Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-94-07017/USCOURTS-caDC-94-07017-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
PaineWebber Incorporated
Appellee
The Equity Group, Ltd
Appellant

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued February 10, 1995 Decided March 17, 1995

No. 94-7017

THE EQUITY GROUP, LTD.,

APPELLANT

v.

PAINEWEBBER INCORPORATED,

APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(92cv00415)

Barry C. Maloney argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant.

Mahlon M. Frankhauser argued the cause and filed the brief for appellee.

Before: BUCKLEY, WILLIAMS and SENTELLE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.

PERCURIAM: In this diversity case the plaintiff asserted a variety of contract and tort claims,

and the district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Equity Group, Ltd. v.

PaineWebber, Inc., 839 F. Supp. 930 (D.D.C. 1993). We affirm the judgment for substantially the

reasons stated in the district court's opinion, except as to the conversion claim. Equity argues that

PaineWebber converted intangible propertyinthe formofits "unique business and marketing systems,

its data base, its 800 number, and its very ability to do business". Appellant's Brief at 28. Noting that

it is an issue of first impression for the District of Columbia whether the tort of conversion should

encompass intangible rights other than ones " "customarily merged in, or identified with some

document' ", 839 F. Supp. at 933 (quoting W. Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law

of Torts § 15, at 92 (5th ed. 1984)), the court rejected the claim on the theory that the District of

Columbia would not so extend the tort. The district court may have been correct, but we note that

some courts have extended conversion in this way. See, e.g., National Surety Corp. v. Applied

USCA Case #94-7017 Document #111016 Filed: 03/17/1995 Page 1 of 2
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Systems, Inc., 418 So.2d 847, 849 (Ala. 1982) (holding that conversion would lie for copying and

taking of computer programs, even if defendant never took the tapes embodying the programs). In

any event, the court here did not need to reach that issue to dismiss Equity's conversion claim. It is

undisputed that Equity gave the only intangibles that had any value (i.e., the database and the 800

number) to employees of PaineWebber who had formerly used them in connection with their work

at Equity. See Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Interrogatories Nos. 36, 38, J.A. 52-53. Even

assuming, as Equity argues, that PaineWebber's alleged breach of contract could invalidate Equity's

consent to the transfer by unlawfully rendering the items worthlessto Equity, Appellant's Brief at 29,

the rejection of the breach of contract claim completely underminesthat argument. Thus, even if any

ofthe intangiblesinvolved here could be converted, Equity's valid consent to the transfer meansthere

was no conversion.

So ordered.

USCA Case #94-7017 Document #111016 Filed: 03/17/1995 Page 2 of 2