Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Boseovski v. McCloud Healthcare Clinic, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. California

June 22, 2017

CHRISTOPHER BOSEOVSKI, Plaintiff,
v.
McCLOUD HEALTHCARE CLINIC, INC., Defendant.

          ORDER

          CRAIG M. KELLISON STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this civil action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (First Claim for Relief) as well as various state law claims. Pursuant to the written consent of all parties, this case is before the undersigned as the presiding judge for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Pending before the court is defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 6).

         I. PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS

         Plaintiff claims that Merritt Hawkins (apparently a placement firm and not a defendant to this action) posted a job opening for a dentist with defendant which offered student loan forgiveness, a base salary of $195, 000 per year, a signing bonus, a relocation stipend, three weeks vacation, a four-and-one-half-day work week, and other “great benefits.” According to plaintiff, after correspondence with Merritt Hawkins he began speaking with defendant's Chief Executive Officer, Michael Schaub. During his discussions with Mr. Schaub, plaintiff informed him of his “desire for a long-term position, and his desire not to work in a high-volume practice.” Plaintiff states that he rejected the first offer of employment and only agreed to a four-year employment contract after being “assured by Mr. Schaub that the Clinic was not a high-volume practice. . . .” Plaintiff alleges that the contract contains the following provisions:

¶ V(C)(2) The term of employment will be four years.
¶ VI(C)(3) Defendant may immediately terminate employment by providing two weeks notice, and defendant reserves the right to terminate employment immediately for just cause.
¶ IV(A) Defendant would schedule a minimum average of 8-10 visits per day during barring unforseen circumstances.

         Neither party has offered a copy of the contract.

         On April 10, 2016, plaintiff signed various employment documents with defendant which, according to plaintiff, had hidden among them “boilerplate language converting his promised four-year employment agreement to an at-will. . . .” In May 2016 plaintiff closed his practice and relocated from Santa Rosa to McCloud.

         Plaintiff next alleges that, shortly after commencing his employment with defendant, he began to notice “various issues regarding the work environment” he found “unsafe, unlawful, and in need of correction.” Specifically, plaintiff outlines the following four areas of concern:

1. The office manager was unable to properly train and exhibits a hostile attitude.
2. Two employees with patient responsibilities appeared to be drinking alcohol while on duty.
3. Defendant's practice of billing Denti-Cal was unlawful.
4. Patient volume (22-25 patients per day) exceeded the terms of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.