Los Angeles lawyers

Three-year statute of limitations in CCP § 338(c) barred heirs’ claims for conversion, replevin, and constructive trust in connection with a painting that a purchaser had bought at auction; the discovery rule was not included in the older version of § 388(c) that applied to the heirs’ claims, and even if the statute had included a discovery rule provision, the heirs had not alleged facts sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss where the heirs’ own complaint demonstrated that they knew of their relative’s ownership of the painting and the taking of the painting by the Nazis, and the purchaser’s subsequent ownership of the painting was common knowledge, particularly since the purchaser was a celebrity. Adler v. Taylor (C.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2005), 2005 U.S. Dist. CALIFLAW 5862.The corporate lawyer Los Angeles are very useful in litigations.

Claim for conversion based on a pirated broadcast was timely because suit was filed within one year of the allegedly pirated broadcast. Joe Hand Promotions v. Davis (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2012), 2012 U.S. Dist. CALIFLAW 145402.

Under no fair reading of the facts alleged in a client's first amended complaint against her former attorneys could it be inferred that the attorneys wrongfully converted an identifiable sum of money that was undisputedly owed to the client, but even assuming that the client's conversion claim was not governed by Code Civ. Proc., § 340.6, subd. (a), her claim was still time-barred under the three-year statute because her operative pleading contained express allegations that she discovered, no later than December 2011, the alleged wrongful charges and fraudulent withholding by the attorneys upon which her conversion claim was based, but she did not file her action until March 25, 2015, over three months too late. Foxen v. Carpenter (CalifLaw 2d Dist. Nov. 3, 2016), 211 Cal. Rptr. 3d 372, 6 CalifLaw 5th 284, 2016 CalifLawCALIFLAW 1042.

Specific Instances

An action for damages for the conversion of a bond, brought more than six years after the receipt and sale of the bond by the defendant, was barred, the evidence showing that the latter acted in good faith. Heney v. Sutro & Co. (CalifLaw Nov. 3, 1915), 28 CalifLaw 698, 153 P. 972, 1915 CalifLawCALIFLAW 382.

So long as the substituted bailee by novation holds cattle as bailee and recognizes that relation, limitation will not run in his favor as respects their conversion, but any adverse claim by him of which the bailor has notice, either actual or constructive, may set the statute in motion. Esponda v. Kelly (CalifLaw May 22, 1922), 57 CalifLaw 766, 207 P. 939, 1922 CalifLawCALIFLAW 433.

An action for conversion of personal property brought within three years after the date of a chattel mortgage in the defendant’s favor, which was the earliest date on which the defendant’s claim of interest in the property arose, was not barred. Miller v. Struven (CalifLaw July 23, 1923), 63 CalifLaw 128, 218 P. 287, 1923 CalifLawCALIFLAW 216.

Sponsor Ads

• Ad Space Available - Rent it Now!

Report this Page

Created on Mar 5th 2021 13:58. Viewed 340 times.

Share on APSense

Comments