generally speaking these three types of claims are claims in equity i want to know what statute of limitations you're going to apply and so for purposes of this argument we say claims in equity yeah i think i think i'm actually a really an or in a foreign country how well i suppose it would apply in that it did happen the the the claims or rosen argue the case in a foreign country and in that foreign countries jurisdiction of hong kong the limitations are six years i know that makes sense first with him when i'm not sure i understand that what we're saying well i want you to understand within the context of the foreign country the foreign country that i think that's exactly right i think that is the that's that's the right question that's the legal standard that everyone that california courts apply and the the answer that question is well when you to apply that you have to look at where the underlying where the events underlying the cause of action occurred or where the elements of the cause of action occur at the party i know that was in my question so where did the conversion claim arise when and where was their claim for conversion i think the district court thought that the cause of action accrued when the when the deposit bounced in and out of of a bank account that's correct called a round trip deposit i think ok and that was in a bank account that was in china right they haven't parted with their stock yet that's correct so we don't have any of these claims against any unjust enrichment any in the money had received any conversion until the stocks are actually sold in hong kong what the round trip to the benefit the damages or the amount of money we're seeking out of this lawsuit or the seventeen million that defendants received from the benefit that they did receive from selling the stuff the district court thought that the that deposition testimony that such stock certificates were delivered in hong kong forgive me china was uncontested i would say that we don't have any evidence to suggest that other than the credibility of mr chen's testimony that deliver the stock certificates and china to mr chen the point and forgive me but is it your contention that the that the delivery was the point at which the causes of action accrued no ok and i were in this so that might might my contention is the cause of action accrued when the defendants received and retained the benefit of the proceeds from the sale of that st one as far as the delivery of the stocks to pick it's in china the the there's at least california case law that states that scheme that the certificates themselves are not the shares issue is the evidence of the receipt of the shares so for example let's say i have dinner here in pasadena and i have the the waiters and my receipts in my home and taxes that i receive the benefit when i got the receipt see the benefit of the meal when i ate it here in pasadena it's the same sort of concept with the with use to fits the just receipt of of having of the shares having been transferred so it doesn't it doesn't matter the benefits not received when they have this tip this second when the if the certificates were physically received in china that's sort of irrelevant as well because in china as mr chen testified he can't do anything with those  argument then would be that even if the if the round trip deposits had occurred and the stock certificates had been delivered if they had never been sold that a cause of action would never have accrued it would be difficult to i will state i will state it this way i don't have to worry about that because that's not what happened when i actually have to worry about having a cogent theory all right now i'm going to get to that ok maybe the it would be done i would say this would be difficult to articulate the i'm out that the amount my claim is although california supreme court has clearly not discussed what's the proper method for determining where a claim accrues there are no california cases that he want to cite it that clearly say ok it's you look at where the injury is instead of when and where the elements of the cause of action happened defendant cite one case where they veg lee make a reference to a the seventh circuit standard which is a which under that case they're talking about where the injury occurred but when you read the facts that case it's the bank of india case it's not clear that there are that the court is looking to where the injury occurred to determine where the cause of action accrued second under california law what is absolutely clear is where the injury accrued is is the least important i'm sorry where the injury happened is the least important thing to determine when a cause of action occurred so why would it be any different for wear and what i mean by that is california courts it's clear that it's when the underlying  they're new to the united states they're learning english they still don't understand english and they don't understand the united states justice system so this is important people appeal to us and i think i said this to the district court and i still think it still resonates that i would not be here today if you're shaving would not be here today and we'd have no lawsuit today if there had not been that round trip transaction but just having had th round trip transaction i looked at the record very carefully there's the e mail that says we got the deposits there were they were received yesterday please issue the stock certificates so as of the time the round trip transactions have happened if the again you know if  court's reasoning you know i don't think so because because well first of all it's if we disagree cept the argument that they're making that it was a conversion and it was stopped that they got right that's what's how they plead their complaint they got to stop that then that's fine ok then the wrongful act was when you exercise dominion and control over the stock i mean that is the definition of conversion and if it's unjust enrichment it's when you unjustly benefited something well under what they're saying that happened as soon as he got the stock right right and they're say well it doesn't really matter because you can sell it until you move until you went off to hong kong or something always second stocks not just that right it gives you rights to vote in a company that gives you rights to it because your rights to exercise a proxy though is it so did the cause of action accrue when the stock certificates were delivered and we just have to figure out when where that happened that's i think very simply yes ok so when did that happen the district court thought that that happened  on mainland china so that deposition testimony was and contested i think it is uncontested but there is but in the in the sense that there isn't any competing testimony but he's i think relying on the written gas and number two the fact that it has an address doesn't indicate delivery well but if they're both self serving that the defendants testimony of course i'm not casting aspersions i'm just saying that is certainly testimony that would be self serving as to his client's position and the other that the written indication is also consistent with plaintiffs there he said why don't we have a contested issue there because and it's not contested i will number one because because again there's no delivery of the certificate shown by the address i mean that doesn't show that it was delivered second anybody that's reason to to doubt the only testimony that we've got which is certainly at a minimum self serving right and i yeah it's self serving but at the same time it's something that they could've rooted out otherwise use it through the wrong channel or somebody else i guess he's flown the coop or he's lost in china somewhere but there's other people that you know there's other ways to track stock transfers but i think also you have to look at what the address is that's on that stock certificate as a site in their complaint that was an address that was used on this is on  is an address that was used by ron chan china cast knows that address was used by iran chan it's got no connection to my to my client at all other than the fact there's a stock certificate that was given to him in the name of motivation right that has that address that's the only connection that they can even offer from my client to this address in hong kong i just don't think that that's a material dispute to the my unchallenged testimony that i got the sort of stock certificates from mr chan in china which by the way isn't really a shock my client lived in china the school the operator was in china rancheros operating china cast in china i mean everything about this case is in china incorporated but i think i just want to point out that this is not just a conversion and i think that the that the in terms of when you ask the question about what kind of cause of action and what stacia limitation i think the closest for something like money how to recede and something like unjust enrichment would be a tort right because you need some sort of wrongful conduct to have a money had received cause of action you can't just be i have money i think i should have you have my money i think i should have it you need something like i'm not portable conduct door or some sort of lack of conscience or something i think that cited a case rains we are now at is what that that element is unjust enrichment use you need something just there's got to be some sort of a wrongful conduct that gets you that thing that you got a rich guy so i think it really is you're looking at sort of tort causes of action to look at where the conduct is that where the cause of action arose and i think that might be all i have  for the elements of each of these cause of action that have pleaded the government is two things one is not only the receipt but it's all of it's also the retention of the benefit of the benefit here you can articulate in terms of the shares and articulate in terms of the amount of money received from the from the sale of those shares that's the way we refer to discuss it because the is the cleanest way to look at it but that said the facts that are related to both i don't know that the core seems to be focused on the  the receipt and i want to also make a point that retention is also part of this is not only that where you got it where you can't but we have to feel when the clock starts so we're looking at one cause of action accrued but well that's  but for example on the money had received the issue is not only that a a a defendant receive the plaintiff's money is that he didn't return it or use it for his benefit right he had to have kept some there is another step that has to do it now that's a tacit step i get but i just wanted to point out that the that each of the facts and this goes just to be clear i think the bullet point list is hopeful that the shares or registered to an address in hong kong and there were never  transferred to a bank account in hong kong none of this happened in china if the stock certificates had been delivered on day one and the round trip transactions had occurred on day two with the cause of action arise on day two no the round trip round trip deposits have nothing to do with our cause of actions the round trip deposits where the cover up it wasn't a payment it was so so it got to you have your over time and my question is just in that scenario that hypothetical when with the cause of action have to have accrued a cause of action accrues upon when the when the defendant receive the benefit of the stars counsel so what's the answer the question if the if this my hypothetical is on day one that the certificates are delivered ok which is did not happen in this case but just go with me if you would and then on day two there's a round trip transaction to pay for them under that scenario when does the cause of action accrue they won ok thank you thank you both very much for your argument