Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Alexis Plaisted, An Individual, On Behalf of Herself, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. the Dress Barn
April 4, 2012
ALEXIS PLAISTED, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF,
THE DRESS BARN, INC.; AND DOES 1-- 100, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Otis D. Wright II United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 
Presently before the Court is Defendant The Dress Barn, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Alexis Plaisted's ("Plaintiff") ninth claim for conversion. (Dkt. No. 13.) Because Plaintiff has not filed any opposition, and for the reasons discussed in Defendant's papers, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion and DISMISSES Plaintiff's ninth claim WITH PREJUDICE.
Central District of California Local Rule 7-9 requires an opposing party to file an opposition to any motion at least twenty-one days prior to the date designated for hearing the motion. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9. Additionally, Local Rule 7-12 provides that "[t]he failure to file any required paper, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion." C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12.
The hearing on Defendant's motion was set for April 16, 2012. Plaintiff's opposition was therefore due by March 26, 2012. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, nor any other filing that could be construed as a request for a continuance.*fn1 Plaintiff's failure to oppose may therefore be deemed consent to the granting of Defendant's Motion. Nevertheless, the Court has carefully considered Defendant's arguments in support and, for the reasons discussed in Defendant's papers, hereby GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and DISMISSES Plaintiff's ninth claim for conversion WITH PREJUDICE. In particular, the Court notes that the California Labor Code provides the exclusive remedies for recovering unpaid wages. E.g., Jacobs v. Genesco, Inc., No. CIV. S-08-1666 FCD DAD, 2008 WL 7836412, at *2--3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2008) (slip copy) (collecting cases). Moreover, Plaintiff cannot maintain a cause of action for conversion based on a generalized claim for withheld wages. See Farmer's Ins. Exchange v. Zerin, 53 Cal. App. 4th 445, 451 (1997) ("Neither legal title nor absolute ownership of the property is necessary [to establish a claim for conversion]. . . . However, a mere contractual right of payment, without more, will not suffice.")
The April 16, 2012 hearing on this matter is VACATED, and no appearances are necessary.
Buy This Entire Record For