Facts

Dr. Samir Sairam was hired in 2017 by Mercy Retirement & Care Center to be its Medical Director. Mercy Retirement is a nursing facility and Sairam was also an attending physician there. In January 2021, Dr. Sairam was informed his contract as Medical Director would not be renewed. Mercy's Executive Director, Tamra Tsanos, was involved in making the decision. Sairam, along with an affiliated corporation known as Samir Sairam M.D. Inc., filed suit against Mercy and Tsanos in state court. The case was removed to federal court because of Sairam's RICO claim. Sairam's first amended complaint was dismissed as to the RICO claim, but the court allowed for amendment of the complaint.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that they were employees of Mercy and that defendants terminated the medical directorship of Dr. Sairam because he had a history of divulging the facility's substandard care or fraudulent billing practices. Though they removed his medical directorship, he remained an attending physician, but defendants began a campaign to drive him away from the facility completely by interfering with his patient-physician relationships and by making it more difficult and burdensome for him to treat those patients. Specifically, plaintiff asserted the following causes of action: intentional interference with contractual relationships; intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 510, 2056, and 17200; wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and violation of RICO.

DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS: As to the RICO claim, defendants contended that plaintiffs still failed to plausibly plead the RICO claim. As to the wire fraud claim, it was insufficiently pled because plaintiffs alleged that doctors engaged in the fraudulent billing practices, but did not allege that these doctors were Mercy employees so that Mercy would be deemed culpable rather than the individual doctors making the claims.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and closed the file as the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The case was remanded back to state court in order to address those remaining claims.