Cal. Codes » Civil Code / DIVISION 4. GENERAL PROVISIONS / PART 1. RELIEF / TITLE 2. COMPENSATORY RELIEF / CHAPTER 2. Measure of Damages [[3300.] - 3361.] / ARTICLE 2. Damages for Wrongs
California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 3336 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The detriment caused by the wrongful conversion of personal property is presumed to be:

First—The value of the property at the time of the conversion, with the interest from that time, or, an amount sufficient to indemnify the party injured for the loss which is the natural, reasonable and proximate result of the wrongful act complained of and which a proper degree of prudence on his part would not have averted; and

Second—A fair compensation for the time and money properly expended in pursuit of the property.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 117 cases (34 in the last 5 years), 1933–2026 · leading case: Voris v. Lampert, 446 P.3d 284 (Cal. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Voris v. Lampert, 446 P.3d 284 (Cal. 2019). · cites it 2× “) A successful plaintiff in a conversion action is entitled to recover "[t]he value of the property at the time of the conversion, with the interest from that time, or, an amount sufficient to indemnify the party injured for the loss which is the natural, reasonable and…”
Lueter v. State of California, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 89 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Civil Code section 3336 states that “[t]he detriment caused by the wrongful conversion of personal property is presumed to be: HQ First—The value *1302 of the property at the time of the conversion, with the interest from that time, or, an amount sufficient to indemnify the…”
Robert A. Maheu, & v. Hughes Tool Co., a Corp., Now Known as Summa Corp., Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellant &, 569 F.2d 459 (9th Cir. 1978). · cites it 2× “62 of TAA rental monies that Maheu used for approximately nine months; (2) erroneously failed to instruct the jury that it must figure interest at the legal rate of 7% under Cal.Civ.Code § 3336; and (3) erroneously denied Summa’s motion for an order amending the judgment to…”
Virtanen v. O'CONNELL, 2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5288 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “As a general rule, “the normal measure of damages for conversion is ‘[t]he value of the property at the time of the conversion’ and ‘[a] fair compensation for the time and money properly expended in pursuit of the property’ (Civ.”
Flores v. Cal. Dept. of Corr. & Rehab. CA5, 224 Cal. App. 4th 199 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). “(Civ. Code, §§ 3336, 3379; Allstate Leasing Corp.”
English & Sons, Inc. v. Straw Hat Restaurants, Inc., 176 F. Supp. 3d 904 (N.D. Cal. 2016). · cites it 2× “) Their legal analysis on damages consists of a single, unelabo-rated cite to California Civil Code § 3336. (See ECF No.”
City of Almaty v. Viktor Khrapunov, 956 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2020). “” Cal. Civ. Code § 3336 . Therefore, the district court properly determined that Plaintiff’s alleged injury was a mere downstream effect of the Khrapunovs’ initial theft and not an independent harm itself.”
Irving Nelkin & Co. v. South Beverly Hills Wilshire Jewelry & Loan, 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4262 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “First, while the successful plaintiff in an action for conversion is entitled to recover prejudgment interest from the time of the conversion (Civ. Code, § 3336), at what point does the plaintiff’s right to *695 recover such interest end? Second, on the basis of what valuation…”
Spates v. Dameron Hosp. Ass'n, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10727 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). “Although the normal measure of damages for conversion is “[t]he value of the property at the time of the conversion” and “[a] fair compensation for the time and money properly expended in pursuit of the property” (Civ. Code, § 3336), emotional distress damages have also been…”
Otay Land Co. v. U.E. Ltd., L.P., 225 Cal. Rptr. 3d 119 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017). “) We thus disagree with Defendants that the only types of indemnity are express and equitable indemnity, equitable indemnity is at issue here, and Plaintiffs do not qualify.”
Gherman v. Colburn, 72 Cal. App. 3d 544 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977). “(Civ. Code, § 3336.) In Boyd v. Bevilacqua, supra, the action was an action for damages for tortious conduct.”
Scherf v. Myers, 258 N.W.2d 831 (S.D. 1977). · cites it 2× “In the absence of such a proposed finding and of any evidence to support such a finding, I would hold that the evidence submitted by plaintiff supports the finding entered by the trial court regarding the amount of compensatory damages due plaintiff.”
Show all 117 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.