{"id":12219,"date":"2023-09-14T17:39:47","date_gmt":"2023-09-14T23:39:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=12219"},"modified":"2023-09-14T17:39:47","modified_gmt":"2023-09-14T23:39:47","slug":"trespass-to-chattels","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=12219","title":{"rendered":"Trespass to Chattels"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>The Ninth Circuit heard oral argument in <em>Best Carpet Values, Inc. v. Google, LLC<\/em>, yesterday.  The plaintiffs below asserted trespass to chattels (among other things) based on alteration of a website display.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The district court framed trespass to chattels as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>Trespass to chattels lies where an intentional interference with the possession of personal property has caused injury.&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=6577129237468043105&amp;q=google+and+best+carpet+values&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=4,72,73,78,79,80,86,88,93,114,129,134,135,141,142,143,149,151,156,258,259,260,261,310,311,321,322,323,324,373,374,383\"><em>Intel Corp. v. Hamidi,<\/em>&nbsp;30 Cal. 4th 1342, 1350-51 (2003)<\/a>;&nbsp;<em>see also Brodsky v. Apple Inc.,<\/em>&nbsp;2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148808, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2019). &#8220;Dubbed by Prosser the `little brother of conversion,&#8217; the tort of trespass to chattels allows recovery for interferences with possession of personal property `not sufficiently important to be classed as conversion, and so to compel the defendant to pay the full value of the thing with which he has interfered.'&#8221;&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=6577129237468043105&amp;q=google+and+best+carpet+values&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=4,72,73,78,79,80,86,88,93,114,129,134,135,141,142,143,149,151,156,258,259,260,261,310,311,321,322,323,324,373,374,383\"><em>Hamidi,<\/em>&nbsp;30 Cal. 4th at 1350<\/a>(quoting Prosser &amp; Keeton, Torts (5th ed. 1984) \u00a7 14, pp. 85-86). Under California law, &#8220;[i]n cases of interference with possession of personal property not amounting to conversion, `the owner has a cause of action for trespass or case [sic], and may recover only the actual damages suffered by reason of the impairment of the property or the loss of its use.'&#8221;&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=12285686886269039622&amp;q=google+and+best+carpet+values&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=4,72,73,78,79,80,86,88,93,114,129,134,135,141,142,143,149,151,156,258,259,260,261,310,311,321,322,323,324,373,374,383\"><em>In re iPhone Application Litig.,<\/em>&nbsp;844 F. Supp. 2d 1040, 1069 (N.D. Cal. 2012)<\/a>(quoting&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=6577129237468043105&amp;q=google+and+best+carpet+values&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=4,72,73,78,79,80,86,88,93,114,129,134,135,141,142,143,149,151,156,258,259,260,261,310,311,321,322,323,324,373,374,383\"><em>Hamidi,<\/em>&nbsp;30 Cal. 4th at 1351<\/a>).<\/p>\n<cite><em>BEST CARPET VALUES, INC. v. GOOGLE LLC<\/em>, No. 5: 20-cv-04700-EJD (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2021) [<a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=10254203431950226475&amp;q=google+and+best+carpet+values&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=4,72,73,78,79,80,86,88,93,114,129,134,135,141,142,143,149,151,156,258,259,260,261,310,311,321,322,323,324,373,374,383\">Link<\/a>].<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p>You can watch yesterday&#8217;s oral argument at the Ninth Circuit here:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-block-embed-youtube wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"22-15899 Best Carpet Values, Inc. v. Google LLC\" width=\"450\" height=\"253\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/y0ZEnErQ-KI?feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe>\n<\/div><\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Ninth Circuit heard oral argument in Best Carpet Values, Inc. v. Google, LLC, yesterday. The plaintiffs below asserted trespass to chattels (among other things) based on alteration of a website display. The district court framed trespass to chattels as follows: Trespass to chattels lies where an intentional interference with the possession of personal property [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12219"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12219"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12219\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12221,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12219\/revisions\/12221"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12219"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12219"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12219"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}