A US District judge on June 22 granted judgment in favor of AMN Healthcare (NYSE: AMN) in an ongoing lawsuit involving recruiters who left AMN to join its competitor Aya Healthcare; however, Aya plans to appeal.

The judge ruled Aya Healthcare failed to prove any anti-competitive behavior by AMN under federal antitrust laws. Aya had filed suit against AMN in 2017, arguing AMN uses uncompetitive practices to restrict the available supply of medical travelers and prevent rivals from competing.

The court battle began in 2015 in San Diego County, when AMN sued four of its former recruiters who left to join Aya Healthcare. In addition, Aya was included in the lawsuit where AMN claimed the recruiters breached their nonsolicitation agreements and misappropriated trade secrets.

A court ruled in 2017 that AMN’s confidential nondisclosure agreement was unenforceable under California law. The court also prohibited AMN from enforcing employment agreements in California that restrict former employees from soliciting other employees of AMN. A California Court of Appeal in 2018 affirmed the trial court's ruling that nonsolicitation agreements signed by nurse recruiters working for AMN violated state law by limiting the recruiting work they could do for up to 18 months.

Calling the lawsuit “meritless,” AMN President and CEO Susan Salka said AMN Healthcare is “thrilled but not surprised” by the court's ruling.

However, Aya state that the recent District Court decision does not reverse the California court rulings, which establish that AMN used unlawful contractual restraints with its employees, nor does it lift the injunction imposed on AMN by the California courts.

“Aya Healthcare's federal case against AMN involves complicated and evolving antitrust issues,” Aya stated. “We respectfully believe that the District Court’s recent ruling was erroneously decided and raises important issues of federal antitrust law that require clarification and application to Aya's federal antitrust claims against AMN. We therefore plan to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.”