United States District Court, E.D. California
M. KELLISON STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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).
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
¶ 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
¶ IV(A) Defendant would schedule a minimum average of
8-10 visits per day during barring unforseen circumstances.
party has offered a copy of the contract.
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.
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
4. Patient volume (22-25 patients per day) exceeded the terms