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