Professional Membership
Bankruptcy | Case Law | Conversion State Law
CONVERSION - STATE LAW
CHoPP Computer Corp., Inc. v. U.S., 5 F.3d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S.
811 (1994)
California provides the relevant substantive law in this case. That state permits recovery
on a conversion theory either for the wrongful taking or for the wrongful retention of property.
See Edwards v. Jenkins, 7 P.2d 702, 705 (Cal. 1932). In order to maintain an action for
conversion, ChoPP must show that it had title to or a right to possess the funds in the
PaineWebber account. Moore v Regents of the Univ. Of Cal., 793 P.2d 479, 488 (Cal. 1990);
Baldwin v Marina City Properties, Inc., 145 Cal. Rptr. 406, 416 (Cal. App. 1978). ChoPP’s
interest must have existed, if at all, at the time of the levy or at the time that ChoPP demanded
return of the funds after entry of the final judgment in state court
See also In re Manser, 99 B.R. 434 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1989)
104
COSTS 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1927
In re Sandoval, 186 B.R. 490 (9th Cir. 1995)
Bankruptcy court not court of U.S. for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1927. See In re Perroton,
958 F.2d 889 (9th Cir. 1992)
Haagen-Dazs Co., Inc.v. Double Rainbow, Gourmet Ice Cream, Inc., 920 F.2d 587 (9th Cir.
1990)
Xerox of documents necessarily used in case but not entered into evidence taxable as costs
Alflex Corp. v Underwriters Lab Inc., 914 F.2d 175 (9th Cir. 1990), cert denied, 502 U.S. 812,
112 S.Ct. 61 (1991)
Taxing of costs for copies of depos and private service of process fees was proper.
105