Opinion ID: 150080
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fraudulent Concealment and Conversion Claims

Text: Mindys alleges claims of fraudulent concealment and conversion based on its contention that the registration of the trademarks in Sonya's name deprived Mindys of its lawful ownership interests in the subject trademarks. Mindys has made a sufficient prima facie showing of facts supporting both claims to withstand an anti-SLAPP motion to strike. When there is a fiduciary relationship between two parties, any material concealment or misrepresentation will amount to fraud sufficient to entitle the party injured thereby to an action. Ford v. Shearson Lehman Am. Express, Inc., 180 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1020, 225 Cal.Rptr. 895 (1986). Natan states in his declaration that Kamran never advised Mindys Cosmetics, Inc. of the legal consequences to Mindys Cosmetics' intellectual property rights that the [trademark registrations] were about to expire or be transferred to Sonya Dakar. Kamran contends that he emailed Natan about the trademark registration, but at this phase we must credit the evidence submitted by Mindys. Although the tort of fraudulent concealment usually requires a showing of intent to defraud, see, e.g., Kaldenbach v. Mut. of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 178 Cal.App.4th 830, 850, 100 Cal.Rptr.3d 637 (2009), Mindys' claim is grounded, at least in part, on constructive fraud. An action for constructive fraud does not require a showing of intent to defraud. See, e.g., Quintilliani v. Mannerino, 62 Cal.App.4th 54, 70, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 359 (1998). Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. Oakdale Vill. Group v. Fong, 43 Cal.App.4th 539, 543, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 (1996). The elements of a conversion claim are (1) the plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of the property at the time of the conversion; (2) the defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages. Id. at 543-44, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 810. It is necessary to show that the alleged converter has assumed control over the property or that the alleged converter has applied the property to his own use. Id. When Kamran registered Sonya Dakar as the owner of the trademarks, she began requesting license fees from the company. If Sonya did not have an ownership right over the trademark, as Israel and Natan contend, Kamran may have caused a wrongful appropriation of trademark rights held by Mindys. [A]ny act of dominion wrongfully exerted over the personal property of another inconsistent with the owner's rights thereto constitutes conversion.... Where the conversion is the result of the acts of several persons, which, though separately committed, all tend to the same end, there is a joint conversion.... If the principal is a wrong-doer, the agent is a wrong-doer also. McCafferty v. Gilbank, 249 Cal.App.2d 569, 576, 57 Cal.Rptr. 695 (Cal.Ct.App. 1967) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although it is a close question, we hold that, under a generous interpretation of the alleged facts, there is a reasonable probability that Kamran was an agent of Sonya such that he, along with Sonya, could be held liable for conversion.