Floyd v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, LLC.

Background

Michael Devin Floyd, proceeding without a lawyer, sued 24 Hour Fitness USA, LLC (24HF) over two 2022 incidents at a 24HF gym in Hayward, California. Floyd alleged that employees asked him to leave in July 2022 after saying that people had complained he harassed them. Police later asked him to leave. In October 2022, employees and police confronted him after an employee said Floyd had assaulted a woman by grabbing her bottom. Floyd alleged that police handcuffed him and removed him from the gym before he could shower, dress, and collect his belongings. 24HF later told him that his membership had ended.

The first amended complaint asserted twelve claims under state law. The claims included unfair business practices under California Business and Professions Code § 17200; intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; negligence under California Civil Code § 1714; claims based on a principal’s duty of protection and liability for employee acts; negligent training and supervision; false imprisonment or false arrest; defamation or slander; breach of contract; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and breach of an implied duty to perform with reasonable care.

Legal standard

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. At this stage, the court accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true and asks whether they plausibly support liability. The court also considered documents connected to the membership agreement and 24HF’s policies.

Claims dismissed with prejudice

The court dismissed the California Civil Code § 1714 claim because Floyd identified no authority showing that the statute itself creates a private cause of action. The court explained that § 1714 may inform a negligence claim but does not itself establish a separate statutory claim.

The court dismissed the “Principal’s Duty of Protection” claim because the Restatement of Agency does not create a private cause of action under California law. It also dismissed the claim based on 24HF’s liability for its employees’ acts because agency principles are theories of liability, not independent causes of action without an underlying tort.

The court dismissed the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. It held that the alleged failure to provide more information about complaints or give Floyd an opportunity to respond was not extreme or outrageous conduct. The court also held that the alleged public removal in July and the October removal before Floyd dressed did not meet that standard based on the allegations in the complaint.

The court dismissed the negligent-training-and-supervision claim because Floyd did not allege that the employees involved had a past history of wrongdoing or that the July incident put 24HF on notice that better training or supervision was needed before the October incident. The court also dismissed the false-imprisonment or false-arrest claim. It concluded that, based on the complaint, 24HF had a meritorious argument that Floyd trespassed after being asked to leave private property, making the arrest lawful under the circumstances alleged.

The court dismissed the defamation or slander claim because Floyd did not allege specific facts showing that the 24HF employee knew the accusation was false or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was true. The court stated that the allegations showed the employee had information about a woman’s complaint and earlier complaints, without allegations that 24HF knew or should have known the complaints were unsubstantiated.

Each of these claims was dismissed with prejudice, meaning the court stated that they could not be pursued again through an amended complaint.

Claims allowed to continue

The court denied the motion as to the negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim, which the court treated as a negligence claim. The court held that whether 24HF owed Floyd a legal duty could not be decided at the pleading stage and was better evaluated on a factual record. The court noted that the claim could still be challenged later through summary judgment.

The court also denied the motion as to Floyd’s contract-based claims: breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of the implied duty to perform with reasonable care. Although the membership agreement and policies allowed 24HF to terminate a membership for policy violations or improper or harmful conduct, the court held that it was a disputed factual issue whether Floyd violated those policies. The agreement and policies did not give 24HF sole discretion to decide whether a violation occurred in the first place. The court also held that Floyd could assert that 24HF failed to investigate adequately under the implied contractual duties.

Finally, the court denied the motion as to the California unfair-business-practices claim under § 17200. The court held that whether 24HF treated Floyd fairly and adequately investigated before removing him, involving police, or ending his membership was a factual question. The court noted that § 17200 permits restitution and injunctive relief rather than damages, and Floyd sought reinstatement of his gym membership.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part 24HF’s motion to dismiss. All claims were dismissed with prejudice except the negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress/negligence claim, the breach-of-contract claim, the breach-of-implied-covenant claim, the breach-of-implied-duty claim, and the § 17200 claim. The order disposed of Docket No. 66.