NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 24 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DARRYL CARTER, No. 17-17278
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:17-cv-00003-HSG
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RASIER-CA, LLC; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Darryl Carter appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and state law claims. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Landers v. Quality Commc’ns, Inc., 771
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
F.3d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Carter’s minimum wage and overtime
wage claims under the FLSA and California Labor Code (counts I, II, III, VIII, and
IX) because Carter failed to allege facts sufficient to state plausible claims for
unpaid wages. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 681 (2009) (to avoid
dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” and conclusory allegations are
not entitled to be assumed true (citation and internal quotation marks omitted));
Landers, 771 F.3d at 644-46 (FLSA claim to overtime payments requires
allegation that plaintiff “worked more than forty hours in a given workweek
without being compensated for the overtime hours” or allegation that plaintiff was
not paid minimum wages; conclusory allegations that merely recite the statutory
language are inadequate).
The district court properly dismissed Carter’s misrepresentation, negligent
infliction of emotional distress, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing claims (counts IV, V, VI, and VII) because Carter failed to allege
facts sufficient to state plausible claims under California law. See Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678 (detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action . . . supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice” (citation omitted)); see, e.g., Conroy v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 203 P.3d
2 17-17278
1127, 1135-36 (Cal. 2009) (elements of misrepresentation); Careau & Co. v. Sec.
Pac. Bus. Credit, Inc., 272 Cal. Rptr. 387, 399-400 (Ct. App. 1990) (requirements
for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing).
We reject as without merit Carter’s contention that the district court should
have converted defendants’ motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
3 17-17278