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)

Download PDF
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)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?