Do v. County of Santa Clara CA6

Filed 1/5/24 Do v. County of Santa Clara CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DAVID (ANH QUAN) DO, H051044 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. 22CV397515)

v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,

Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff David (Anh Quan) Do was hired as a physician in 2013 by defendant Santa Clara County, for whom plaintiff provided health care services at two county-run methadone clinics for several years. Plaintiff sued the county in 2022, alleging causes of action for breach of contract and fraud in the inducement. The operative second amended complaint alleged the county breached the memorandum of understanding that constitutes plaintiff’s employment contract by requiring him to work at more than one clinic. The complaint also alleged plaintiff was fraudulently induced to work for the county on the promise that he would work only at a single clinic. This appeal followed the trial court sustaining the county’s demurrer to the operative complaint without leave to amend. We will affirm the judgment of dismissal. I. TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS According to the operative second amended complaint, the county operates three methadone clinics, the South County Clinic, Central Valley Clinic, and Alexian Health Clinic. Plaintiff alleged the county offered him a full-time position at the South County

Clinic in 2013, which he accepted. At the county’s request, plaintiff also performed work at the Central Valley Clinic beginning in 2013. When plaintiff informed the county in November 2021 that he no longer wished to work at two clinics, the county responded that he was required to work at both locations. Plaintiff sued the county in May 2022, apparently for breach of contract. (We do not find plaintiff’s initial or first amended complaints in the record on appeal, nor the claim plaintiff states he presented to the county in February 2022.) The trial court sustained the county’s demurrer to the first amended complaint with leave to amend. Representing himself, plaintiff filed the operative second amended complaint in October 2022, alleging three causes of action. The first cause of action alleged that in November 2021 the county breached section 6.8 of the memorandum of understanding that constitutes plaintiff’s employment contract by denying plaintiff’s “request to end extra work” at the Central Valley Clinic. Section 6.8 of the memorandum of understanding between the county and the Union of American Physicians and Dentists states, in relevant part: “When an employee is assigned to work at a location different from her/his regularly assigned work location, she/he shall be allowed to travel on County time to that work location. Time allotted for travel shall be based on distance to and from her/his regular work location or home and the temporary work location, whichever is lesser.” The second cause of action alleged the county breached section 6.8 of the memorandum of understanding “sometime from July 2013 to 11/1/2021” by converting plaintiff’s “full-time single position ... into 2 half-time codes.” The third cause of action alleged breach of contract and fraud in the inducement. It alleged plaintiff was fraudulently induced into accepting a contract for what he understood would be a full-time position at a single clinic when the county’s actual intention was to “obtain multiple clinic coverage on a permanent basis off the books.” The operative complaint alleged the fraud occurred “in 2013 on [the] first day” plaintiff was hired, but plaintiff did not discover the county’s intention until 2021 when his request to end work at multiple 2