CHoPP Computer Corp., Inc.  v. U.S., 5 F.3d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 811 (1994)
    California provides the relevant substantive law in this case. That state permits recovery on a conversion theory either for the wrongful taking or for the wrongful retention of property.  See Edwards v. Jenkins, 7 P.2d 702, 705 (Cal. 1932). In order to maintain an action for conversion, ChoPP must show that it had title to or a right to possess the funds in the PaineWebber account. Moore v Regents of the Univ. Of Cal., 793 P.2d 479, 488 (Cal. 1990); Baldwin v Marina City Properties, Inc., 145 Cal. Rptr. 406, 416 (Cal. App. 1978). ChoPP’s interest must have existed, if at all, at the time of the levy or at the time that ChoPP demanded return of the funds after entry of the final judgment in state court
    See also In re Manser, 99 B.R. 434 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1989)