Conversion in California

What Is Conversion?

Conversion Defined and Required Elements

“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:

  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.”

(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 as Basis for Conversion

“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.

Breach of Bailment Action and Conversion

“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.)

Rulings for Conversion in California

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).

  • Name

    LOPEZ VS. LOPEZ WEST PROPERTIES

  • Case No.

    MSC20-00769

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

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.

  • Name

    DIAZ ROMERO VS. GUZMAN

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01048172

  • Hearing

    Mar 18, 2021

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.

  • Name

    DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST, INC. V. HAYNIE & COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00841742-CU-PN-CJC

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2016

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.

  • Name

    OGARA COACH COMPANY LLC VS DARREN MICHAEL RICHIE

  • Case No.

    BC683108

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2019

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.

  • Name

    12. TRANSPORT FUNDING LLC VS MANRIQUEZ

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00927326-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2018

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.

  • Name

    EDMUNDSON, ET AL. V. BONILLA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01117741

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2021

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.”

  • Name

    WESTWELL VS. TRUWEST, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2015-00805951-CU-FR-CJC

  • Hearing

    Apr 24, 2017

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.

  • Case No.

    21CECG1057

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2022

  • County

    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].

  • Name

    SAMUEL TORRES, ET AL. VS LUIS PEREZ, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV01919

  • Hearing

    Apr 07, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Name

    WILLIAMS VS ALL VALLEY ESCROW INC

  • Case No.

    56-2016-00483347-CU-BC-VTA

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2017

  • Judge

    Vincent O'Neill

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    DOYLE VS. COUNTRY VILLAGE

  • Case No.

    MSL15-03466

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2016

  • Judge

    Ed Weil

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    KATHERINE OLSZEWSKI VS. JAMES LIN

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00873976-CU-PO-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2017

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.

  • Name

    NIDHI CHAWLA VS ANAMIKA JONEJA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV44701

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    GLOBAL SOURCE LOGISTICS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS STONER GABLE

  • Case No.

    19STCV21816

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2020

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.

  • Name

    RAE'VEN A'LYIA KELLY ET AL VS PHYLLIS E LARRYMORE-KELLY ET A

  • Case No.

    BC582503

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2016

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.

  • Name

    MAILLET VS. PIKE DVM

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00011302-CU-PO-NC

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

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.)

  • Name

    PATRICK DOWD VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

  • Case No.

    22CV01834

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2023

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    PATRICK DOWD VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

  • Case No.

    22CV01834

  • Hearing

    May 17, 2023

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    PATRICK DOWD VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

  • Case No.

    22CV01834

  • Hearing

    May 20, 2023

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    PATRICK DOWD VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

  • Case No.

    22CV01834

  • Hearing

    May 18, 2023

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    PATRICK DOWD VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

  • Case No.

    22CV01834

  • Hearing

    May 19, 2023

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    PATRICK DOWD VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

  • Case No.

    22CV01834

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2023

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    PATRICK DOWD VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

  • Case No.

    22CV01834

  • Hearing

    May 22, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    LOFTIS VS RG GARCIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    56-2017-00493524-CU-EN-VTA

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2018

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.

  • Name

    ETA ELECTRICAL INSTRUSTRY VS OPTIMUM POWER CONVERSION

  • Case No.

    30-2015-00812512-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2017

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.

  • Name

    HOLISTIC SUPPLEMENTS LLC ET AL VS CHRISTOPHER DANIEL STARK ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC599796

  • Hearing

    Jun 07, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    KALTER VS. MONT

  • Case No.

    30-2020-01150176

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2021

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.

  • Name

    RUBEN PASCUAL VS ARROYO PARTNERS LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC632280

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2017

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.

  • Name

    CSUPO, ET AL. V. ALPHABET, INC.

  • Case No.

    19CV352557

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

"[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.

  • Name

    YUNUSOV VS TORREY GARDEN HILLS LLC [E-FILE]

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00030493-CU-OR-CTL

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2017

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.

  • Name

    DANICA N KEICH VS. US HEALTHWORKS INC

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00015343-CU-OE-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2018

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.

  • Name

    WOODALL V. AMERICO MORTGAGE CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    30-2018-01008564

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

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.

  • Name

    CHIRILOV V. MEHR GROUP, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2015-00814092-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2016

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.

  • Name

    DONALD JUNCKER, ET AL. VS PREMIER WORLD TOURS, LLC

  • Case No.

    20STCV42486

  • Hearing

    Apr 28, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles 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.

  • Name

    JACK BADEAU, ET AL. VS MAYRA A. ROMO, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20PSCV00713

  • Hearing

    Jun 17, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    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.)

  • Name

    PIERRE CALAND VS ALEXANDER J. DAVIS

  • Case No.

    21SMCV01083

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    300 S. LOS ANGELES STREET PARTNERSHIP, LP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL. VS FEREYDOON ?FRED? NATAN

  • Case No.

    21STCV26686

  • Hearing

    Jun 08, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    ARTESIA PARTNERS, LLC. VS. ANGELES INSTITUTE, LLC

  • Case No.

    VC066994

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2018

(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.)

  • Name

    FIRST LAW GROUP, APC, VS HUGO GRANADENO, INDIVIDUALLY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV35052

  • Hearing

    May 07, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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.)

  • Name

    VICKI MASTRO, ET AL. VS WILMA ALMAREZ

  • Case No.

    19STCV39683

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Judge

    day s

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    JOY CHOU VS BENIHANA NATIONAL CORP ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC679654

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2018

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.)

  • Name

    CERVANTES V. RUIZ

  • Case No.

    17CECG00099

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2017

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.

  • Name

    HAEJUNG LEE VS SOO KIM ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC678531

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2018

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.

  • Name

    BERGMAN VS COASTAL FERTILITY MEDICAL CENTER, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00889560

  • Hearing

    May 01, 2017

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, “. . .

  • Name

    EJTEMAEI V. CLIMATEC, LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2020-01148937

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2021

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.

  • Name

    DORANTES, JACOB VS ARDILES, ROSALIE SARAH

  • Case No.

    17K04593

  • Hearing

    May 13, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles 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.

  • Name

    COACHILLIN HOLDINGS LLC VS PAC-VAN INC

  • Case No.

    PSC2002887

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2021

  • County

    Riverside 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.

  • Case No.

    20STCV424865

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles 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.

  • Name

    HENRY AGUILA VS. JOE GOMEZ

  • Case No.

    VC065193

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2018

"[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.]

  • Name

    TRW ENTERPRISES VS BOEHM

  • Case No.

    56-2019-00535316-CU-CO-VTA

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2020

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.

  • Name

    K3B, INC. VS. COLLECTORS UNIVERSE, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00856615-CU-NP-CJC

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2016

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.

  • Case No.

    K3B, Inc. vs. Collectors Universe, Inc. 16-856615

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2016

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.

  • Name

    JESSICA VAZQUEZ VS BENIHANA NATIONAL CORP ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC679473

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2018

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.

  • Name

    RANDALL VS. RITEWAY AUTO PAINT & BODYWORK, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2020-01168890

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2021

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.

  • Name

    DAVID ROWLAND VS MERCEDES-BENZ USA LLC

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00000804-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2019

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.)

  • Name

    YOUNG SIN KIM VS RIVIERA HEALTH CORPORATION ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC651692

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2017

(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.

  • Name

    CAROLYN KOENIG VS. RONALD HASSON

  • Case No.

    56-2008-00332243-CU-NP-SIM

  • Hearing

    May 05, 2009

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.

  • Name

    SCUDERIA CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC VS. ERIC PO-CHI SHEN, ET AL

  • Case No.

    EC066100

  • Hearing

    Feb 23, 2018

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.

  • Name

    HEE KWAN EUN VS JAE KEUN CHUNG, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV08546

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2020

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.

  • Name

    YOUNG JIN KIM VS KASLAX SERVICE, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV11270

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2020

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.

  • Name

    CHANG KOK AHN ET AL VS HOLLYWOOD ENTERPRISES INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC609271

  • Hearing

    Apr 23, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Name

    ELIZABETH SCOTT WISE VS. ALFRED E. WISE, JR., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    NC061737

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2019

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, “. . .

  • Name

    EJTEMAEI V. CLIMATEC, LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2020-01148937

  • Hearing

    Mar 23, 2021

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.

  • Name

    TORY PRESTERA M.D., INC. VS. MARCIA EDWORDS

  • Case No.

    37-2020-00045638-CU-BT-NC

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2021

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.

  • Name

    ROGER JAMES SAYEGH VS LEONID KAMENETSKY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV05108

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

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.

  • Name

    ALDO ABRONZINO V. JAAP LANGENBERG, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    2017-CV-307444

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2018

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.)

  • Name

    ALBERTO NINO JIMENEZ VS RICHARD TOBIN BAUM

  • Case No.

    BC628927

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2018

“‘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.

  • Name

    ROCCO PERLA VS LUCY'S AUTO CENTER

  • Case No.

    17STLC01202

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2019

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    LUDIVINA LOVATO VS MMN INDUSTRIES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

  • Case No.

    17STCP01202

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2019

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    SHAFTON, JESSIE VS PORTER RANCH MAINTENANCE

  • Case No.

    17K04563

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2018

  • Judge

    Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    SADDLEBACK PARK VILLAS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC. VS TEAM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00852337-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Apr 14, 2017

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.

  • Name

    HARROD VS HARROD TRUCKING

  • Case No.

    56-2018-00509893-CU-MC-VTA

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2018

  • Judge

    Vincent O'Neill

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Name

    MARK QUICK VS. HACIENDA GOLF CLUB

  • Case No.

    BC669708

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2017

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.

  • Name

    DARLINGTON C. NJOKU VS RAZAN F. AMMARI

  • Case No.

    21STCV34047

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ConversionConversion 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.

  • Name

    JOSEPH MORGAN VS. JOE DE LA CRUZ

  • Case No.

    21CECG01747

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2022

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

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.

  • Name

    COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS SANDRA MARTINEZ MERCADO, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20CHCV00066

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

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.

  • Name

    DEBORAH A MOORE VS RICHARD KITE ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC583890

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2017

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.)

  • Name

    LIANG ZHAO VS ANHONG DENG, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV34747

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2022

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    CONTRERAS VS CONTRERAS

  • Case No.

    CVRI2202612

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2023

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

analysis Defendant Abud demurs to the only cause of action alleged him for conversion.

  • Name

    DUNN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS HAROLA MEYER, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20VECV00228

  • Hearing

    Apr 09, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Name

    PLAINTIFF PACIFIC COAST CO. LTD. D/B/A BRINCFI VS DANIEL CHOI

  • Case No.

    22TRCV00231

  • Hearing

    Jun 06, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    FREGOSO, ET AL. V. EAT CLUB, INC.

  • Case No.

    18CV330433

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

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.

  • Name

    MANN V. PUENTE

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00896847-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Apr 02, 2019

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.

  • Name

    LANGE VS MILLER

  • Case No.

    56-2013-00446210-CU-CO-VTA

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2014

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.

  • Name

    EDWARD SICAIROS VS MARIO DEL HOYO

  • Case No.

    KC068562

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2016

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.

  • Name

    ALBERT DRISCOLL VS. MB PLAZA WEST LLC

  • Case No.

    56-2017-00505121-CU-NP-VTA

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2018

  • Judge

    Vincent O'Neill

  • County

    Ventura 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.]

  • Name

    RHONDA ROTHSTEIN, ET AL. VS METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV21573

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2024

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    HARRY TRAN VS ST GEORGE & ASSOCIATES

  • Case No.

    15CV00104

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2015

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.

  • Name

    COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS SANDRA MARTINEZ MERCADO, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20CHCV00066

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

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.

  • Name

    SWINGLE, JUSTIN VS JACKSON, GENE

  • Case No.

    16K06785

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2017

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles 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.)

  • Name

    TELAIR INTERNATIONAL VS. WENDY ROAD STORAGE

  • Case No.

    56-2010-00379340-CU-BC-SIM

  • Hearing

    Feb 17, 2011

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.

  • Name

    WCO SPECTRUM, LLC VS SIGNAL FLARE CAPITAL, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20SMCV01985

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2021

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    ESOS RINGS INC VS JOSEPH PRENCIPE ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC652020

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.)

  • Name

    WHIMSY ANDERSON VS EREWHON., AN UNKNOWN BUSINESS ENTITY

  • Case No.

    19STCV11052

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

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.

  • Name

    EDUARD D BAUER VS STEVEN SCHOEPP

  • Case No.

    16CV05062

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

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.

  • Name

    NELSON VS GREGG

  • Case No.

    30-2018-01003789-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2019

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.

  • Name

    RYVYL INC VS LUNA

  • Case No.

    37-2022-00045117-CU-DF-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2023

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    GARCIA VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2018-01007424-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2019

By no later than November 5, 2021 parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing the meaning of the following provision of SFRO 37.9(a)(9): "in order to sell the unit in accordance with a condominium conversion," what does it mean to the sell the unit in accordance with condominium conversion - is the sale required to complete the conversion? What are the requirements? Is the sale merely allowed? Are the requirements different for properties that are 100% owner occupied at the time of the conversion?

  • Name

    VINCENT DILELLA VS. ARISTOMENIS PIKEAS ET AL

  • Case No.

    CUD21667990

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2021

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

Conversion Defendants argue this claim is based on a breach of contract, which is impermissible. “[Conversion] must be knowingly or intentionally done, but a wrongful intent is not necessary. Because the act must be knowingly done, ‘neither negligence, active or passive, nor a breach of contract, even though it result in injury to, or loss of, specific property, constitutes a conversion.’

  • Name

    OH V. SHIN

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00952309-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2018

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope