Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. v. AMN Healthcare, Inc., No. 20-55679 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
In 2010, AMN Healthcare contracted with Aya Healthcare to provide travel nursing services to healthcare facilities. The contract prohibited Aya from soliciting AMN’s employees. In 2015, Aya began actively soliciting AMN’s travel nurse recruiters. AMN temporarily terminated Aya’s access to AMN’s platform. The parties ended their relationship. Aya filed suit under the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, 2, including a “per se” claim and a quick-look/rule-of-reason claim and claims for attempted monopolization and monopolization, and state law tortious interference and other claims. Aya claimed that it suffered exclusionary damages as a result of AMN’s non-solicitation covenant and retaliatory damages as a result of AMN’s termination of the relationship.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of AMN. The non-solicitation agreement is an ancillary, rather than a naked restraint, because it is reasonably necessary to the parties’ procompetitive collaboration; it is not per se unlawful but is subject to the rule-of-reason standard. Aya failed to satisfy its initial burden under that standard because it did not establish a triable issue of fact with respect to whether AMN’s nonsolicitation agreement has a substantial anticompetitive effect that harms consumers in the relevant market. Aya’s claim for retaliatory damages failed because it did not present any evidence of a cartel or a concerted action in the termination of the agreement.
Court Description: Antitrust. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of AMN Healthcare, Inc., in Aya Healthcare Services, Inc.’s antitrust action involving the non-solicitation provision within AMN’s contract with Aya to provide travel nursing services to hospitals and other healthcare facilities. Both parties are healthcare staffing agencies that place travel nurses on temporary assignments. To receive spillover assignments, Aya contracted with AMN. The contract included a provision prohibiting Aya from soliciting AMN’s employees. Aya alleged that the non-solicitation provision is an unreasonable restraint prohibited by Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The panel held that the non-solicitation agreement is an ancillary—rather than a naked—restraint * The Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. AYA HEALTHCARE SERVICES V. AMN HEALTHCARE 3 because it is reasonably necessary to the parties’ pro- competitive collaboration. Accordingly, the restraint is not per se unlawful, but is subject to the rule-of-reason standard. The panel held that Aya failed to satisfy its initial burden under the rule-of-reason standard because it did not demonstrate through direct or indirect evidence that a triable issue of fact exists with respect to whether AMN’s non- solicitation agreement has a substantial anticompetitive effect that harms consumers in the relevant market. The panel held that Aya’s claim for retaliatory damages fails because it did not present any evidence of a cartel or a concerted action in the termination of its agreement with AMN.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.