Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Georgette Said v. Encore Senior Living LLC; Does 1-60 Inclusive

February 24, 2012

GEORGETTE SAID, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ENCORE SENIOR LIVING LLC; DOES 1-60 INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: VIRGINIA A. Phillips United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE [Motion filed on August 26, 2011]

Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss ("Motion") filed by Defendant Encore Senior Living, LLC ("Defendant"). After considering the papers in support of, and opposition to, the Motion, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Georgette*fn1 Said was an employee of Defendant. (Not. of Removal, Ex. A (Compl.) at 1.) While she was working for Defendant, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") sent Defendant a wage garnishment letter, dated October 25, 2010, and a Notice of Levy (collectively, "the WGL"). (Id.)*fn2 The cover page of the WGL stated that the levy against Plaintiff "attache[d] the taxpayer's take-home pay," but that Plaintiff was "not entitled to the exemptions under section 6334(a)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code." (WGL at 2.) The Notice of Levy stated that the "excemptions [sic] referred to by Internal Revenue Code section 6334 are not allowed because of other income that is received by [Plaintiff and her husband]. What ever [sic] is normally paid to [Plaintiff] should be remitted to the Internal Revenue Service." (WGL at 1.) After listing the amount owed, the Notice of Levy states further,

This levy requires you to turn over to us: (1) this taxpayer's wages and salary that have been earned but not paid, as well as wages and salary earned in the future until this levy is released, and (2) this taxpayer's other income that you have now or for which you are obligated.

(WGL at 1.)

After Defendant received the WGL, it garnished Plaintiff's entire "take home pay," vacation time, and "money allocated for healthcare." (Compl. at 1.) In so doing, Plaintiff contends, Defendant ignored the IRS's schedule for wage garnishment. (Id.) As a result, Plaintiff contends she received no compensation for the work she performed in violation of state and federal law. (See Compl. at 2.)

Accordingly, on March 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant in the California Superior Court for the County of Riverside, alleging the following claims:

1. Violation of federal minimum wage law, 29 U.S.C. § 206;

2. Breach of Contract;

3. Violation of 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(2);

4. Violation of Cal. Labor Code § 203;

5. Violation of Cal. Minimum Wage Law.

Defendant removed the complaint to this Court on ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.