Floyd v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, LLC.

Background

Michael Devin Floyd, representing himself, sued 24 Hour Fitness USA, LLC, over his removal from a gym on two occasions and the termination of his membership. The court had already resolved several other state-law claims in 24 Hour Fitness’s favor. The remaining claims were defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The remaining claims concerned an October 1, 2022 incident. Police responded after a 24 Hour Fitness employee reported that Floyd had sexually harassed women and physically touched them. Another employee, Walter Kane, told Floyd in front of police that female members had complained that Floyd touched them inappropriately. Kane also said that Floyd had grabbed women and asked Floyd to leave. Floyd disputed the accusations and claimed that Kane lied to the police.

The court had previously allowed Floyd to reassert the two claims based on the alleged lie to police. That earlier permission was based on a possible conflict between Kane’s statement that Floyd touched a member and another employee’s later deposition testimony, which did not mention touching. In this ruling, the court considered the police reports, which stated that Andrew Pratt had also reported that Floyd touched female members. The court also considered a 24 Hour Fitness form stating that Floyd grabbed a female member on October 1, 2022.

Summary-Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is a ruling entered when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact important to the claim and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Here, 24 Hour Fitness moved for summary judgment on both remaining claims.

Defamation Claim

The court granted summary judgment for 24 Hour Fitness on the defamation claim. Under California law, statements made to report suspected criminal activity to law enforcement are generally protected by a privilege, meaning they ordinarily cannot support tort liability. An exception applies when the speaker knowingly makes a false report or acts with reckless disregard for whether the report is true.

The court held that Kane’s statement was privileged because he made it to police while reporting suspected criminal activity. It further held that the exception did not apply. The evidence showed that 24 Hour Fitness had received multiple complaints that Floyd had touched members inappropriately. The police reports also recorded that Pratt reported inappropriate touching. The court concluded that the record no longer supported a finding that Kane intentionally lied or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The court therefore granted summary judgment for 24 Hour Fitness on the defamation claim.

Intentional-Infliction-of-Emotional-Distress Claim

The court also granted summary judgment for 24 Hour Fitness on Floyd’s intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim. This claim requires evidence of conduct so extreme and outrageous that it exceeds the bounds of what is usually tolerated, along with severe emotional distress and causation.

The court held that no reasonable jury could find that Kane’s statement to police or Floyd’s removal from the gym met that standard. The court emphasized the history of member complaints, some of which Floyd did not dispute, and 24 Hour Fitness’s interest in protecting other members. It also found that Floyd offered only conclusory statements and no specific evidence showing that Kane’s statement was extreme and outrageous.

Disposition

Judge Edward M. Chen granted 24 Hour Fitness’s second motion for summary judgment on Floyd’s remaining claims of defamation or slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court stated that the case was terminated and directed the Clerk to close the case.