Facts

Plaintiff Ramon Sanchez Ritchie filed suit against Sempra Energy in relation to plaintiff's property in Baja California, Mexico.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff alleged that defendant Sempra Energy misappropriated more than 600 acres of his property in Baja California, and caused him to be maliciously prosecuted by Mexican authorities, in order to build a multi-billion dollar liquefied natural gas terminal. Plaintiff asserted numerous claims, including trespass, conversion, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, violations of Business & Professions Code sec. 17200, malicious prosecution and others.

Plaintiff alleged that Sempra engaged in an elaborate fraud to dispossess plaintiff of his alleged property, which plaintiff alleged was necessary for Sempra to obtain regulatory approval for the liquefied natural gas terminal, and corruptly caused Mexican authorities to initiate a criminal prosecution of plaintiff.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Sempra denied plaintiff's allegations. Sempra asserted that its Mexican affiliate paid several million dollars to acquire the property at issue from the titled owners, and that the property was not required to construct the liquefied natural gas terminal. Sempra contended that its Mexican affiliate properly reported plaintiff to Mexican law enforcement for, among other things, allegedly attempting to physically seize control of the property and allegedly threatening to kill employees of Sempra's affiliate at gunpoint.

Result

The district court dismissed plaintiff's trespass, conversion and other claims, with the exception of the malicious prosecution claim. After several years of discovery and litigation, in September 2015, the district court granted summary judgment for Sempra on the malicious prosecution claim. Plaintiff appealed. In July 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment and dismissal of all claims except the conversion claim. On remand, Sempra moved to dismiss the conversion claim, plaintiff's sole remaining claim, on the grounds that it was barred by the statute of limitations. The district court granted Sempra's motion and dismissed the conversion claim with prejudice, terminating the case.