DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT
Moving Parties: Defendants Goldmine Group, Inc. and Huiqing Cai
Respondent: Plaintiffs Daoqui Liu and Jinli Wang
POS: Moving OK; Opposing served by regular mail contrary to CCP § 1005(c)
Plaintiffs bring this action against their former employers to recover damages arising from various alleged labor code violations. Plaintiffs commenced the action on 11/19/13, asserting causes of action for:
1. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
2. Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation
3. Failure to Provide Meal Periods
4. Failure to Provide Rest Periods
5. Conversion
6. Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements
7. Violation of Unfair Competition Laws
The Case Management Conference is set for 3/19/14.
Defendants Goldmine Group, Inc. and Huiqing Cai (collectively “Defendants”) demur to the Complaint on the grounds that it fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action for conversion against Defendants.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONVERSION:
Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. The elements of a conversion claim are: (1) the plaintiff’s ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant’s conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages. (Mendoza v. Continental Sales Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1404-1405.) Money cannot be the subject of a cause of action for conversion unless there is an identifiable sum. (PCO, Inc. v. Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 384, 395.)
The Complaint alleges that Defendants had a legal obligation imposed by California Employment laws and regulations to pay Plaintiffs all wages and compensation due, including overtime wages (Complaint ¶ 77); Defendants intentionally failed to pay Plaintiffs the minimum wages set by the State of California (Id. ¶ 78); Defendants intentionally failed to pay Plaintiffs overtime wages for hours worked (Id. ¶ 79); Defendants intentionally asserted ownership over those wages and other earned and unpaid compensation, all of which actually were and are Plaintiffs’ personal property and utilized such for their own benefit (Id. ¶ 80); and that as a result, Plaintiffs incurred damages (Id. ¶¶ 81-82). The Complaint adequately alleges facts to support a cause of action for conversion.
Defendants, in their demurrer contend that: (1) Plaintiffs have not alleged an ownership or right to possession of tangible property; (2) no wrongful act or disposition of property rights on part of Defendants is alleged; and (3) Plaintiffs have not stated their damages. However, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs had right to possession of wages that were earned but unpaid, and while a specific sum is not alleged, it appears that the amount sought is identifiable by calculating Plaintiffs’ unpaid work hours. Further, the Complaint alleges a wrongful act by alleging that Defendants intentionally failed to pay wages earned by Plaintiffs and that as a result, Plaintiffs incurred damages. Thus, the demurrer is overruled.
Defendants have 10 days to answer.
Related Content on Lawzilla:
Employer Liability for Conversion Due to Unpaid Wages
Link to this page