Opinion ID: 775519
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plaintiffs' Conversion Claim

Text: 31 Plaintiffs contend that the district court should have applied California law instead of Nevada law to their conversion claim. For tort claims in general, California follows the governmental interest analysis set forth in Reich v. Purcell, 67 Cal. 2d 551 (1967), as well as Restatement principles. See B.E. Witkin, 5 Summary of California Law, Torts &#167 &#167 330-331 (9th ed. 1988). Witkin cites Restatement &#167 147 as the California conflicts rule for injuries to property. Id. at &#167 336. Under Restatement &#167 147, the local law of the state where the injury occurred determines the rights and liabilities of the parties . . . . We understand this to mean that the local law of the state in which the alleged conversion occurred is the controlling law. See Restatement &#167 147, cmt. i. 32 The governmental interest analysis considers the interests of the litigants and involved states. Reich, 67 Cal. 2d at 553. Under this test, the situs of the allegedly wrongful act remains a relevant, and often the predominant, consideration. Hernandez v. Burger, 102 Cal. App. 3d 795, 801-02 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980). Thus, Reich's approach would not alter the result obtained under &#167 147 unless another state has an overriding legitimate interest. See id. 33 Here both sides concede that the alleged misallocation of the $52,000 overpayment took place in Nevada. In addition, the defendants are Nevada citizens and conduct their business in Nevada, strengthening Nevada's interest in the conversion claim. Hence, the district court was correct to apply Nevada law. Plaintiffs have not contested the district court's conclusion that their conversion claim fails under Nevada law. 34 AFFIRMED.