The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joseph E. Irenas, S.U.S.D.J.
IRENAS, Senior District Judge
Presently before the Court is the unopposed Motion by Defendant Pathmark Stores, Inc. ("Pathmark") to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. For the reasons that follow, the Motion will be granted.*fn1
The factual recitation that follows accepts as true the facts as alleged in the Complaint. Plaintiff Carmen J. Romanelli, Jr. was first employed by Pathmark in or about 1992. In 1994, Plaintiff was promoted, then demoted within a week. In approximately 2002, Plaintiff was promoted from a part-time employee to a full-time employee. However, according to Plaintiff, he was earning less income after that promotion than before it.
At an unspecified point thereafter, Plaintiff demanded that Pathmark compensate him financially for what he perceived to be prior underpayment of his salary. Pathmark failed to do so, and thus Plaintiff voluntarily left his position with the company. According to Plaintiff, his departure from Pathmark was motivated both by economic considerations and a medical condition.
Plaintiff has been unemployed since September, 2007,*fn2 and is experiencing financial difficulties. His financial problems include extensive credit card debt and a large mortgage.
Plaintiff initiated the instant action by filing a Complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey. Pathmark removed the case to this Court, stating that it arises under the Labor Management Relations Act.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Pathmark owes him compensation for paying him less than was required under the terms of his employment contract. In addition, Plaintiff alleges he was a disfavored employee.*fn3 Plaintiff seeks an award of damages and reinstatement as an employee at a grocery store operated by Defendant.
Pathmark now moves to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim. In addition, Pathmark contends that Plaintiff's action is barred by the statute of limitations and the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
Pathmark's motion to dismiss was filed on May 28, 2009. Plaintiff's opposition to Pathmark's motion was due on June 22, 2009. At present, no opposition has been received from Plaintiff, nor has Plaintiff ...