Floyd v. Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:24-cv-01278
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 9
In Floyd v. Saber Fitness, Judge Hixson denied Floyd’s motion to file a fourth amended complaint adding claims tied to another gym.
The ruling directly affected Michael Devin Floyd’s attempt to add claims against Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC based on events and missing surveillance footage involving a Planet Fitness gym in San Jose. It also left the proposed claims against the San Jose gym’s owner outside this case.
What happened
In Floyd v. Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC, Michael Devin Floyd asked to file a fourth amended complaint. He sought to add claims based on missing surveillance footage from an August 2021 incident at a Planet Fitness in San Jose, including claims for spoliation, promissory estoppel, and breach of an implied covenant.
The court found that the proposed claims concerned a gym Saber said it did not own and were unrelated to Floyd’s existing claims about his removal from Saber’s Oakland gym. The court also found that adding the claims shortly before the discovery deadline could delay the case and prejudice Saber, and that Floyd had already received opportunities to amend.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson denied Floyd’s motion for leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The ruling decided only whether Floyd could add the proposed claims in this case; it did not decide whether those claims were valid against the owner of the San Jose gym.
The detailed version
- Floyd v. Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC · No. 3:24-cv-01278
- Thomas Hixson
- Feb. 10, 2025
Background
Michael Devin Floyd sued Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC over events involving his Planet Fitness membership and his removal from a Planet Fitness gym in Oakland. The operative third amended complaint asserted claims under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, California’s unfair competition law, negligent training and supervision, 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.
Floyd moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) for permission to file a fourth amended complaint. The proposed amendment added allegations about an August 18, 2021 incident at a Planet Fitness near Saratoga Road in San Jose. Floyd alleged that he was criminally charged with brandishing a firearm at a witness, later requested surveillance footage, and learned in September 2024 that a state investigator could not obtain it. Based on those allegations, he sought to add claims for spoliation, promissory estoppel, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Legal standard
Because Floyd had already amended his complaint, he needed either Saber’s written consent or the court’s permission. Rule 15(a) generally favors amendment, but the court considered bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to Saber, futility, and Floyd’s previous amendments.
Court’s analysis
The court found no indication that Floyd sought amendment in bad faith. It also found no indication that he knew the proposed legal theories when he filed his original complaint, because he did not learn that the investigator could not obtain the footage until September 2024. But the court found that Floyd waited more than three months after telling the court he intended to seek amendment before filing the motion. With fact discovery scheduled to close on March 5, 2025, the proposed amendment would not leave enough time for discovery on the new claims and would likely delay existing case deadlines.
The court gave the greatest weight to prejudice. It found that the new allegations did not relate to the main subject of the case: Saber’s alleged removal of Floyd from the Oakland gym. Saber had stated that it did not own the San Jose gym, and the court found that Saber could not reasonably be expected to defend claims concerning conduct at a gym it did not own. The court stated that claims based on the San Jose events were properly brought in a separate action against that gym’s owner. It also concluded that adding claims against a different entity would not satisfy the rules governing joinder of defendants in this action.
The court further found the proposed amendments futile against Saber because the claims concerned an entity other than Saber. Finally, the court relied on Floyd’s prior amendments, noting that this would be his fourth amended complaint and that the court had already given him two opportunities to amend. Because the proposed claims involved a different entity and were unrelated to the core claims against Saber, the court found that another opportunity to amend was improper.
Disposition
The court concluded that leave to amend was not warranted under Rule 15 and denied Floyd’s motion to amend. The opinion did not rule on the ultimate validity of the proposed claims against the owner of the San Jose gym.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.