T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T KE I T H C HU NG , P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. C I T Y O F L OS AN GE L E S ; KA T HR YN P A S C H A L , L os A ng el es P ol i ce De p a rtm e n tOf

f i c e r ; HE C T OR G U T IE R R E Z , L os A ng el es P ol i ce De p a rtm e n tOf

f i c e r ; AL AN K R E IT Z M A N , L os A ng el es P ol i ce De p a rtm e n tOf

f i c e r ; R OL AN DO S O L A N O , L os A nge l e s P ol i c e D e pa rtm e nt Of f i c e r ; S AU L P AR E DE S ; B R AN D S E C UR I T Y C OR P OR AT I ON ; HEATHER HOLDRI DG E; I NTEL LE CT UA L P ROPE RT Y E NF OR C E ME NT C OMP AN Y; C AR L OS FE RNAN DEZ; J OH N FERNA ND EZ , D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 55587 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 7 - c v - 0 7 3 7 9 - A H MV BK ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia A . H ow a r d M a t z , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng 

# FI LED DE C 17 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST h e H o n o r ab le R ic h a r d D . C u d a h y , S e n io rU n ite d S ta te s C ir c u it ** J udge f orthe S e ve nth C i r c ui t , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. 2 A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r6, 2010

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B e f or e : C U D A H Y , S e ni orC i r c ui tJ udge , a nd W A R D L A W a nd ** W . F L E T C H E R , C i rc ui tJudg es P la in tif f K e ith C h u n g ap p e a ls f

r o m s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t g r a n te d to defe nd ant s. F or the re as on s bel ow , w e A F F IR M the deci si on of the di stri ctcourt w i th resp ectt o C h u n g ’ s n eg l i g en ce an d § 1 9 8 3 cl ai m s ag ai n stth e ci ty d efen d an t s; A F F IR M w i th resp ectt o C h u n g ’ s n eg l i g en ce an d co n v ersi o n cl ai m s ag ai n st de f e nda ntJ ohn F e rna nde z ; a nd R E V E R S E w i th r e s pe c tt o C hung’ s ne gl i ge nc e a nd conv er si on cl ai m s a gai nstdefe nd ant s B rand S ec uri ty C orpo ra t i on , H ea ther H ol dri dg e, Int el l ec tual P roperty E nforcement C om pany and C ar l os F ernand ez . 1 . T h e C ityD e f

e n d a n ts a . § 1983 A c t i ons I n or de rt o s e i z e C hung’ s goods w i thoutaw a rr a nt , the pol i c e ne e de d t o ha ve p r o b ab le c au s e to b e lie v e th a t h is g o o d s w e r e c o u n te r f e it. See G &G Je w elry, Inc. v . C i t yof O akland , 989 F . 2d 1093, 1099- 1101 ( 9th C i r . 1993) . I n de t e rm i ni ng w hether an i nform ant ’ s t i p sup pl i ed offi ce rs w i th p robabl e c ause , w e c on si der ( a)3

the i nf orm a nt ’ s m ot i va t i on t o t e l l the truth, ( b) the l e ve l of de t a i l of de s c r i pt i on of a lle g e d w r o n g d o in g a n d ( c ) th e r e liab ilityo f p r e v io u s in f

o rm a tio n p r o v id e d . See Il l i no is v . G at es , 46 2 U . S . 21 3, 23 4 (19 83 ). W e ha ve not e d tha t“ [ i ] f the i nf orm a ntha s pr ovi de d a c c ur a t e i nf orm a t i on on pastocca si on s, he m aybe pres um ed trustw orthy on subsequentocca si on s. ” U ni ted Stat es v. A ng ulo-L op ez , 791 F . 2d 1394, 1397 ( 9th C i r . 1986) ( c i t i ng U ni ted Stat es v. A lex an der , 761 F . 2d 1294, 1300 ( 9th C i r . 1985) ) . F urthe r , “ [ w ] he n the i nf orm a t i on pr ovi de d i n the pa s ti nvol ve d the s a m e type of c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty a s the curr enti nform at i on , the i nfer ence of trustw orthi ness i s e ven strong er . ” A nguloL op ez , 791 F . 2d a t1397 ( c i t i ng G at es , 4 6 2 U .S . a t 2 3 3 ) . S till f u rth e r , w e h a v e h e ld th atth ere can b e su ffi ci en ti n d i ci a o f rel i ab i l i ty ev en w h en an i n fo rm an th as a m o tiv e to h u rt th e p e r s o n a g a in s t w h o m h e o rs h e is in f o rm in g . Se e, e . g. , U

ni ted S ta te s v . W

illis , 6 4 7 F .2 d 5 4 , 5 8 -5 9 (9 th C ir. 1 9 8 1 ). F in ally, an in fo rm an t’ s r e liab ilityc a n b e d e m o n s tr a te d b y in d e p e n d e n t p o lic e c o rr o b o r a tio n . A nguloL op ez , 791 F . 2d a t1397 ( c i t i ng U ni te d State s v . Fr e i tas , 7 1 6 F .2 d 1 2 1 6 , 1 2 2 2 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ) ) . C ar l os F ernand ez w as a trust ed po l i ce source . O ff i ce r K re i t zm an di d an i n t ern etsearch t o v eri fy F ern an d ez’ s bo na f i des a nd s om e of

the i nf orm a t i on F e rn a n d e z p r o v id e dp o lic e , s u c h a s th e p r ic e o f B ap e s te n n is s h o e s . F u rth e r , in4

the i rs uppl e m e nt a l de c l a r a t i ons , a l l f i ve of f i c e r s i ndi c a t e d tha tF e rna nde z a nd H e a the rH ol dr i dge gave the m de t a i l e d i nf orm a t i on aboutthe c r i t e r i af or de t e rm i ni ng w hi c h i t e m s w e r e c ount e r f e i t , s uc h a s the s t i t c hi ng, the t a gs a nd the pl a c e m e ntof

the l ogos a nd poc ke t s . F i na l l y , the s us pi c i ous l y c he ap pr i c e of the

“ B apes ” s ho es offe re d corrobo ra t i on for the i nform ant s’ cl ai m s. Iti s true that F ernand ez and H ol dri dg e, w ho w ork for apparelm anufacturer s, m ayhave been bi a s e d a ga i ns tC hung a nd the r e f or e m a y ha ve be e n i nc l i ne d t o ove r s t a t e the a m ount of al l egedl y c ou nt er fe i tm er chandi se . B utbal ance d agai nstF ernand ez ’ s pas tw ork w i th th e d ep artm en t , K rei t zm an ’ s i n d ep en d en tv eri fi cat i o n o f F ern an d ez’ s bona f i des and the det ai l of desc ri pt i on the t i pst er s provi ded o f C hu ng ’ s a l l eged w rong do i ng , the offi ce rs had p robabl e c ause t o sei ze C hu ng ’ s m er chandi se . F eder al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 56 (e ) a l l ow s “ af fi davi t s t o b e s up pl em ent ed or op po se d b y deposi t i on s, answ er s t o i nt errogat ori es , or further a ff i davi t s. ” F urthe r , i n H

of f m an v. T on nem acher , 59 3 F . 3d 90 8 (9th C i r. 20 10 ), w e hel d that

“ di stri ctcourt s have di sc re t i on t o ent ert ai n succe ss i ve m ot i on s f or sum m ary j ud gm ent . ” I

d. a t 9 1 1 . “[ A ] s u c c e s s iv e m o tio n f o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is part i cul ar l y app ropri at e on an exp anded factual re cord. ” I d. H er e, the di stri ct c ourtpe rm i tt e d the c i ty de f e nda nt s t o a m e nd the i ra f f i da vi t s t o t e s t i f

y a s t o one i ss ue of a m at er i al fa ctthatre m ai ned i n d i sput e. C hu ng w as al so gi ven an5

opportuni ty t o s ubm i tr e l e va nte vi de nc e t o c ontr a di c tthe e vi de nc e i n the s u p p le m e n ta l d e c la r a tio n s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in e n te rta in in g as e c o n d m o tio n f o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. I d. a t911- 12. b . N e g lig e n c e C la im s a g a in s t th e C ityD e f e n d a n ts B e f or e br i ngi ng ane gl i ge nc e c l a i m a ga i ns tapubl i c e nt i ty , ac l a i m m us tbe m a d e to th e C a lif

o rn iaV ic tim C o m p e n s a tio n a n d G o v e rn m e n t C la im s B o a r d . C a l i f orni aG ove rnm e ntC ode § 905. 2( b) ( 3) . I n the c a s e of i nj ury t o pr ope rty , the c la im m u s t b e m a d e w ith in s ix m o n th s o f th e a c c ru a l o f

th e c au s e o f

a c tio n . I

d. at § 9 1 1 .2 ( a ) . C h u n g b r o u g h t h is c la im s b e f o r e th e B o a r d m o r e th a n ay e a ra f te rh is c a s e a c c ru e d , i . e. th e d a te h e w a s in ju r e d . Se e id. at§ 9 01 . H i s c l ai m s are there fore tim e - b a rr e d . T h e tim e w a s n o t to lle d w h ile h is c r im in a l c h a r g e s w e r e p e n d in g . Id . a t § 9 4 5 .3 . 2 . T h e P r iv a te D e f

e n d a n ts a . N e g l i g e n c e Cl a i ms T he pri vat e def

endant s ow ed C hu ng a duty t o i nspectthe go od s w i th the care e xpe c t e d of

pr of e s s i ona l c ount e r f

e i ti nve s t i ga t or s . C hung ha s r a i s e d atr i abl e i s s ue o f f a c t c o n c e rn in g w h e th e rth e p r iv a te d e f e n d a n ts a c te d w ith s u c h c a r e . G ab r ie le G o ld ap e rd e c la r e d th a t th e o n lya c c e p tab le m e th o d o f id e n tif y in g c o u n te r f

e it m e r c ha ndi s e i s t o e xa m i ne i ts i de by s i de w i th authe nt i c m e r c ha ndi s e . T he or i e s of6

d u e lin g e x p e rts c r e a te atr iab le is s u e o f f a c t. H erna ndezv. K W

PH E nt er prises , 116 C al . A pp . 4th 1 70 , 17 5-6 (C al . A pp . 20 04 ). C hung, how e ve r , ha s f

a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e tha tpr i va t e de f e nda ntJ ohn F e rn a n d e z p a rtic ip a te d in th e n e g lig e n t id e n tif ic a tio n o f

th e a lle g e d lyc o u n te r f

e it m e r c h a n d is e o n th e d a y o f th e s e iz u r e . C hung m us ta l s o pr ove tha the s uf f e r e d da m a ge s a s ar e s ul tof the ne gl i ge nt i n sp ect i o n . T h e d i stri ctco u rth el d th ati n o rd er t o p ro v e d am ag es, C h u n g m u st pr ove tha thi s goods w e r e notc ount e r f e i t . I f hi s goods w e r e c ount e r f e i t , he di d not suff eri nj ury bec ause he had n o ri gh tt o sel l the coun t er fe i tm er chandi se . H e r e , t oo, C hung r a i s e s a n i s s ue of tr i abl e f a c t . I n he ra f

f i da vi t , M r s . C hung s ta te s th a t s h e p u t ad is tin c tiv e m a rko n a ll o f th e m e r c h a n d is e in th e s to r e to preventfr audu l entre turns. M r. C hu ng decl ar ed thatthe evi dence he examined at the S ept em ber 11, 20 08 i nspect i on di d n otbearthi s di st i nct i ve m ark and w as there fore no tthe m er chandi se se i ze d from thei r s t ore on Jun e 26, 20 06 . F urther, at o r a l a r g u m e n t c o u n s e l f o rB r a n d S e c u r ityan d H e a th e rH o ld r id g e a d m itte d th a t o n ly so m e o f th e cl o th i n g i n sp ect ed d u ri n g d i sco v ery b o re th i s d i st i n ct i v e m ark . If M rs. C hung’ s s t a t e m e nti s true , the a dm i s s i on tha tonl y s om e of the c l othe s bor e the m ark thu s part i al l y c orrobo ra t es C hu ng ’ s c on t ent i on thatthe m er chandi se se i ze d at th e irs to r e w a s r e p la c e d w ith o th e rc lo th in g f o rth e in s p e c tio n d u r in g d is c o v e ry .7

I n te rp r e tin g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e p la in tif

f s , aju r o rc o u ld c onc l ude tha tge nui ne orof f - br a nd m e r c handi s e w a s i m pr ope r l y s e i z e d f r om C ott on T ra ders because of negl i genti dent i fi ca t i on , and thatw hen the defendant s r ea l i ze d th is m is ta k e , th e yr e p la c e d a t le a s t s o m e o f th e s e iz e d m e r c h a n d is e w ith m e r c h a n d is e n o t s e iz e d f r o m C h u n g ’s s to r e . T he pri vat e def

endant s argue thateven i f they negl i gent l y s up pl i ed the po l i ce w ith in c o rr e c t in f

o rm a tio n ab o u t th e a lle g e d lyc o u n te r f e it g o o d s , th e ir c o m m u n ic a tio n s a r e p r iv ile g e d u n d e rC a l. C iv . C o d e § 4 7 ( b ) . W e d is a g r e e . I t is true tha tthe C a l i f

orni aS upr e m e C ourtha s i nt e rpr e t e d C a l . C i v. C ode 47( b) expansi vel y. T he so-c al l ed “ l i t i gat i on pri vi l ege” shi el ds com m un i ca t i on s t o p ol i ce o f f ic e r s th a t in itia te in v e s tig a tio n s . H agbe r g v . Cal. Fe d. B ank

F SB , 3 2 C a l.4 th 3 5 0 , 3 6 4 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . B u t th e C a lif o rn iaC o u rts h av e r e f

u s e d to e x te n d th is p r o te c tio n to n o n - c o m m u n ic a tiv e c o n d u c t. A ct i on Apa rtm ent A ss ’n, Inc. v. C i t

y of Sa nta Mon i ca , 41 C a l . 4th 1232, 1248 ( 2007) . “ T he di s t i nc t i on be tw e e n c om m uni c a t i ve a nd no ncom m un i ca t i ve cond ucthi ng es on the g r a v a m e n o f th e a c tio n . T hati s, the key i n d et erm i ni ng w hether the pri vi l ege app l i es i s w hether the i nj ury a l l egedl y r es ul t ed f r om a n a ct

th a t w a s co m m u n i ca t i ve i n i t s essen t i a l

n a tu re . ” I

d. , quot i ng R usheen v. C oh en , 3 7 C a l.4 th 1 0 4 8 , 1 0 5 8 ( 2 0 0 6 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d , e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) . S i m i l ar l y, the C al i forni a c ou rt s have notshi el ded d oct ors f or negl i gentm edi ca l8

e x a m in a tio n . Me r o v . Sa do ff , 31 C a l . A pp. 4th 1466, 1480 ( 1995) . H e r e , the gr a va m e n of

the a c t i on w a s notF e rna nde z a nd H ol dr i dge ’ s c om m uni c a t i on w i th the p o lic e ; r a th e r , it w a s th e ire x a m in a tio n o f th e a lle g e d c o u n te r f

e it m e r c h a n d is e . I t is tru e th a t b o th F e rn a n d e z an d H o ld r id g e ap p e a r e d to a rtic u la te th e b a s is f o rth e ir det erm i nat i on s, bu tthi s w as no m ore than a st at em entof w hatthe offi ce rs w er e w itn e s s in g . See B ucha na n v. M axf i eld E nt er

s. , Inc. , 130 C a l . A pp. 4th 418, 425 (200 5). b. C onve r s i on F orthe s a m e r e a s on the ne gl i ge nc e c l a i m s s urvi ve , C hung’ s c onve r s i on cl ai m s a gai nstthe pri vat e def endant s s urvi ve. A j uror coul d con cl ud e that H ol dri dg e and C ar l os F ernand ez re pl ac ed the se i ze d m er chandi se w i th o ther coun t er fe i tgo od s, there by conv ert i ng C hu ng ’ s m er chandi se . F or the go od s that w er e produ ce d o n S ept em ber 11 thathad actual l y c om e f rom C hu ng ’ s s t ore, h o we v e r , Ch u n g ’ s c o n v e r s i o n c l a i m c a n n o ts u rv i v e . Car l o s Fe rn a n d e z a n d I PE C m e r e l y s e rve a s ba i l e e s f orthe L os A nge l e s P ol i c e w ho i n turn s e rve a s c us t odi a ns f o rth e c o u rt. See, e. g . C i t y o f G a rden G ro ve v. Su

p eri o r C o u rt , 1 5 7 C a l.A p p .4 th 35 5, 36 6 (20 07 ). F i na l l y , c onve r s i on r e qui r e s tha tthe i nj ur e d pa rty ha ve ar i ghtof pos s e s s i on to th e c o n v e rte d g o o d s . B urles civ. P eter se n , 6 8 C a l.A p p .4 th 1 0 6 2 , 1 0 6 5 ( 1 9 9 8 ) .9

D e f e n d a n t s a r g u e th a tCh u n g ’ s c o n v e r s i o n c l a i ms c a n n o ts u rv i v e i f th e s e i z e d i t e ms w e r e c o u n te r f

e it, b e c au s e C h u n g h a d n o “r ig h t o f p o s s e s s io n ” to c o u n te r f e it g o o d s . F o rth is p r o p o s itio n , th e y c ite 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 3 2 0 . T h e s ta tu te s u b je c ts c o u n te r f

e it m e r c h a n d is e to f

o r f e itu r e . B u t d e f

e n d a n ts r e a d th e s ta tu te to o b r o a d ly . E v e n if C h u n g ’s m e r c h a n d is e w e r e s u b je c t to f o r f e itu r e to th e U n ite d S ta te s G o v e rn m e n t, s e e id. a t § 2 3 2 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) , th is d id n o t e n tir e lye x tin g u is h C h u n g ’s r ig h t to p o s s e s s io n . I n d e e d , § 2 3 2 3 o u tlin e s e x te n s iv e p r o c e d u r e s f o rf o r f e itin g c o u n te r f

e it m e r c h a n d is e . I tdoe s notauthor i z e a ny pe r s on, w i thoutl i m i t a t i on, t o t a ke c ount e r f e i tgoods f

r om another. A FFI R M ED in p a rt, R EVER SED i n p art . C ost s on app ea l shal l be di vi ded betw ee n app el l antC hu ng and A pp el l ee s B rand S ec uri ty C orpo ra t i on , H ea ther H o ld r id g e , I n te lle c tu a l P r o p e rtyC o rp o r a tio n a n d C a r lo s F e rn a n d e z .