Ireland v. Bend Neurological Associates LLC, 6:16-cv-02054

Background

Ireland, a pro se neurologist, alleges local neurologists coordinated to stop sharing hospital call coverage with him beginning July 1, 2013, which impaired his practice and forced him to relocate in August 2015.
Hospital bylaws required timely in-person coverage; refusal to provide coverage could lead to loss of staff privileges. Several defendant neurologists worked at rival practices (Bend Neurological Associates, Bend Memorial Clinic); one defendant (Buchholz) left Ireland’s practice earlier.
Ireland sued asserting (1) a § 1 Sherman Act group-boycott conspiracy and (2) intentional interference with economic relations (IIER). Defendants moved to dismiss; the court dismissed and Ireland sought leave to amend.
Ireland’s proposed First Amended Complaint reasserted antitrust and IIER claims with additional factual allegations (market impact, newspaper article showing shortage, assertions about Buchholz’s conduct and timing, and alleged consumer-harm effects).
The magistrate judge found the proposed amendments largely repeat prior allegations, fail to plausibly allege anticompetitive injury or price effects, do not negate plausible legitimate business explanations (especially for Buchholz), and that the IIER claim is time-barred because injury accrued by July 1, 2013.
The magistrate recommended denying leave to amend but allowed one final opportunity for Ireland to file a compliant amended pleading within 14 days.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether FAC plausibly alleges a § 1 Sherman Act claim (injury to competition/consumer welfare)	Ireland: removal of his clinic reduced local neurologist supply, decreased output, harmed patient access and consumer welfare, supported by local newspaper reporting; price effects expected	Defs: allegations repeat prior pleadings, show only individual harm to Ireland, rely on an article showing a long-standing shortage and other causes; no plausible price or market-wide harm alleged	Denied: FAC fails to plead anticompetitive injury or price effects; single-competitor elimination insufficient and article undermines causation
Whether FAC adequately alleges Buchholz joined the conspiracy	Ireland: new facts show Buchholz coordinated timing, admissions in briefs, answering-service notice, email scheduling coincidence, and counsel representing Buchholz with others	Buchholz: no new facts change analysis; plausible independent business motives explain his conduct	Denied: FAC does not plausibly rule out legitimate business reasons; allegations do not show direct agreement or unlawful motive
Whether IIER claim is timely (statute of limitations)	Ireland: no actionable damage until he closed practice and relocated in Aug 2015	Defs: injury accrued when call coverage ended (July 1, 2013)	Denied: IIER accrual occurred by July 1, 2013; claim is time-barred
Whether FAC pleads improper means/purpose for IIER separate from Sherman Act violation	Ireland: coordinated group boycott was an improper means and purpose to eliminate competition	Defs: call coverage voluntary; no statutory/common-law wrong; legitimate business motives exist	Denied: FAC fails to allege independent wrongful means or improper purpose because Sherman Act claim not plausibly alleged and legitimate motives exist

Key Cases Cited

Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir.) (Rule 15 leave-to-amend standard explained)
Ahlmeyer v. Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ., 555 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir.) (futility alone can justify denial of amendment)
Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467 (9th Cir.) (factors for amendment: delay, bad faith, futility, prejudice)
Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293 (9th Cir.) (amendment is futile if the proposed claim would be immediately dismissible)
Metro Indus., Inc. v. Sammi Corp., 82 F.3d 839 (9th Cir.) (antitrust injury requires harm to competition/consumer welfare beyond individual plaintiff)
Austin v. McNamara, 979 F.2d 728 (9th Cir.) (elimination of a single competitor insufficient to show anticompetitive effect)
Kaplan v. Burroughs Corp., 611 F.2d 286 (9th Cir.) (antitrust injury principles)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S.) (conduct consistent with permissible competition defeats inference of conspiracy)
Wagner v. Prof’l Eng’rs in Cal. Gov’t, 354 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir.) (judicial estoppel bars inconsistent positions on when injury occurred)
Collegenet, Inc. v. College Appl., Inc., 104 F.3d 1137 (D. Or.) (rule of reason elements and consumer welfare focus)