Private Attorney General: Defendants’ Vindication Of B&P § 16600 Principles, In Non-Recruiting Dispute, Was Worthy Of $169,000 Fee Award

Basis Under California’s Private Attorney General Statute—CCP § 1021.5.

            In AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. D071924 (4^th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 1, 2018) (published), individual defendants—former AMN “travel nurses” providing services to medical services throughout the U.S.—had to contest non-recruiting clauses in their AMN contracts when they switched over to competitor Aya. Defendants prevailed via summary judgment motions granted in their favor, principally based under Business and Professions Code section 16600 non-compete principles. Defendants invalidated contractual provisions against non-recruiting violations when they went to work for a different company.   The trial judge later granted successful defendants $169,000 in attorney’s fees under the private attorney general statute.

            This determination was affirmed on appeal. Clearly, the enforcement of section 16600 rights involved an important public right, and defendants were successful based on winning summary judgment motions interpreting employment contractual provisions which were invalid in nature. With respect to whether their own financial interests were subordinate to the greater public interest, the record showed they pursued an injunctive relief which was granted on the validity of the contractual restrictions—over and above their own interests--such that the Whitley cost/benefit analysis was satisfied.