not keep track of product returns, relying instead on Material in Motion to do so. (Tr. at 71.) He admitted, however, that he had doubts about the accuracy of their records and would instead rely on the Debtor’s records to determine what modules had been returned. (Id. at 72.) C.Legal Basis for Conversion Claim Google asserts that at all times it retained title to the modules that it returned to the Debtor. Google contends that the Debtor converted its property post-petition giving rise to an administrative claim. See, e.g., Reading Co. v. Brown, 391 U.S. 471, 477, 88 S.Ct. 1759, 20 L.Ed.2d 751 (1968) (concluding that post-petition tort claim was entitled to administrative priority); In re MD Promenade, Inc., Case No. 08-34113-SGJ-7, 2009 WL 80203, at *6 (Bankr.N.D.Tex. Jan.8, 2009) (<HOLDING>); In re Hayes Lemmerz Int’l, Inc., 340 B.R.
recognizing possibility that landlord had administrative claim for postpetition conversion of its property recognizing that the burden is on the landlord in a lease dispute to establish that the lease contract had been breached and that such breach entitled the landlord to the possession of the property in question holding that electronic records may be subject to a claim for conversion holding complaint was not based on a conversion claim but was a declaratory judgment action thus not governed by conversion statute of limitations holding that plaintiff could state a claim for conversion of confidential information