James Mann and Small Smiles Reno v CSHM Complaint - Filed May 23, 2014

Case 3:14-cv-01557 Document 5-17 Filed 07/30/14 of 15 PageID #: 206

2

5

1

4

F I LEDElectronically

2014-05-2312:15:55 PMJoey Orduna Hastings

Clerk of the CourtTransaction # 4447000 : mchbli 0

Code: $1425Richard D. Williamson, Esq. (NY Bar No. 9932)Jonathan J. 'few, Esq., (NY Bar No. 11874)

3. ROBERTSON, JOHNSON, MILLER & WILLIAMSON50 West Liberty Street, Suite 600Reno, Nevada 89501(775) 329-5600Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6

7

8

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE

9 SMALL SMILES OF RENO, LLC, a Nevadalimited liability company, and JAMES L.

10 MANN,

11 Plaintiff.", Case No.:

12 vs. Department:

13 CSHM, LLC, a Delaware limited liabilitycompany, and DOES I through 25, inclusive,

Defendants.14

15

16 COMPLAINT

17 [Exempt from CAAP: Complaint Seeks Declaratory and Equitable Relief]

18 COME NOW Plaintiffs Small Smiles of Reno, LLC and James L. Mann, by and through

19 their undersigned counsel, and allege against the Defendants, and each of them, as follows:

20 PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

21 1. Plaintiff James L. Mann ("Dr. Mann") is dentist licensed by the State of Nevada

22 and regularly doing business in Washoe County, Nevada.

23 2. Small Smiles of Reno, LLC ("Small Smiles") is a Nevada limited liability

24 company, which operates a dental practice at 3362 South McCarran Boulevard, Suite 3362,

25 Reno, Nevada 89502.

was organized on or about Februmy 17,2012.

26

27

28

3.

4.

Dr. Mann is the sale owner of Small Smiles.

Defendant CSHM, LLC ("CSHM") is a Delaware limited liability company that

Robertson, Johnson,Miller & Williamson

50 West Liberty Street,Suite 600

. Reno, Nevada 8950\

COMPLAINTPAGEl


1 5. Plaintiffs are infoll11ed and believe, and on that basis allege, that CSHM was

2 created to acquire certain assets from Church Street Health Management, LLC ("Church Street").

3 6. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Church Street

4 was a Delaware limited liability that had i()rmerly been known by such names as FORBA

5 Holdings LLC and SANDS Holdings, LLC.

6 7. Church Street (at the time going by the name FaRHA Holdings LLC)

7 orchestrated Dr. Mann's purchase of Small Smiles and insisted that Dr. Mann allow Church

8 Street / Farha to provide managemcnt services to Small Smiles for a large monthly fee.

9

10 .

8.

9.

CSHM has continued Church Street's practices.

Indeed, many of the personnel associated with Church Street continued to work

11 forCSHM.

12

13

14

15

16

.17

18

10.

11.

Over the years, CSHM has, among other things:

a. Dictated the hours that Dr. Mann and Small Smiles should be open for business;

b. Imposed pressure on Dr. Mann and Small Smiles to schedule more patients;

c. Decided which equipment Dr. Mann could purchase for Small Smiles;

d. Insisted on certain dental procedures over others; and

e. Set Dr. Mann's compensation terms.

Dr. Mann and Small Smiles have consistently perfoll11ed their agreements with

19 CSHM, Church Street, and all predecessor management entities.

20 12. . But, Dr. Mann has become very concerned that CSHM's heavy-handed control of

21 Small Smiles is violating Nevada's laws and regulations.

22 13. Dr. Mann has informed CSHM of his concerns, but CSHM has refused to change

23 its practices.

24

25

26

27

14.

15.

16.

Thus, the Plaintiffs have no choice but to seek relief from this Honorable COUl1.

.JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS

Dr. Mann is an individual who lives and works in Washoe County, Nevada.

Small Smiles is a Nevada limited liability company with its principal place of

28Robertson, Johnson,Miller & Williamson


Reno. Nevada 8950 I

business in Washoe County, Nevada.

COMPLAINTPAGE 2


17. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that CSHM is a

2 Delaware limited liability company registered to do business in the State of Nevada.

3 18. CSHM voluntmily entered into agreements with Small Smiles to manage Dr.

4 Mann's practice in Washoe County.

5 19. CSHM collects all of the revenue that Dr. Mann's Small Smiles practice generates

6 and CSHM keeps all of the profits.

7 20. In these and other ways, CSHM has directed its conduct into the State of Nevada

8 and has purposefully availed itselfof Nevada law.

9 21. Defendants Does 1 through 25, inclusive, are fictitious names. Plaintiffs do not

10 know the true names of the individuals, corporations, limited liability companies, limited liability

11 partnerships, limited partnerships, pm111erships, busts and other associations so designated by

12 said fictitious names. When the true names are discovered, PlaintitTs will seek leave of Court to

13 amend this Complaint and the proceedings herein to substitute the true names of those

14 Defendants.

15 22. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that each of the

16 Defendants designated herein as a "Doe" is liable or responsible in some manner for the events

17 alleged herein. Plaintiffs further believe that each of the Defendants intentionally, negligently,

18 carelessly, and/or recklessly and proximately harmed Plaintiffs.

19 23. Plaintitls arc informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that, at all times,,20 pertinent hereto, each Defendant was the agent and employee of the other Defend~nts and was

21 acting within the course, scope and authority of said agency; each Defendant approved, ratified

22 and authorized the acts of each of the other Defendants as herein alleged; each Defendant was

23 subject to a right of control by the other Defendants; each Defendant was authorized to act for

24 each and all of the other Defendants; and, each Defendant is a successor-in-interest to each of the

25 other Defendants.

26 24. Plaintiffs are infonued and believe, and on that basis allege, that, at all times

27

28Robertson, Johnson,Miller & WiliiamsDn

50 West Liberty Street.Suite 600

Reno. Nevada 8950 J

pertinent hereto, each Defendant was a mere shell, instrumentality and conduit through which

each other Defendant carried on business, exercising complete control and dominance of such

COMPLAINTPAGE 3


business to such an extent that any individuality or separateness of the corporate or partnership

2 Defendants and each individual did not exist.

3 25. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that, at all times

4 pertinent hereto, Defendants were regularly doing business in Washoe County, Nevada.

5

6

7

26.

27.

This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject-matter of this case.

Venue is proper in this Court.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8 1. BACKGROUND

9 28. On or about July 14, 2005, Small Smiles filed its articles of organization with the

10 Nevada Secretary of State.

11

12

13

29.

30

31.

Dr. Mann has worked for the Small Smiles practice for his entire career.

Dr. Mann began workingfor Small Smiles in or around October 2006.

On or around August 1, 2009, Dr. Mann purchased 100% of the membership

]4 interest in Small Smiles from Riki Lambert, DMD.

15 32. As its owner for the last five years, Dr. Mann has diligently invested his time,

16 talents, and reputation to strengthen Small Smiles.

17

18

33.

34.

He cannot allow himself or his company to be used to violate Nevada law.

Small Smiles and Dr. Mann trusted CSHM and its predecessors to help them

19 navigate the legal and regulatory requirements associated with Small Smiles' business.

20 35. By offering management services to Small Smiles, and by collecting and using all

21 of Small Smiles' revenue, CSHM has assumed fiducimy duties to Dr. Mann and Small Smiles.

22 II. TROUBLE WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

23 36. Plaintiffs are infol111ed and believe, and on that basis allege, that CSHM and its

24 predecessor companies have had a long history of problems with ilic United States Goverml1ent.

25 37. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that the Office of

26 Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and l-luman Services (the "OIG")

27 and FORBA Holdings, LLC entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement in January 2010.


50 West Liberty Street,Suile 600

Reno. Nevada 8950 I

COMPLAINTl'AGE4


38. In late 2010 or early 2011, FORBA Holdings, LLC changed its name to Church

2 Street Health Management, LLC.

3 39. Plaintiffs are infoffiled and believe, and on that basis allege, that Church Street

4 filed bankruptcy on or about February 20, 2012.

5 40. Plaintiffs are infOlmed and believe, and on that basis allege, that in March 2012,

6 the OIG issued a Notice of Material Breach and Intent to Exclude to Church Street, which

7 claimed that Church Street had violated several provisions of the Corporate Integrity Agreement.

8

9

41.

42.

CSHM failed to notify either Dr. Mann or Small Smiles of that notice.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that CSHM claims to

10 have acquired many of Church Street's assets, employees, and business practices.

11 43. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that CSHM became

12 subject to the Corporate Integrity Agreement.

13 44. Unf0I1unately, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that

14 CSHM continued to have problems complying with the Corporate Integrity Agreement.

15 45. Plaintifls are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that OIG issued a

16 Notice of Material Breach and Intent to Exclude to CSHM on or about December 6,2013.

17

18

46.

47.

CSHM did not promptly notify Dr. Mann or Small Smiles of this notice.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that OIG issued

19 another Notice of Material Breach and Intent to Exclude to CSHM on or about January 7, 2014.

20 48. Again, however, CSHM failed to promptly notify either Dr. Mann or Small

21 Smiles of that notice.

22 49. Finally, on March 7, 2014, the OIG notified CSHM that it is excluded from

23 participation in Medicare, Medicaid, and all other federal health care programs for a minimum

24 period of five years.

25 50. In response, on or ahout April 1, 2014, CSHM entered into an Exclusion

26 Agreement with the OlG.

27 51. Under the Exclusion Agreement, CSHM agreed to be ex.eluded from all federal

28Roberlson, Johnson,Miller & Williamson


Reno. Nevada 8950 I

health care programs for a period of five years, effective September 30, 2014.

COMPLAINTPAGES


III. CSHM IS VIOLATING NEVADA LAW

2 52. When all of these issues came to light, Dr. Mann re-read all of his agreements

3 with CSHM and its predecessors and analyzed Nevada's applicable statutes and regulations.

4

5

6

7.

8

9

10

53.

54.

CSHM has, among other things:

a. Dictated the hours that Dr. Mann and Small Smiles should be open for business;

b. Imposed pressure on Dr. Mann and Small Smiles to schedule more patients;

c. Decided which equipment Mann could purchase for Small Smiles;

d. Insisted on certain dental procedures over others; and

e. Set Dr. Mann's compensation terms.

In or around June 2013, the staff of the lJnited States Senate Committee on

11 Finance and the lJnited States Senate Committee on the Judicimy published a Joint Staff RepOli

12 on the Corporate Practice ofDentistIy in the Medicaid Program (the "SenateReport").

13 55. According to the Senate Report, "CSHM assumes significant control over the

14 practice of dentisuy in Small Smiles clinics and is empowered to take substantially all of a

15 clinic's profits."

16 56. The Senate Report went on to find that CSHM "retains all the rights of ownership,

17 employs all staff, recruits all staff, makes all personnel decisions, and receives all income from

18 each Small Smiles clinic."

19 57. Nevada law currently states: "Any person shall be deemed to be practicing

20 dentistry who ... [d]etennines ... [w]hether a particular treatment is necessary or advisable" or

21 "[w]hich paJticular treatment is necessary or advisable ...." NRS 631.215(1)(1).

22 58. Nevada law also prohibits dental management companies from sharing in the

23 "revenues or the profits of a dental practice, office or clinic" and prohibits them from exerting

24 "authority or control over the clinical judgment of a licensed dentist ...." NRS 631.215(3).

25 59. Nevada law also provides that a "person is guilty of the illegal practice of

26

27



Reno. Nevada 8950 I

\dentistry" if such person "owns or controls a dental practice, shares in the fees received by a

dentist or controls or attempts to control the services offered by a dentist if the person is not

himself or herselflicenscd" pursuant to Nevada law. NRS 631.395(10).

COMPLAINTPAGE 6


60. According to the Senate Report, CSIlM's "practices appear contrary to the

2 purpose of state law requiring clinics to be owned and operated by licensed dentists."

3 61. The Senate Repott also found that "CSHM has repeatedly failed to meet quality

4 and compliance standards" that are set f()fth in the Corporate Integrity Agreement that CSHM

5 signed with the OIG.

6 IV. CSHM WANTS TO SELL RIGHTS TO SMALL SMILES' PRACTICE

7 62. As noted above, CSHM does not own Small Smiles and cannot legally own any

8 dental practice in the State of Nevada.

9 63. Moreover, given all of the issues and events that hav~ transpired, it is not at all

10 clear that CSHM even has any enforceable interest in Small Smiles or its dental practice.

11 64. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs are infonncd and believe, and on that basis allege, that

12 CSHM has embarked upon a campaign to essentially auction off certain rights to Small Smiles.

13 65. Plaintiffs arc infOlIDcd and believe, and on that basis allege, that CSHM's plans

14 are contrary to the law and contrary to Plaintiffs' rights.

15 66. As pmt of this plan, CSHM has sought to publish Small Smiles' private,

16 confidential, and proprietary information.

17 67. The publication of this proprietary infOlmation may place Small' Smiles at a

18 competitive disadvantage in the mm·ketplace.

19 68. CSHM has also recently demanded that all of the dental clinics with which it

20 works must cooperate with CSHM's plans or be deemed to be in breach of their agreements.

21 69. By these actions, CSHM is cxerting conh·ol over Small Smiles and impinging

22 upon Dr. Mann's management of his dental practice.

23 70. Plaintiffs are thus very concerned that CSHM's actions will prejudice Small

.24 Smiles' business and cause irreparable harm Dr. Mann and Small Smiles.

CSHM HAS }<'ORCED PLAINTIFFS INTO A TRAP25 V.

26 71. After reviewing the law, learning of the federal government's actions against

27

28Robertson, johnson)Miller & Williamson


Reno. Nevada 89501

CSHM, and learning of CSHM's actions in response, Dr. Mann became VClY coneemed that

CSHM is forcing him to violate Nevada's laws and regulations.

COMPLATNTPAGE 7


72. Dr. Mann info1111ed CSHM of his concems.

2 73. Most recently, on Of about May 1, 2014, Dr. Mann explained his concerns to

3 David Wilson, CSHM's CEO.

4 74. Mr. Wilson explained to Dr. Mann that CSHM would not modify any agreements

5 to ensure that they complied with Nevada law.

6 75. Thus, Plaintiffs are left in a "Catch-22" whereby Dr. Mann must either (a) deviate

7 from the express terms of the agreements with CSHM and face losing his practice, or (b) strictly

8 comply with CSHM's instructions and face losing his license.

9 76. Given this dilemma, Dr. Mann has no choice but to seek relief fr.om this

10 Honorable Court.

11 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

12 (Claim for Declaratory Judgment)

13 77. Plaintiffs fe-allege eaeh and every allegation contained in this Complaint, and

14 hereby incorporate them by this reference as if fully set fOlth below.

15 78. A dispute has arisen over the parties' respective rights, duties and obligations

16 under Nevada law.

17 79. This controversy is ripe for judicial determination in that the Defendants refuse to

18 modify their management structure to comply with Nevada law and otherwise refuse to allow Dr.

19 Mann to properly manage and control Small Smiles.

20 80. Through their actions and assertions, the Defendants have created great

21 uncertainty.

22 81. If the Defendants are permitted to continue, Dr. Mann and Small Smiles will

23 suITer very real, substantial and irreparable harm.

24

25

82.

83.

Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory relief regarding their rights.

Plaintitfs are also entitled to injunctive and equitable relief.

26

27

28Robertson. Johnson,Miller & Williamson

50 West Liberty Street.SlI;te 60()

Reno. Nevad. 8950 I

//1

//1

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the Defendants as set forth below.

COMPLAINTPAGE 8


2

3 84,

SECOND CAUSl<~OF ACTION

(Accounting)

Plaintiffs re-allege each and every allegation contained in this Complaint, and

4 hereby incorporate them by this reference as if fully set fOlih below.

5

6

7

8

85,

86,

87,

88.

Plaintiffs placed great trust and reliance in CSHM and its represcntatives.

CSHM owes duties to Dr. Mann and Small Smiles.

The Defendants' obligations included fiduciary duties and a duty ofloyalty.

Thc Defendants' obligations also included a duty to care for and protect Plaintiffs'

9 financial interests and property.

10 89, The Defendants' obligations to Plaintiffs necessitate periodic statements of

11 accounts of all moneys and property from Small Smiles' operations.

12 90. Despite Dr. Mann's requests, the Defendants havc not provided full and complete

13 statemcnts, accounts, and reconciliations to the Plaintiffs.

14

15

91.

92.

Dr. Maml and Small Smiles arc entitled to a proper accounting.

Unfortunately, to this day, CSHM has failed and refused to provide such an

16 accounting.

17 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the Defendants as set forth below,

18 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

19 (Breach of Fiduciary Duty)

20 93. Plaintiffs re-allege each and every allegation contained in this Complaint, and

21 hereby incorporate them by this reference as if fully set forth below.

22

23

94.

95.

CSHM owes fiduciary duties to the Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that CSHM has

24

25

26

27


50 West Liberty Streel,Suite 600

Reno. Nevada 8950 I

breached that duty by, among other things:

a. acting contrary to Dr. Mann's and Small Smiles' best interests;

b. failing to properly account to Dr. Mann and Small Smiles;

c. failing to properly hold the funds that it receives from Small Smiles' butliness;

d. failing to act in good faith;

COMPLAINTPAGE 9


2

3

4

5 96.

e. failing to fairly deal with Dr. Mann and Small Smiles;

f. misappropriating Small Smiles' revenue and other funds;

g. breaching Nevada law; and,

h. otherwise acting contrary to the Plaintiffs' rights.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs have been

6 damaged in an amount in excess of$10,000.00.

7 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the Defendants as set fmih below.

8 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

9 (Conversion)



12 98. As the sole member of Small Smiles, Dr. Mann is entitled to manage and

13 appropriately distribute any profits from Small Smiles' business.

14 99. CSHM is already receiving a vmy large "management fee" from Small Smiles in

15 the amount of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000.00) per month.

16 100. Notwithstanding that windfall, Plaintiffs are infonued and believe, and on that

17 basis allege, that CSHM has also improperly retained profit that belongs to Dr. Mann andlor

18 Small Smiles.

19 101. By this and other conduct, the Defendants have acted inconsistently with the

20 Plaintiffs' ownership rights.

21

22

102. Defendants have wrongfully deprived and dispossessed Plaintiffs of their rights.

103. By this conduct, the Defendants wrongfully committed distinct acts of dominion

23 over the Plaintiffs' personal property rights.

24 104. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that the Defendants

25 have misappropriated Small Smiles' revenue and conveJied those funds to their own use.

26 105. The Defendants' conduct is in derogation, exclusion, and defiance of Dr. Mann's

27 and Small Smiles' right, title and interest in such funds.


50 West Liberty Street,Suile 600

Reno. Nevada 89501

COMPLAINT

PAGE 10


106. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs have been

2 damaged in an amount in excess of$lO,OOO.OO.

3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the Defendants as set forth below.

4 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

5 (Deceptive andlllegal Trade Practices)

6 107. PlaintifTs re-allege each and every allegation contained in this Complaint, and


8 108. NRS 41.600 provides a private right of action for violations of Nevada's

9 deceptive trade practices act.

10 109. NRS chapter 598 identifies certain activities which constitute deceptive trade

11 practices; many of those activities occurred in CSHM's dealings with Dr. Maim.

12 110. Plaintiffs arc infonued and believe, and on that basis allege, that CSHM, in the

13 course of its business or occupation:

14 a. knowingly made false representations and/or misrepresentations to Plaintiffs;

15 b. knowingly misrepresented Plaintiffs' legal rights, obligations and remedies;

16 c. knowingly conducted its business or occupation without all requi.red state, county

17 or city licenses;

18 d. knowingly failed to disclose material facts to the Plaintiffs;

19 c. knowingly violated state and federal statutes and regulations relatil1g to the sale of

20 its services; and

21 f. knowingly used coercion, duress and i.ntimidation 10 its transactions with the

22 Plaintiffs.

23 111. CSHM's conduct, as described in this complaint, constitutes deceptive trade

24 'practices under, and is in violation of, Nevada law.

25 ] 12. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant CSHM's deceptive trade practices,

26 Plaintiffs have suffered damages.

27

28Robertson. Johnson,Miller & \Villiamson

50 West Liberty Streel.Suite 600

Reno. Nevada 8950 I

] 13. Plaintiffs are also entitled to recover their costs in this action and reasonable

attorneys' fees, as allowed by law.

COMPLAINTPAGE 11



2 damaged in an amount in excess of$ 10,000.00.

3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the Defendants as set forth below.

4 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

5 (Invasion of Privacy / Disclosure of Trade Secrets / Public Disclosure of Private Facts)



8 116. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that CSHM IS

9 attempting to sell some or all of its assets.

10 117. To purportedly further that goal, CSHM asked Dr. Mann to allow CSHM to

1] disclose Small Smiles' private and proprietary financial infonnation to third parties.

12 118. Dr. MallJl was concemed about disclosing his company's private and proprietary

13 financial infonnation for several reasons including, without limitation: other dental practices

14 could use this infonnation to obtain a competitive advantage; Small Smiles' financial

15 information is irrelevant to the sale of CSHM's assets; and, CSHM has still not provided Dr.

16 Mann with all of the financial infonnation he has requested.

17 ] 19. For these and other reasons, Dr. Mann has not agreed to a release of Small

18 Smiles' financial information.

19 120. Dr. Mann had previously authorized one of CSHM's predecessors to use a

20 signature stamp to sign routine correspondence and other ministerial documents on his behalf

21 121. On Apri115, 2014, however, CSHM asked to usc this signature stamp to place Dr.

22 Mann's signature on a confidentiality agreement that would allow the release of Small Smiles'

23 private and proprietaIy financial infOlmation.

24 122. Dr. Mann became concerned that CSHM was using his signature stamp on

25 substantive, material documents and agreements.

26 123. Accordingly, to protect Small Smiles' confidential infonnation and to restrict

27 CSHM's further use of his signature stamp, Dr. Mann expressly responded to CSHM as follows:

28Robcrlson, Johnson,Miller & Williamson

50 We$1 Liberly Slreet.Suile 600

Reno. Nevona 89501

"Please do not stamp my signature on this or any other documents from this point forward. 1 am

COMPLAINTPAGE 12


revoking your authorization to stamp my signature on any and all documents. Pleasc forward

2 any documents to the Reno Center that need to be signed so that I may review prior to executing.

3 Thank you."

4 124. Dr. Mann has still not given CSHM permission to disclose Small Smiles'

5 financial infonnation to third parties.

6 125. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that

7 CSHM has disclosed confidential information, including Small Smiles' private and proprietary

8 financial information, without his pClmission.

9

10

126. CSHM's disclosure is offensive and objectionable to Dr. Mann and Small Smiles.

127. CSHM's disclosure would be offensive and objectionable to any reasonable

11 person of ordinary sensibilities.

12 128. - Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that the iniormation

13 whieh CSHM has disclosed about Dr. Mann and Small Smiles constitutes protectable trade

14 secrets under Nevada law.

15 129. Plaintiffs are thus is informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that CSHM

16 has wrongfully misappropriated their protected tradc secrets.

17 130. This Court is empowered to enjoin the actual or threatened misappropriation of

18 trade secrets.

19 131. The Comt is also empowered to aiTinnatively order that these trade secrets be

20 removed from the intemet immediately.

21 132. This infOlmation is in contravention of Plaintiffs' rights and puts Small Smiles at

22 a competitive disadvantage.

23 133. Plaintiffs are infOlmed and believe, and on that basis allege, that they have

24 suffered irreparable harm.

25 134. If the Defendants are permitted to continue to publicize Small Smiles'

26 confidential information, Dr. Mann and Small Smiles will suffer very real, substantial and

27 irreparable harm.

28RoberlsDfl, ]ohuson,Miller & Williamson

50 Wesl Liberly Sired,Suile 600

Reno. Ncwda 8950 J

COMPLAINTPAGE 13



2 damaged in an amount in excess of $10,000.00.

3 . WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the Defendants as follows:

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1.

2.

For a declaration that:

a. It is unlawful for CSHM to dictate the hours that Dr. Mann and Small

Smiles are open for business;

b. It is unlawful for CSHM to impose pressure on Dr. Mann and Small

Smiles to schedule more patients;

c. It is unlawful for CSHM to decide which equipment Dr. Mann can

purchase for Sma]] Smiles;

d. It is unlawful for CSHM to insist, or even promote, certain dental

procedures over others;

e. 'It is unlawful for CSHM to set Dr. Mann's compensation terms;

f. Pursuant to Nevada law, the Defendants must relinquish all control of

Small Smiles and its business; and

g. Otherwise sets forth the parties' respective rights, duties, and obligations

under Nevada law;

For preliminary and permanent injunctions mandating that the Defendants

19 relinquish all control over Small Smiles, its revenue, and its business;

20 3. For preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining all Defendants from

21 encumbering, seizing, misappropriating or interfering with Small Smiles;

22 4. For preliminary and pcm1anent injunctions mandating that the Defendants remove

23 from the internet and protect from further disclosure all of Small Smiles' trade secrets, financial

24 data, and other proprietary and confidential information;

25

26

27

5.

6.

7.

For an accounting between the pmties;

For payment to Plaintiffs of the amount due as a result of that accounting;

For an award of compensatOly and consequential damages against the


SO Wesl Liherly Street,Suile 6ilO

Reno. Nevada 8950 I

Defendants, jointly and severally, in excess of $10,000.00;

COMPLAINTPAGE 14


8. For an award of attorneys' fees and costs according to proof;

2

3

4

9.

10.

For an award of interest according to law and/or proof; and

For such other and further relief as the COUlt may deem equitable, just and proper.

AFI<'IRMATION

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

I3

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28Roberlson, Johnson,

Miller & Williamson50 West Liberty Street,

S"ite 600Reno. Nevada 8950 I

Pursuant to NRS § 239B.030, the undersigned does hereby affirm that the preceding

document does not contain the social security number of any person.

DATED the 23rd day of May, 2014.

ROBERTSON, JOHNSON, MILLER & WILLIAMSON50 West Liberty Street, Suite 600Reno, Nevada 89501(775) 329~5600

By: lsi Richard D. WilliamsonRichard D. Williamson, Esq.Jonathan J. Tew, Esq.Attorneys for PlaintiUs

COMPLAINTPAGE 15

James Mann and Small Smiles Reno v CSHM Complaint - Filed May 23, 2014

Documents

Transcript of James Mann and Small Smiles Reno v CSHM Complaint - Filed May 23, 2014