Voris v. Lampert
250 Cal. Rptr. 3d 779
Cal.2019Background
- Plaintiff Brett Voris worked for three start-ups run by Greg Lampert and others for promised wages and stock; after termination Voris was not paid in full.
- Voris sued the companies and principals on multiple theories; he obtained judgments against the companies but has been unable to collect because the companies lacked assets.
- Voris alleged conversion of both stock and unpaid wages and sought to hold Lampert personally liable (in tort) for the wage nonpayment without piercing the corporate veil.
- Trial and appellate courts allowed stock-conversion claims to proceed but rejected a conversion cause of action for unpaid wages; appellate panels were divided on the wage issue.
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether California law recognizes a common-law conversion claim for ordinary unpaid wages and whether individual officers can be liable in conversion for their employers’ failure to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conversion is a cognizable tort for ordinary unpaid wages | Voris: earned wages are employee property once due, so nonpayment can be conversion | Lampert: failure to pay is a contractual/debt claim; conversion requires an identifiable specific fund/possession | No — ordinary failure to pay wages does not support conversion absent special circumstances |
| Whether individual officers can be held in conversion for employer’s wage nonpayment | Voris: officers who direct or participate in withholding can be liable in tort without alter-ego pleading | Lampert: individual liability requires alter-ego or statutory bases; conversion should not be a vehicle to reach officers for routine wage debts | Court: did not recognize wage-conversion cause; individual liability can exist for torts generally but conversion of wages is inappropriate route |
| Whether prior decisions (e.g., Cortez, Loehr, UI Video Stores) support wage-conversion | Voris: Cortez and other cases characterize unpaid wages as employee property, implying conversion | Lampert: Cortez’s property language was limited to equitable UCL restitution; other cases are distinguishable or context-specific | Court: Cortez limited to UCL context; cited cases don’t justify expanding conversion to ordinary unpaid wages |
| Whether statutory/regulatory remedies negate need for a tort remedy | Voris: conversion would increase deterrence, allow punitive and consequential damages, and aid collection against officers | Lampert: Labor Code already provides extensive remedies and new statutes target judgment-evading employers and officers (including post-litigation reforms) | Court: existing statutory scheme and targeted legislative remedies make expanding conversion unnecessary and ill-suited; decline to create wage-conversion tort |
Key Cases Cited
- Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co., 23 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 2000) (UCL context: unlawfully withheld wages are property for restitutionary relief)
- Moore v. Regents of University of California, 51 Cal.3d 120 (Cal. 1990) (conversion as strict liability tort; intent not required)
- Poggi v. Scott, 167 Cal. 372 (Cal. 1914) (conversion rests on absolute duty; good faith not a defense)
- Haigler v. Donnelly, 18 Cal.2d 674 (Cal. 1941) (money may be subject to conversion only if specific, identifiable sum)
- In re Trombley, 31 Cal.2d 801 (Cal. 1948) (wages are not ordinary debts; historical foundation for heightened protection of wages)
- Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A., 50 Cal.4th 1389 (Cal. 2010) (discussion of employees’ vested interest in unpaid wages)
- Sanowicz v. Bacal, 234 Cal.App.4th 1027 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (conversion of commissions where funds earmarked for plaintiff)
- Fischer v. Machado, 50 Cal.App.4th 1069 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (conversion liability where principal entitled to earmarked commissions)
- Weiss v. Marcus, 51 Cal.App.3d 590 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) (conversion of attorney fees subject to asserted lien/ownership)
- Payne v. Elliot, 54 Cal. 339 (Cal. 1880) (conversion can extend to intangible interests like stock)
- Baxter v. King, 81 Cal.App. 192 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927) (money not convertible absent specific, identifiable fund)
- Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc., 201 Cal.App.4th 267 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (conversion requires interference with plaintiff’s possessory interest in a specific sum)