Conversion is “the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. The elements of a conversion claim are: (1) the plaintiff’s ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant’s conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages.” (Lee v. Hanley (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1225, 1240.)
CERVANTES V. RUIZ
17CECG00099
Oct 04, 2017
Fresno County, CA
The elements of a conversion claim are: (1) the plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages. Conversion is a strict liability tort.” (Burlesci v. Petersen (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1066.) The Complaint alleges, “. . .
EJTEMAEI V. CLIMATEC, LLC
30-2020-01148937
Mar 16, 2021
Orange County, CA
Conversion is a strict-liability tort and a perpetrator’s intent is immaterial. (Madatyan, supra, 19 Cal.App.5th at p. 1387.) Here, the allegations pertaining to conversion appear to address Kenneth Dickerson and Coachillin Holdings. The general allegations do not make clear which actions, taken by which individuals or entities, constitute conversion. Itis also not clear what actions were taken in furtherance of a conspiracy to convert the containers.
COACHILLIN HOLDINGS LLC VS PAC-VAN INC
PSC2002887
Oct 26, 2021
Riverside County, CA
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action for conversion and abuse of process by the step-children of decedent Phillip Silvester Cordova, who were allegedly removed from their home following his death. Cross-Complaint for conversion by the administrator of decedent’s estate. MOTION: Cross-Defendant demurs to the Cross-Complaint on the grounds that the conversion claim is barred by the statute of limitations and fails to allege any facts to state a cause of action.
DORANTES, JACOB VS ARDILES, ROSALIE SARAH
17K04593
May 13, 2019
James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang
Los Angeles County, CA
Second Cause of Action (Conversion) Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have not alleged a claim for conversion because Plaintiffs have not alleged a specific sum nor do Plaintiffs sufficiently allege their immediate possessory right. The main issue that Defendant raises is that Plaintiffs’ claim is a claim based on contract for money, not a conversion (tort) claim. “ Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another.
20STCV424865
Jan 27, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
In the first amended cross-complaint (“FACC”), Cross-Complainant/Defendant Soo Kim (“Kim”) asserts a single cause of action for conversion against Cross-Defendant/Plaintiff Haejung Lee (“Lee”). “Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. The elements of a conversion claim are: (1) the plaintiff’s ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages....” (Lee v.
HAEJUNG LEE VS SOO KIM ET AL
BC678531
Jan 12, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Third Cause of Action for Conversion: Although the normal measure of damages for conversion is “[t]he value of the property at the time of the conversion” and “[a] fair compensation for the time and money properly expended in pursuit of the property”. . . emotional distress damages have also been. . . A separate claim is not redundant simply because it seeks the same damages. If plaintiff has stated a proper claim for conversion, it may go forward regardless of the fate of her negligence claim.” Spates v.
BERGMAN VS COASTAL FERTILITY MEDICAL CENTER, INC.
30-2016-00889560
May 01, 2017
Orange County, CA
The elements of conversion are: (1) the plaintiff’s ownership or right to possession of the property at the time of the conversion; (2) the defendant’s conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages. It is not necessary that there be a manual taking of the property; it is only necessary to show an assumption of control or ownership over the property, or that the alleged converter has applied the property to his own use.” (Farmers Ins. Exchange v.
HENRY AGUILA VS. JOE GOMEZ
VC065193
Jan 23, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
"[T]he law has been careful to distinguish proper claims for the conversion of money from other types of monetary claims more appropriately dealt with under other theories of recovery. Thus, although our law has dispensed with the old requirement that 'each coin or bill be earmarked,' it remains the case that 'money cannot be the subject of an action for conversion unless a specific sum capable of identification is involved.' [Citation.]
TRW ENTERPRISES VS BOEHM
56-2019-00535316-CU-CO-VTA
Jan 23, 2020
Ventura County, CA
This is really just a different remedy for the tort of conversion, seeking possession of the personal property as opposed to seeking damages for its conversion. Thus the personal property must meet the same requirements as it would for conversion. Hillyer v. Eggers (1917) 32 Cal.App. 764 [applying same rule as conversion to claim for possession of money]. (i) Plaintiff is the owner personal property.
K3B, INC. VS. COLLECTORS UNIVERSE, INC.
30-2016-00856615-CU-NP-CJC
Nov 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
This is really just a different remedy for the tort of conversion, seeking possession of the personal property as opposed to seeking damages for its conversion. Thus the personal property must meet the same requirements as it would for conversion. Hillyer v. Eggers (1917) 32 Cal.App. 764 [applying same rule as conversion to claim for possession of money]. (i) Plaintiff is the owner personal property.
K3B, Inc. vs. Collectors Universe, Inc. 16-856615
Nov 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
Defendant contends claims for conversion cannot be based on alleged statutory violations of the California Labor Code. The Court agrees in part. Defendant fails to provide on-point binding authority providing that a conversion cause of action cannot be stated based on Labor Code section 351 because it is the exclusive remedy for such claims. However, as discussed above, it does not appear Plaintiff can state a cause of action for conversion based on Labor Code section 351.
JESSICA VAZQUEZ VS BENIHANA NATIONAL CORP ET AL
BC679473
Feb 16, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Accordingly, the court rules on the demurrer with regard to the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th causes of action—those claims alleged against PPII and addressed in the parties’ papers. 1st cause of action for Conversion. “Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. The elements of a conversion claim are: (1) the plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages.
RANDALL VS. RITEWAY AUTO PAINT & BODYWORK, INC.
30-2020-01168890
Jul 01, 2021
Orange County, CA
Conversion 1. Legal Standard Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. The elements of a conversion claim are: (1) the plaintiffs ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendants conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages. ( Lee v. Hanley (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1225, 1240.)
BLAINE IKEDA, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS RAZMIK ABKARIANS, AN INDIVIDUAL
23STCV26250
Apr 02, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Therefore, the Court finds that plaintiffs may assert a claim for conversion based on the unpaid wages. Defendants next argue that the conversion claims fail because plaintiff do not allege an identifiable sum of money converted. "Money cannot be the subject of a cause of action for conversion unless there is a specific, identifiable sum involved." (McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1491.)
YOUNG SIN KIM VS RIVIERA HEALTH CORPORATION ET AL
BC651692
Jun 12, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
(iii) Sustain, with leave to amend, Defendants' demurrer to Plaintiff's fourteenth cause of action for conversion, (a) Plaintiff fails to allege facts indicating that she has a viable claim for conversion of money under the factual circumstances alleged here; and (b) a claim of conversion of money would not appear to lie in the absence of allegations that the Defendants were obligated to hold monies on behalf of Plaintiff.
CAROLYN KOENIG VS. RONALD HASSON
56-2008-00332243-CU-NP-SIM
May 05, 2009
Ventura County, CA
The demurrer to the seventh cause of action for conversion is sustained without leave to amend. The FAC alleges a claim that Defendant has wrongfully converted a specific sum of money for its own use. In Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Zerin, (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 451-52, the Court explained that a mere right of payment, without more, will not suffice. The specific basis for the conversion claim is unclear.
DAVID ROWLAND VS MERCEDES-BENZ USA LLC
37-2018-00000804-CU-BC-CTL
Apr 11, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
Issues 3 and 4: Conversion Ms. Shen argues that the conversion claim fails because Plaintiff admitted it lacked evidence to prove that the money and assets received by Ms. Shen were wrongfully taken and that the conversion claim is barred by the statute of limitations. “Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another.
SCUDERIA CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC VS. ERIC PO-CHI SHEN, ET AL
EC066100
Feb 23, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
As Plaintiff asserts a conversion claim against Defendants for the nonpayment of wages, Plaintiff’s conversion claim fails as a matter of law. (See Voris, supra, at 7 Cal.5th p. 1162-1163.) The Court GRANTS Defendants’ unopposed motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend.
HEE KWAN EUN VS JAE KEUN CHUNG, ET AL.
19STCV08546
Mar 04, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
As Plaintiff asserts a conversion claim against Defendants for the nonpayment of wages, Plaintiff’s conversion claim fails as a matter of law. (See Voris, supra, at 7 Cal.5th p. 1162-1163.) The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend.
YOUNG JIN KIM VS KASLAX SERVICE, INC., ET AL.
19STCV11270
Mar 04, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
Plaintiffs maintain claims for nonpayment of wages and rest and meal periods, and for conversion of “unpaid wages and tips.” A redundant claim for conversion of wages would be improper. However, Plaintiffs’ claim for conversion of tips and gratuities is distinct from the claims for wages. Labor Code § 351 provides that individuals have property rights in the tips or gratuities left for them.
CHANG KOK AHN ET AL VS HOLLYWOOD ENTERPRISES INC ET AL
BC609271
Apr 23, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
CONVERSION Mr. Danny contends that conversion is not stated because the complaint does not identify a specific, identifiable sum of money which was converted. “Kim's fourth cause of action, for conversion, fails because the simple failure to pay money owed does not constitute conversion.
ELIZABETH SCOTT WISE VS. ALFRED E. WISE, JR., ET AL.
NC061737
Jan 17, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
The elements of a conversion claim are: (1) the plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages. Conversion is a strict liability tort.” (Burlesci v. Petersen (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1066.) The Complaint alleges, “. . .
EJTEMAEI V. CLIMATEC, LLC
30-2020-01148937
Mar 23, 2021
Orange County, CA
Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. The elements of a conversion claim are: (1) the plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages. Conversion is a strict liability tort. The foundation of the action rests neither in the knowledge nor the intent of the defendant.
ROGER JAMES SAYEGH VS LEONID KAMENETSKY, ET AL.
19STCV05108
Sep 30, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Second Cause of Action: Conversion The second cause of action is a claim for conversion. “Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. The elements of a conversion are the plaintiff’s ownership or right to possession of the property at the time of the conversion; the defendant’s conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and damages.
ALDO ABRONZINO V. JAAP LANGENBERG, ET AL.
2017-CV-307444
Feb 20, 2018
Santa Clara County, CA
Demurrer to conversion cause of action: To plead a cause of action for conversion, one must allege (1) Plaintiff’s ownership or right to possession of personal property; (2) defendant’s disposition of the property inconsistent with plaintiff’s rights; and (3) resulting damages. (Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 119.)
ALBERTO NINO JIMENEZ VS RICHARD TOBIN BAUM
BC628927
Jan 24, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Conversion “‘Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. The elements of a conversion are [(1)] the plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of the property at the time of the conversion; [(2)] the defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and [(3)] damages.’” (Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 451–452.) Plaintiff asserts conversion as a cause of action in Item No. 10 of the FAC.
SHAFTON, JESSIE VS PORTER RANCH MAINTENANCE
17K04563
Jun 27, 2018
Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi
Los Angeles County, CA
“‘Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. The elements of a conversion are [(1)] the plaintiff’s ownership or right to possession of the property at the time of the conversion; [(2)] the defendant’s conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and [(3)] damages.” (Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 451–452.) Defendant is effectively putting the second element of conversion at issue.
ROCCO PERLA VS LUCY'S AUTO CENTER
17STLC01202
Jan 08, 2019
Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi
Los Angeles County, CA
“‘Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. The elements of a conversion are [(1)] the plaintiff’s ownership or right to possession of the property at the time of the conversion; [(2)] the defendant’s conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and [(3)] damages.” (Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 451–452.) Defendant is effectively putting the second element of conversion at issue.
LUDIVINA LOVATO VS MMN INDUSTRIES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
17STCP01202
Jan 08, 2019
Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi
Los Angeles County, CA
Demurrer & Motion to Strike DEMURRER Defendant Teresa Aguilar’s Demurrer to the 10th Cause of Action for Conversion is OVERRULED. “Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. The elements of a conversion claim are: (1) the plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages. . . .” Los Angeles Federal Credit Union v. Madatyan (2012) 209 Cal.
SADDLEBACK PARK VILLAS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC. VS TEAM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
30-2016-00852337-CU-BC-CJC
Apr 14, 2017
Orange County, CA
Plaintiffs' unopposed demurrer to the sixth cause of action for conversion of the cross-complaint is sustained without leave to amend. "[N]o precedential decision of any California court to date has authorized a conversion claim based on the nonpayment of wages." Voris v. Lampert (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1141, 1149. This ruling is dispositive of the sixth cause of action for conversion. Defendant shall file an answer to the cross-complaint by 9/27/21, after the Court rules on Defendant's 9/17/21 motion to strike.
TORY PRESTERA M.D., INC. VS. MARCIA EDWORDS
37-2020-00045638-CU-BT-NC
Aug 19, 2021
San Diego County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
Defendant demurs to the sixth cause of action for conversion. The FAC alleges Defendant “converted plaintiff’s property as gratuities and cash due to plaintiff from credit transactions.” (FAC ¶ 32.) “The elements of a conversion cause of action are (1) plaintiffs' ownership or right to possession of the property at the time of the conversion; (2) defendants' conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of plaintiffs' property rights; and (3) damages.” (Messerall v.
MARK QUICK VS. HACIENDA GOLF CLUB
BC669708
Dec 06, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Conversion “Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. The elements of a conversion claim are: (1) the plaintiff’s ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant’s conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages. Conversion is a strict liability tort.
JOSEPH MORGAN VS. JOE DE LA CRUZ
21CECG01747
Oct 27, 2022
Fresno County, CA
II. 2 nd cause of action for conversionOVERRULED Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. See Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 451 (Zerin ). The elements of a claim for conversion are (1) the plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of the property at the time of the conversion, (2) the defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights, and (3) damages. Id.
DARLINGTON C. NJOKU VS RAZAN F. AMMARI
21STCV34047
Dec 13, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Tentative ruling for September 5, 2018 on Motion to Strike by Harrod Trucking Inc., Gary Harrod and Scott Harrod Deny motion to strike allegations in the first amended complaint as to the conversion of the rental amounts. As discussed in the court's ruling on demurrer, the allegation that rental payments "should have been $3800" is sufficiently precise for the conversion action. Grant the motion to strike the demand for $1,000,000 in general damages in the prayer for conversion, which plaintiff concedes.
HARROD VS HARROD TRUCKING
56-2018-00509893-CU-MC-VTA
Sep 05, 2018
Vincent O'Neill
Ventura County, CA
Insurance
Intellectual Property
Plaintiff has now had two opportunities to plead its claim for conversion and a claim for punitive damages. While Plaintiff has requested leave to amend, if the demurrer is sustained and the motion to strike is granted, Plaintiff has failed to show how it can cure the defects in the conversion claim or its allegations regarding and prayer for punitive damages. As such, the demurer is sustained and the motion to strike is granted, both without leave to amend.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS SANDRA MARTINEZ MERCADO, ET AL.
20CHCV00066
Sep 24, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The demurrer is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend as to this COA. 6th COA: Conversion and Recovery of Security Deposit “’”Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another.”’(Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 C.A.4th 445, 451). The elements of a claim for conversion are (1) ‘the plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of the property at the time of the conversion,’ (2) ‘the defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights,’ and (3) damages.
DEBORAH A MOORE VS RICHARD KITE ET AL
BC583890
Feb 27, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
First, although conversion has been characterized as an intentional tort, it is the act constituting conversion that must be knowingly or intentionally done, and a wrongful intent is not necessary. ( Multani v. Knight (2018) 23 Cal.App.5 th 837, 853854.) The Complaint satisfies this element of the conversion claim by stating that Defendants have refused to return Plaintiffs property, despite Plaintiffs requests that they do so. (Complaint ¶¶ 20, 23.)
LIANG ZHAO VS ANHONG DENG, ET AL.
21STCV34747
Jan 06, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Heinrich (1948) 89 Cal.App.2d 214, it was held that a demand is not a necessary prerequisite to the maintenance of a suit for conversion when the property comes into the possession of the defendant tortuously or unlawfully, or when demand for possession thereof by the owner would be futile, but it is necessary to create a liability for conversion when the defendants’ acquisition of the property was with consent of the owner. (Id. at 221.)
CONTRERAS VS CONTRERAS
CVRI2202612
Aug 22, 2023
Riverside County, CA
analysis Defendant Abud demurs to the only cause of action alleged him for conversion.
DUNN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS HAROLA MEYER, ET AL.
20VECV00228
Apr 09, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Cross-Complainant argues that his own demurrer to the Plaintiffs conversion cause of action was overruled, and, thus, this instant demurrer should also be overruled. However, Plaintiffs theory of conversion was distinct from Cross-Complainants theory of conversion. Cross-Defendant/Plaintiffs theory was based on Defendants alleged conversion of BRC and gBRC tokens which were specifically previously possessed by Plaintiff valued at approximately $1,104,602.
PLAINTIFF PACIFIC COAST CO. LTD. D/B/A BRINCFI VS DANIEL CHOI
22TRCV00231
Jun 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
DEMURRER 24 Defendant demurs to the ninth cause of action for conversion. 25 Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. The elements of a conversion are the plaintiff’s ownership or right to possession 26 of the property at the time of the conversion; the defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and damages.
FREGOSO, ET AL. V. EAT CLUB, INC.
18CV330433
Jul 24, 2020
Santa Clara County, CA
The proposed TAC also seeks to allege a cause of action for Conversion. As to the proposed the proposed Conversion cause of action, the court finds that Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in presenting this cause of action, and that there is probable prejudice to Defendants in amending to add a Conversion cause of action. First, Plaintiff does not explain Plaintiff’s delay in requesting to amend to add a Conversion cause of action.
MANN V. PUENTE
30-2017-00896847-CU-BC-CJC
Apr 02, 2019
Orange County, CA
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (CONVERSION): “’”Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another.”’(Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 451). The elements of a claim for conversion are (1) ‘the plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of the property at the time of the conversion,’ (2) ‘the defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights,’ and (3) damages. (Ibid.).” Prakashpalan v.
EDWARD SICAIROS VS MARIO DEL HOYO
KC068562
Nov 15, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Sixteenth Cause of Action for Conversion Defendant Kaliher moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the conversion cause of action on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim . Conversion is generally described as the wrongful exercise of dominion over the personal property of another. [Citation.]
RHONDA ROTHSTEIN, ET AL. VS METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, ET AL.
22STCV21573
Mar 28, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
George challenges plaintiff’s fifth cause of action for conversion. The elements of a conversion claim are (1) the plaintiff’s ownership or right to possession of personal property, (2) the defendant’s conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of plaintiff’s property rights, and (3) damages resulting from the conversion. Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 451; see also, Los Angeles Federal Credit Union v.
HARRY TRAN VS ST GEORGE & ASSOCIATES
15CV00104
Sep 16, 2015
Santa Barbara County, CA
Sufficient facts were pled to state a claim for conversion. Fremont Indem. Co. v Fremont General Corp (2007) 148 CA 4th 97, 119. Lange's complaint was filed within the three year statute of limitations for conversion (complaint filed 12-20-13 and Defendant knew of conversion on 1-13-11). The cross-complaint relates to the allegations in the complaint and thus there is no statute of limitations problem. Trindade v Superior Court (1973) 29 CA 3d 857, 859-861.
LANGE VS MILLER
56-2013-00446210-CU-CO-VTA
Jul 29, 2014
Ventura County, CA
In order to state a cause of action in conversion, a plaintiff must allege: (1) his or her ownership or right to possession of tangible property at the time of the conversion; (2) the defendant's conversion of the property; and (3) damages. (Franklin v. Municipal Court (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 884; First Nat. Bank of Long Beach v. Crown Transfer & Storage Co. (1928) 89 Cal.App. 243.) Here, sufficient facts are stated in the complaint to support the cause of action for conversion.
ALBERT DRISCOLL VS. MB PLAZA WEST LLC
56-2017-00505121-CU-NP-VTA
Apr 04, 2018
Vincent O'Neill
Ventura County, CA
Instead, Plaintiff's conversion claim appears to be tacitly based on Plaintiff's alleged contractual right to profits from the Company. However, Plaintiff cannot maintain a conversion claim based on such allegations as presently constituted because a claim for conversion of money doe not lie for a generalized claim for money such as one based on a contractual right to payment. (See Farmers Ins. Exchage v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 452.)
TELAIR INTERNATIONAL VS. WENDY ROAD STORAGE
56-2010-00379340-CU-BC-SIM
Feb 17, 2011
Ventura County, CA
COA 5: Conversion The fifth cause of action against WCO is for conversion. WCO demurs to this claim arguing that Stein has failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for conversion and that Stein lacks standing. Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another.
WCO SPECTRUM, LLC VS SIGNAL FLARE CAPITAL, INC., ET AL.
20SMCV01985
Dec 15, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Second, Esos Parties argue the cause of action fails because a conversion claim only involves tangible property and McLear USs conversion claim involves Esos Parties alleged conversion of the 609 Patent and access to the Bank Account, which are intangible and not properly the subject of conversion. (Demurrer, pgs. 15-16.)
ESOS RINGS INC VS JOSEPH PRENCIPE ET AL
BC652020
Dec 02, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The elements of a conversion claim are: (1) the plaintiff’s ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant’s conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages.” Lee v. Hanley (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1225, 1240. The act must be done knowingly or intentionally, but a wrongful intent is not necessary. Id., 13 Witkin §713.
SWINGLE, JUSTIN VS JACKSON, GENE
16K06785
Jan 19, 2017
Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco
Los Angeles County, CA
The operative First Amended Complaint contains causes of action for negligence, conversion, trespass to chattel and negligent hiring, training and supervision. The First Amended Complaint also contains allegations regarding and a prayer for punitive damages. Defendants Walter Ray Frank, Sr., Javier Zamora and Sandra Martinez Mercado now demur to the 2nd cause of action for conversion and seek to strike the allegations regarding and the prayer for punitive damages.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS SANDRA MARTINEZ MERCADO, ET AL.
20CHCV00066
Aug 25, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
First Cause of Action: Conversion Conversion is “an act of dominion wrongfully exerted over another’s personal property in denial of or inconsistent with his rights therein.” (Oakes v. Suelynn Corp. (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 271, 278.) The elements for conversion are: “(1) the plaintiff’s ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant’s conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages....” (Hodges v. County of Placer (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 537, 551.)
WHIMSY ANDERSON VS EREWHON., AN UNKNOWN BUSINESS ENTITY
19STCV11052
Oct 13, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
That is a presumptive detriment caused by a conversion: “A fair compensation for the time and money properly expended in pursuit of the property.” Civil Code § 3336. However, it is not a cause of action separate from conversion. “The elements of a conversion cause of action are (1) plaintiffs’ ownership or right to possession of the property at the time of the conversion; (2) defendants’ conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of plaintiffs’ property rights; and (3) damages.” Baldwin v.
EDUARD D BAUER VS STEVEN SCHOEPP
16CV05062
Sep 18, 2020
Santa Barbara County, CA
Money cannot be the subject of a conversion claim unless there is a specific, identifiable sum involved, such as where an agent accepts a sum of money to be paid to another and fails to make the payment. (Id.) The plaintiff must allege a right to immediate possession at the time of conversion. (Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 452.) A mere contractual right of payment, without more, will not suffice to support a claim for conversion. (Sanowicz v.
NELSON VS GREGG
30-2018-01003789-CU-BC-CJC
Dec 09, 2019
Orange County, CA
Luna demurrers to the two causes of action alleged against Luna – conversion and quasi-contract/unjust enrichment. Conversion Luna's demurrer is OVERRULED. " 'Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. The elements of a conversion claim are: (1) the plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages....' [Citation.]" (Los Angeles Federal Credit Union v.
RYVYL INC VS LUNA
37-2022-00045117-CU-DF-CTL
Oct 27, 2023
San Diego County, CA
Demurrer to 7th cause of action: Conversion The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. A ‘generalized claim for money is not actionable as conversion. (Vu v. California Commerce Club, Inc. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 229, 235.)
GARCIA VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC
30-2018-01007424-CU-BC-CJC
Mar 08, 2019
Orange County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.