[nolemmings]

2 things. If you sue in a dispute where something is physically stolen (not the case here) you only get what you paid for the item, and not what it would be worth now, what is its market value or what you would have gotten if you resold. The judge would look only at your receipt from when you bought it and have no interest in theoretical market valuations or how much (according to the plaintiff) it's gone up in value since then.

2, you're out no money. Considering the first paragraph, you'd have to convince the judge that you've been harmed. He (or she) may very well say you get the item in exchange for the price paid if you want because the sale was a contract, but he may, having little to no interest in theoretical resale speculations and market valuations, say you're out no money so he doesn't see the harm. You'd have to convince him. Realize that most people come before the judge in such suits are suing because they paid money, didn't get the item and want their money back. You'd be coming before him with having gotten your money back. You may indeed get the item (in re-exchange for the win price), but, if you didn't, you would not win any of paragraph 1's pie in the sky money.

Technically not true on either point. If you sue for something that it stolen from you, you are entitled to the value of the property at the time of conversion/theft, not what you paid for it. Punitive damages might also be recoverable.

As for the latter, you would be entitled to benefit of the bargain damages, meaning if you could show that the item cost you $x to replace and x was greater than what you would have paid here, the difference is your damage--so long as your replacement reflected some reasonable market value and was an arm's length transaction.

Here in AZ, a small-claim court (or even claims under $10K) would be heard by a justice of the peace, who does not even have to be a lawyer much less a a judge. So you might just get a cup of coffee and a round of applause.