McNamara v. Picken, 950 F. Supp. 2d 193

McNamara v. Picken concerns a motion for partial summary judgment on Count Two (conversion) in a DC District Court civil action.
Plaintiff asserts conversion of two categories of money: (i) partnership funds used to pay pre-merger debts; (ii) money earned by plaintiff prior to the merger that was deposited into the partnership account.
Court previously held there was no identifiable fund for the first category, suggesting contractual remedy rather than conversion for pre-merger debts.
For the second category, the court finds a readily identifiable fund—the $185.42 check payable to plaintiff for pre-merger services—and thus a potential conversion claim.
Court concludes the first category is contractual; the second category supports conversion, and the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff has an identifiable fund for conversion.	McNamara had rights to specific funds rather than mere contract rights.	No identifiable fund; funds were fungible partnership money; claim more like contract.	Limited to second category; first category not actionable for conversion.
Whether money used for pre-merger debts constitutes conversion or breach of contract.	Funds used to pay pre-merger debts were misdirected from partnership accounts.	Effect is a contractual obligation under partnership terms, not conversion.	First category remains contractual; conversion not supported.
Whether a pre-merger earned income check deposited into the partnership account supports a conversion claim.	The check ($185.42) was payable to plaintiff individually and improperly deposited.	No identifiable fund; funds were commingled in partnership accounts.	Yes; the $185.42 check is an identifiable fund subject to conversion.
Whether the conversion claim is distinct from breach of contract.	Conversion stands independently from contract, based on identifiable funds.	Conversion cannot enforce a mere obligation to pay money.	Conversion claim allowed for the second category; first category remains contractual.

Washington Gas Light Co. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of Dist. of Columbia, 61 A.3d 662 (D.C. 2013) (defines conversion for money and seeks identifiable funds when applicable)
Baltimore v. District of Columbia, 10 A.3d 1141 (D.C. 2011) (clarifies ownership and control aspects in conversion analysis)
Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 657 So. 2d 821 (Ala. 1994) (identifiable refund checks represent funds subject to conversion)