Keith Chung v. City of Los Angeles

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Keith Chung appeals from summary judgment granted to defendants. For the reasons below, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court with respect to Chung’s negligence and § 1983 claims against the city defendants; AFFIRM with respect to Chung’s negligence and conversion claims against defendant John Fernandez; and REVERSE with respect to Chung’s negligence and conversion claims against defendants Brand Security Corporation, Heather Holdridge, Intellectual Property Enforcement Company and Carlos Fernandez.

1. The City Defendants

a. § 1983 Actions

In order to seize Chung’s goods without a warrant, the police needed to have probable cause to believe that his goods were counterfeit. See G & G Jewelry, Inc. v. City of Oakland, 989 F.2d 1093, 1099-1101 (9th Cir.1993). In determining whether an informant’s tip supplied officers with probable cause, we consider (a) the informant’s motivation to tell the truth, (b) the level of detail of description of alleged wrongdoing and (c) the reliability of previous information provided. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 234 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983).

We have noted that “[i]f the informant has provided…