Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 17, 2026

Pappas v. AMN Healthcare Services

Judge
Jon Tigar
Docket
4:24-cv-01426
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2

Counsel6 of record
PLAINTIFF
Larkin E. Walsh Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP
Jason Scott Hartley Hartley LLP
DEFENDANT
Anthony David Sbardellati Akerman LLP
Jade White Akerman LLP
Nancy Sotomayor Akerman LLP
Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum Akerman LLP

Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.

ArbitrationEmploymentClass ActionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Pappas v. AMN Healthcare Services, Judge Tiga denied amendment, compelled individual arbitration, dismissed class allegations, and stayed the litigation.

Who this affects

The five named travel-nurse plaintiffs, the proposed class and collective claims, and AMN Healthcare Services and the other defendants. The named plaintiffs must pursue their claims individually in arbitration, while the litigation is stayed.

What happened

Jean Pappas and four other travel nurses sued AMN Healthcare Services, alleging California Labor Code and related employment violations. They sought to bring the case as a class action, and defendants relied on arbitration clauses in the nurses’ employment agreements.

The Ninth Circuit had reversed an earlier order refusing to compel arbitration and sent the case back for an order requiring arbitration. Plaintiffs then sought to add three plaintiffs and raise arguments about the arbitration agreement that the Ninth Circuit had not addressed.

Judge Tiga denied the motion to amend, granted defendants’ motion to enforce the Ninth Circuit’s mandate, compelled each plaintiff to resolve individual claims through arbitration, dismissed the class and collective allegations, and stayed the entire litigation.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Pappas v. AMN Healthcare Services · No. 4:24-cv-01426
Judge
Jon Tigar
Date
Aug. 17, 2026

Background

Five travel nurses employed by AMN Healthcare Services filed a putative class action alleging violations of the California Labor Code and related employment claims. Defendants moved to require the plaintiffs to arbitrate their individual claims under arbitration clauses in their employment agreements.

The district court initially denied that motion, finding the arbitration agreement both procedurally and substantively unconscionable and declining to sever the arbitration provision. Defendants appealed. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the district court had misinterpreted the arbitration clause and that the clause was not substantively unconscionable. The Ninth Circuit sent the case back for an order compelling arbitration.

Motions and Analysis

Plaintiffs sought leave to add three new plaintiffs who would assert arguments about the invalidity of the AMN arbitration agreement that the Ninth Circuit had not addressed. Defendants moved to enforce the Ninth Circuit’s mandate and requested an order compelling arbitration, dismissing the class and collective allegations, and staying further litigation. Each side opposed the other’s motion.

The court granted defendants’ motion and denied plaintiffs’ motion. Because the court was required to refer the plaintiffs’ claims to arbitration, the Federal Arbitration Act required the court to stay the action until the arbitration was completed under the agreement’s terms. The court held that it could not lift the stay to allow plaintiffs to add new plaintiffs or grant the proposed amendment before carrying out the Ninth Circuit’s directive. The court also stated that a plaintiff required to arbitrate individual claims may not pursue class claims as a representative.

Disposition

The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint. It granted defendants’ motion to enforce the Ninth Circuit’s mandate and granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Each plaintiff was compelled to resolve the plaintiff’s claims through individual arbitration, and the class and collective allegations were dismissed. The court stayed the entirety of the litigation under Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act.

The Clerk was directed to administratively close the file. The court stated that the order was not a dismissal or disposition of the action against any party and that any party could initiate further proceedings in the same manner if further proceedings became necessary.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.