Orthodontic Partners, LLC has taken legal action against a former employee in a case that could have significant implications for employment agreements and non-compete clauses. The complaint was filed by Orthodontic Partners, LLC and OP Orthodontics of Arizona, PLLC in the Superior Court of Maricopa County on December 3, 2025, against Dr. Trevor Nichols. This legal battle centers around the enforcement of restrictive covenants within an employment agreement after Nichols’ departure from the company.
The case traces back to when Dr. Stuart Frost hired Dr. Trevor Nichols as an associate orthodontist at his practice in 2019. Nichols signed an initial agreement with Frost that outlined a potential partnership which never came to fruition. Subsequently, Frost sold his practice to Orthodontic Partners (OP), which managed dental practices nationwide, forming OP Orthodontics of Arizona (OP AZ). As part of this transition, Nichols signed a new employment agreement with OP AZ containing restrictive covenants: non-competition, non-solicitation of employees, and non-solicitation of clients within a defined “Designated Territory.” However, tensions rose when Frost terminated Nichols in September 2023 for alleged breaches including failure to meet clinical requirements and disclosing confidential information.
Following his termination, Nichols joined Somos Dental & Orthodontics in Phoenix and began promoting his new venture, Nichols Orthodontics and Aesthetics. This move prompted OP and its affiliates to file suit against him seeking various forms of relief including a temporary restraining order concerning trade secrets and a preliminary injunction to prevent him from soliciting their employees or patients and opening his own practice. However, the Superior Court denied their request for a preliminary injunction after finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a strong likelihood of success on the merits.
In their appeal, Orthodontic Partners raised several issues including whether the court correctly interpreted federal rules on non-competes and if public policy disfavoring such agreements for physicians should extend to orthodontists. They argued that Arizona law should presume irreparable harm due to contractual language stating so; however, the court disagreed citing previous rulings indicating that such harm must be proven rather than presumed.
Ultimately, Judge Anni Hill Foster delivered the decision affirming the lower court’s ruling alongside Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge Veronika Fabian. The appellate court found no error in how the lower court assessed evidence regarding potential harm or competitive threats posed by Nichols’ actions post-termination.
Orthodontic Partners were represented by Gregory B. Collins, Brittany M. Gilbertson, and Seth T. Goertz from Dorsey & Whitney LLP while Bradley D. Weech and Marshall R. Hunt from Davis Miles PLLC defended Dr. Trevor Nichols.
Source: 1CACV240701_Orthodontic_Partners_LLC_v_Nichols_Opinion_Court_of_Appeals.pdf