Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. et al v. AMN Healthcare, Inc.

Filing 19

NOTICE AND ORDER Providing Tentative Ruling RE: 15 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Court tentatively grants Plaintiffs' request for judicial notice. The Court tentatively grants Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' FACwith leave to amend. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 7/13/2017.(lrf)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10
11
12

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
AYA HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.,
AYA HEALTHCARE, INC.,

13

Case No.: 17cv205-MMA (MDD)
NOTICE AND ORDER PROVIDING
TENTATIVE RULING RE:
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS

Plaintiffs,

14

v.

15

AMN HEALTHCARE, INC., AMN
HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., AMN
SERVICES, LLC, MEDEFIS, INC., and
SHIFTWISE, INC.,

16
17
18

[Doc. No. 15]

Defendants.

19
20

On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 2:30 p.m., the parties in this antitrust action will appear

21

before the Court for a hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First

22

Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Doc. No. 15. In anticipation of the hearing, the Court

23

issues the following tentative rulings:

24
25

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
The Court tentatively GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice of Exhibits

26

1-4 for the sole purpose of establishing that the filings were made in AMN’s State Court

27

Action. Doc. No. 17-1; see In re Bare Escentuals, Inc. Sec. Litig., 745 F. Supp. 2d 1052,

28

1067 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (“[t]he court may take judicial notice of the existence of unrelated
-1-

17cv205-MMA (MDD)

1

court documents, although it will not take judicial notice of such documents for the truth

2

of the matter asserted therein.”).

3
4

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
The Court tentatively GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ FAC

5

with leave to amend. The Court requests the parties be prepared to discuss the following

6

issues at the hearing: Plaintiffs’ allegations of antitrust injury, Plaintiffs’ allegations that

7

the alleged subcontract agreements entered into between Defendants and rival staffing

8

providers unreasonably restrain trade, Plaintiffs’ contention that the Court need not

9

decide whether the per se, quick-look, or rule of reason analysis applies at this stage of

10

the proceedings, and Plaintiffs’ allegations that there is a dangerous probability that

11

Defendants will succeed in becoming a monopoly.

12
13
14

As these rulings are tentative, the Court looks forward to the oral arguments of
counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17
18
19

Dated: July 13, 2017
_____________________________
HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

17cv205-MMA (MDD)