Santa Cruz Medical v. Dominican Santa Cruz Hospital

1995-2 Trade Cases ¶ 71,254

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
S
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Santa Cruz Medical v. Dominican Santa Cruz Hospital

United States District Court for the Northern District of California
1995-2 Trade Cases ¶ 71,254

  • Written by Heather Whittemore, JD

Facts

In 1990 Dominican Santa Cruz Hospital (Dominican) (defendant) acquired AMI Community Hospital of Santa Cruz (AMI). Soon after the acquisition, Dominican stopped using AMI as an acute-care hospital, instead offering subacute care, such as rehabilitation. Santa Cruz Medical (the partnership) (plaintiff) was a partnership of physicians and medical practitioners who worked in the Santa Cruz area. The partnership sued Dominican in federal court, alleging that Dominican violated § 7 of the Clayton Act when it acquired AMI, creating a highly concentrated hospital market. In 1995 the partnership moved for summary judgment. To support its § 7 claim, the partnership argued that the relevant product market for the case was acute-care inpatient hospital services and that the relevant geographic market was Santa Cruz County. Dominican opposed the motion. In addition to denying that its acquisition of AMI was anticompetitive, Dominican argued that the relevant product market was inpatient and outpatient hospital services, including acute-care hospitals and alternative facilities, such as rehabilitation facilities and nursing homes. Dominican also argued that the relevant geographic market included the counties of Santa Clara and Northern Monterey in addition to Santa Cruz.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Whyte, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 820,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 989 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Antitrust

Key Terms

Related Videos